Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jul 1947

Vol. 34 No. 2

Courts of Justice Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

This Bill has three main parts. The first provides for an increase in the remuneration of judges and district justices. The second, and most important part, deals with the reorganisation of the Circuit Court to provide for a President, who will have power to regulate the business in the court. Senators are aware that at present nobody has power to ask a judge to go from one circuit to another, and it does happen that, in some circuits, there is very little to do, while, in others, there is a lot of work, and that one judge might be run off his feet while another would not have very much to do. Under this arrangement, there will be power to assign a judge who has a slack time to give assistance in another area. The third part provides for the ad hoc appointment of a judge who has been temporary for about four years.

With regard to the increases in remuneration, they range from 15 per cent. in the case of the Supreme Court and 20 per cent. in the case of the High Court to 25 per cent. in the case of the Circuit Court and 30 per cent. in the case of district justices. These increases are generally in accordance with what has been given to public servants generally. I do not know whether I am required to make any case for these increases. They are due to the decrease in the purchasing power of money and to the fact that judges, like everybody else, have felt the pinch. We are therefore making some provision—not the full provision —to make up for the loss in purchasing power, as in the case of other public servants.

It has been felt for quite a long time that a reorganisation of the Circuit Court was necessary. Senators who have any experience of the working of the Circuit Court know that in some cases there may be a very big geographical area in which the work is not very great, whereas in another area three times as much work may require to be done. It is considered that this reorganisation should have been carried out in the beginning, but it is only through experience that one can find out the best way of running the court. It has been made abundantly clear that this reorganisation is necessary. The judges themselves, who were consulted with regard to it, are agreed that it should be done.

The status of the President of the Circuit Court is a matter which gave rise to a lot of trouble in the other House. It is provided that he shall have the status of an ex officio High Court judge and exception was taken to that, both on our side and on the other side of the House. The Government went very carefully into the whole matter and they think it necessary that, for the sake of the prestige and status of the President, he should rank as a High Court judge. It is not anticipated that he will be called on to work in the High Court very often, but he will be available if required. As Senators are aware, there is no power to appoint a temporary High Court judge, although there is power to appoint a temporary Circuit Court judge, and, if there were large arrears of work, due to two judges being ill at the same time, it would be very useful to have an extra judge who could give assistance when required.

The third part of the Bill deals with the position of a judge who has been in a temporary capacity for a number of years. It is a bad principle to have temporary judges, if it can be avoided, and, so far as we can see, there will be work for this judge for a few years, but if, before the five years are up, it turns out that, as a result of the reorganisation, we can do without the extra judge, he may be assigned to some vacancy which may arise in the meantime, and we will revert to the position of having only ten permanent Circuit Court judges which is all we are entitled to have until the Bill has passed. The present retiring age for judges is 72 years. We are proposing to cut it to 70 years, because we think 70 is old enough. There is a provision, however, that those who are judges now can remain on until the age of 72, but, for the future, we think 70 years old enough for Circuit Court judges who have to do a lot of travelling around the country.

With regard to district justices' pensions, there was, in the 1936 Act, provision for justices deciding whether they would accept the old judicial scale or the Civil Service scale. The Civil Service scale entitled them to half-pay and a gratuity and the other scale to two-thirds pension on retirement with full service. When we passed the Court Officers Bill some time ago, court registrars were given the option of delaying the making of their election as to which terms they would adopt until they were about to retire and we are giving the same right to district justices. They can wait until the eve of their retirement before deciding that they will elect to take the Civil Service terms of half-pay, with a gratuity of one year's pay, or the two-thirds pension. Arising out of that, there was a case of two justices who died while in office. They had elected to take the judicial terms which did not entitle them to any gratuity. We brought in an amendment in the other House—I think it is Section 20 now— which gives their dependents the same rights as the other justices are now getting.

Mr. Hayes

Would the Minister say why the decision was made to increase the salary by a percentage instead of making it a round figure and putting that in the Bill?

Mr. Boland

The Minister for Finance and the Government thought it was better to adhere to some system of percentages and they have done that all along the line. You get the principle better in that way. It was done in the Civil Service generally and the same system has been adopted in the other Bills which will be coming up.

Mr. Sweetman

The first Part of this Bill is entirely technical, consisting of definitions, and, therefore, it is the second Part which calls for discussion first of all. This House will recollect that I have stressed very strongly on many occasions my view that everything possible must be done to uphold the dignity and prestige of our courts. I believe those courts are the real protection of every individual in the State, whether he is of some importance or of comparatively no importance. Bearing that in mind, we must ensure that the persons who are carrying out the judicial functions in the various courts are adequately paid in comparison with people in other walks of life, to ensure from the point of view of prestige that we will get the right type of people and that there will be no temptation put in their way in respect to graft.

I agree with the Minister that, by comparison with professional and industrial remuneration, the amounts set out here are reasonable and should be supported. I have some apprehension, however, that the general tendency in the country as a whole is not very satisfactory, that is, the general tendency to make industrial and even professional positions be too highly paid by comparison with agricultural occupations of a similar class and a similar nature. That point would really be better put from the other angle— that the agricultural remuneration is far too low by comparison with professional or industrial remuneration. So long as professional or industrial remuneration is at a certain figure, you must ensure that the judges are paid in relation to that, so that you may get the right type of man. It is, perhaps, a little unfair on the Minister for Justice, except in so far as he is a member of the Government, that I should stress this. If our whole economy is not to be completely unbalanced, something must be done to increase agricultural remuneration.

The Minister will agree that I have a certain amount of experience in regard to the District Courts in Dublin and the surrounding counties. When we were dealing with the Metropolitan Districts Bill some six months ago, I made it clear that the work in the metropolitan district is so tedious and so tiresome that there is a very strong case to be made that such a justice should not be asked to sit on as many days as one out in the country. While I accept that principle at once in respect of work, I do not accept the principle the Minister has adumbrated in the Bill—although he is only following an earlier Bill—that there is a case for differentiation in salary. The district justice in the country has greater expenses to bear than the district justice in Dublin or Cork.

I understand the new figures are to be as follows: For the three principal justices in Dublin City £1,560; for the three ordinary district justices in Dublin City and the justices in Cork, £1,430; for other district justices in the country areas, £1,300. There is a very definite case, on the volume, the nature and the type of the work, but there is no case in respect of remuneration. The justice sitting in Dublin is able to get home to his meals, whereas the justice in the country cannot do so but has to sit in different parts of the country one day after the other and is not able to take his meals at home. That means additional expense on the country justice. He also has a greater position to keep up than the city justice. In a city we are all swamped by one another and you have not A looking very carefully at B's standard, whereas in the country we all pretty well estimate to the last pound what standard C is keeping up as against D.

The district justice in the country is considered a proper person to take part in social functions. That is highly desirable, but it involves expense. You cannot keep up that position and carry on social functions of that type without spending money. One has to spend money to do those things and you can have no social life of that sort without it costing something. In the city, the district justices are, to a large extent, swamped by people living around them and they have not to live up to the same standard. The country justice who goes into a town is known as the district justice and has to deal with matters as a district justice, he has to go to the local hotel and has to keep up a proper standard. It is wrong that there should be this differentiation in regard to salary.

Regarding the conditions of employment, many of the country justices have to sit in court houses that leave a good deal to be desired. In that respect, they have to share the discomfort and unpleasantness which Senator O'Dea and I and our professional brethren have to share but, apart from that, they must keep up a standard which is more pertinent and more exacting in the country. I would ask the Minister to amend that provision and make the salary or emoluments for district justices on a flat basis. I would also like the Minister to tell us, when replying, what the provisions are in regard to travelling expenses, if they get any, whether country justices get travelling expenses from their homes if they live outside their area or whether it is from the most central point in the area and exactly how those expenses are computed.

On one occasion, I saw a most disgusting exhibition. I do not know if it was due entirely to the emergency conditions. A district justice had to travel in a bus in which also there were some rather "tight" people—though not too "tight" to be put off the bus —whom he had sentenced, and they carried on a loud conversation, not addressed to him, in which they told each other what exactly they thought of the district justice concerned. If there is anything other than the emergency conditions which compels district justices to travel by bus, it should be remedied. It may have occurred because of the emergency, as it took place about 15 months ago, and may have been due to the shortage of petrol. I would like an assurance from the Minister that there is no necessity for that in the future.

Part III deals with the creation of a new office, the President of the Circuit Court. If there is to be any direction of the work of the Circuit Court, I am in entire agreement with the Minister that it is much better to have that done by a judge rather than by the Department. On another Bill, I objected violently to the Department directing city district justices and am glad to see that, in this Bill, the Minister has come round, in regard to the Circuit Court, to the point of view we pressed on him very strongly. It is pleasant to see such a conversion. The powers given to the President of the Circuit Court in this Bill are very dictatorial and he will need to be blessed with an abundance of tact to carry them out without disharmony. Any remarks I make now are in no way personal. There is a rumour abroad regarding someone who is likely to be appointed as the first president under this Bill and if this rumour is correct I would welcome the appointment most wholeheartedly and many others would feel that gentleman well fitted, not merely to be president of the Circuit Court but also to be a High Court judge. You cannot discuss the provisions in this Bill on a personality. You must discuss them on the principle that if the Bill is passed in its present form there will, at some future date, be another appointment. Some day there will be somebody sitting in the Minister's chair other than Deputy Boland. Some day there will be somebody sitting in the Minister's seat other than a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and it may be that some new Party in future, if I may be so bold as to suggest, might behave with the same rashness——

Mr. Hawkins

Have the old Parties no hope?

Mr. Sweetman

There would be no danger of our Party behaving with rashness but some new Party might behave with the same rashness that the Minister and his Party showed when they were first in office. To give the Minister his due I think he regrets some of the rashness that he showed when he came in first, and some of the appointments, and there might be a similar sort of appointments in future.

Mr. Boland

Quite true.

Mr. Hayes

That is most disarming.

Mr. Boland

That will be true of the last Government also.

Mr. Sweetman

It will be true of every Government. That is why I am worried about the provisions that are included for the powers of the President of the Circuit Court, enabling him and making him an ex-officio judge of the High Court. The Minister was terribly determined about that in the Dáil. He was barraged from all sides. He was barraged about the matter from the official Opposition. A member of his own Party, Deputy O'Connor, advised him very strongly not to include this provision and even at the last minute the previous Minister for Justice, Deputy Ruttledge, came along and he also advised the Minister that it was a bad provision. It is a bad provision. I must confess that quite frequently in this House we have been able to persuade Ministers that what they determined upon in another place was not completely sound. Whether it is our sweet reasonableness or whether it is the atmosphere of this place makes the Minister sweetly reasonable I am not going to argue but on the Committee Stage of this Bill I am going to make an effort to work the same change in the Minister in this respect as we have worked on other occasions.

There is no case whatever for making the President of the Circuit Court also ex officio a judge of the High Court. The Minister in the other House suggested that it was necessary for his dignity and prestige. With due respect to the Minister, there is only one word that can describe that and it is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense. The fact that he is President of the Circuit Court, the fact that powers are given to him in this Bill to direct the work of the Circuit Court, the fact of his salary, all those things are adequately conducive to his dignity, to his prestige, without in any way imposing this method of getting a High Court judge cheap. I suspect that that is what is at the back of it all—the desire of the Department of Finance to work a quick one on the Department of Justice. I am surprised at the Minister. I am particularly surprised at the Minister with all the determination that he has shown from time to time and that he showed in respect of this provision in the Dáil, that he did not show the same determination when the Department of Finance tried to browbeat him into getting a High Court judge cheap in this way.

Mr. Boland

They never did that. That is not right.

Mr. Hayes

They never do that?

Mr. Sweetman

The Department of Finance never browbeat anybody to get something cheap?

Mr. Boland

The idea that they were trying to get a cheap High Court judge was never intended.

Mr. Sweetman

That knocks one of the legs away from the support of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Boland

It does not.

Mr. Sweetman

It means that there is one less argument I have to overcome, which is a great thing.

Mr. Hayes

There is a touch of the District Court about that.

Mr. Sweetman

We will come back to that matter on Committee Stage and I do not propose to deal with it further now. There is one particular provision in respect of Section 13 to which I want to refer. I do not see why the Minister, when he has in this Bill set up a President of the Circuit Court, given the President of the Circuit Court the particular powers he has given him, and so forth, does not also provide that it will be the President of the Circuit Court who will arrange the circuits rather than the method provided in Section 13. At least, I think Section 13 should read that the composition of the circuits should not be altered save with the concurrence of the President of the Circuit Court. It appears to me, certainly, that that would be more in keeping with the dignity and prestige of such an office. I would also like the Minister to tell me whether the members of the Circuit Court Rules Committee, some of whom are referred to in Section 12, are paid anything in addition to their ordinary emoluments for acting as members of the Circuit Court Rules Committee. Is the secretary paid, for example? I do not think that the ordinary members are paid but I am not quite clear whether the secretary is paid or not.

Part IV provides for the appointment of an additional Circuit Court judge. It is an unfortunate thing that it is necessary. It is an unfortunate thing that crime has increased to the extent and in the manner that it has increased. It is, I am afraid, one of the resultants of a system under which the public morale has been shaken, under which public opinion believes that there is a great deal more racketeering than in fact there is, although there is a great deal. But the increase in crime is certainly a concommitant of the undermining of public morale. I do not think that the Minister and his Government can hold themselves entirely blameless in that respect but, I will have to leave it to the Minister's conscience to make what atonement he can, even at this late hour.

Mr. O'Dea

The Minister promised us this Bill on a previous occasion and I think we ought to welcome it now as it has come in response to our requests, particularly our requests for the payment of a proper salary to the district justices. I will not refer to the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court. I am afraid I would be inclined to give them no increase but, however, they are very few and a good deal of it will be taken back in income-tax and surtax and in that way I do not think it matters very much. The increase to the Circuit Court judges is very necessary. With regard to the district justices, I would like very much to have seen them getting a bigger increase. Thirty per cent., in my opinion, is not enough and, coupled with that, there is the distinction referred to by Senator Sweetman between the justices in Dublin and country justices. First of all, there are the senior justices in Dublin. Then there are the other justices in Dublin, paid a salary of £1,500 a year, I think.

Mr. Boland

Three of them get £1,560.

Mr. O'Dea

That is the principal justices?

Mr. Boland

Yes. The ordinary justice gets £1,100 plus £330, that is £1,430 and the Cork City man gets £1,430.

Mr. O'Dea

The Cork man is very deserving. I believe one justice does the whole of the work in Cork. He appears to be an excellent man. There are, I think, ten justices in Dublin.

Mr. Hayes

In Dublin City? Surely not.

Mr. O'Dea

I think there are ten working in Dublin.

Mr. Sweetman

No.

Mr. Boland

Six.

Mr. Sweetman

Bad and all as the Minister has made the country, he has not made it as bad as that.

Mr. O'Dea

Six justices in Dublin and one in Cork. That is a very big difference.

Mr. Boland

It is.

Mr. O'Dea

With regard to the men in Dublin who are getting £1,430 a year, many of them have been a very short time in the service whereas in the country there are justices who have been there for about 25 years and some of the Dublin justices were trained by them, probably, or did locum for them. There is also the difference of rank. If you have three grades represented by money, it puts the men receiving the lowest salary into a rather inferior rank and they rather resent that more than the money difference. I know that a justice in the City of Dublin has a good deal of work to do, particularly in recent years owing to the Emergency Powers Orders, but the justice in the country also has had to carry out those Orders. Not only has he to do that, but his work is not specialised as it is in the city.

In the city there are different justices for different purposes. In the country the district justice must do all kinds of work. He must do all criminal work, all civil work, breaches of warranty, trespasses, assault, and cases of all kinds. He must keep himself alive to the law as it exists and to every change in the law. He must read reports and statutes and be in a position to give a proper judgment on any kind of case that may crop up before him. Very often there is more law in a small case than there is in a big case in the High Court. There is no doubt about that. As Senator Sweetman says, he must keep up a certain position in life. He must live in a good house. He must entertain. What is more, he has a good deal of travelling to do. He must keep a motor-car. It would be a very bad thing for the State if he did not keep a motor-car.

Senator Sweetman dealt with the expense. As I understand it, a district justice is paid a certain mileage if he keeps his own car. Very often there are disputes with the authorities as to the amount he ought to receive for the mileage he has travelled. That has put them in the position very often that they prefer to hire cars. If a district justice hires a car and sends in a receipt, the amount is paid immediately. If he uses his own car and charges a much less mileage, there is difficulty about it. We must presume, therefore, that in the interests of the State the district justice will keep his own car. A country district justice has travelling to do. A district justice in Dublin has no travelling. Any car that would suit a man of that rank cannot be purchased for less than £600. We may assume, having regard to the amount of travelling to be done, that the car will last three years. That represents a sum of £200 a year. The wear and tear, repairs, petrol and everything else can be put down at about £150, which makes a total of £350 for travelling. Such expenditure is not incurred by the Dublin district justice.

I do not want for a moment to suggest that there should be any reduction made in the salary given to a Dublin district justice. I think the salary is too little perhaps as it is, but I do say that a man of great experience who is working in the country, a man of perhaps many more years' standing than a justice in the City of Dublin, should get at least the same salary. I think such a distinction should not be made. I would like to see the idea of a fixed sum, suggested by Senator Hayes, carried out, rather than have the salaries on a percentage basis. I would ask the Minister to consider that very carefully. I think that, if he takes into account all the expenses which a district justice in the country has to incur, he will come to the conclusion that he should get more perhaps than a man in the city. A district justice in the country has to be there always. It may be said that he has not as much work to do as the man in the city. Sometimes he has very heavy cases to deal with— murder charges and other serious charges. Witnesses very often have to be brought long distances to give evidence in these cases. The district justice will sit until a very late hour in the evening in order to facilitate those witnesses, and in order to save the State the expense of bringing them there on a second occasion. He must be in his district at all times. The salary consideration, rather than the amount of work that a man has to do, is a very important matter.

I do not agree with Senator Sweetman that the President of the Circuit Court should not get the rank of a High Court judge. I think that he ought to, and that it was an excellent idea on the part of the Minister to put that provision in the Bill. As the Minister told us, you cannot have a temporary High Court judge. He will be President of the Circuit Court judges, and will also be available to do any extra work in the High Court, if the existing High Court judges are not able to cope with the work to be done there. That is a very important consideration, so that, I think, it is a good idea to give him the status of a High Court judge.

The President of the Circuit Court who has been a colleague of the present circuit judges is now going to be given a certain amount of power over them. It would be very difficult for him to exercise that power if he had not a certain position. The fact that he will have the status of a High Court judge will give him the proper authority. I do not think for a moment that the powers proposed to be given to him are too great. I have often wondered whether they are sufficient. I do not know what power a Circuit Court judge would have to refuse to go outside his own area to do the work which the president would assign to him in another area. He may say that he has been appointed to a certain district, that he is bound to do the work there and that he is not paid anything extra for going to another area. He may say that he does not know how he can be compelled to go, even if directed by the president. I do not think a situation of that kind is likely to occur, but if you did meet a man who was soured, for some reason or other, it might be necessary to give extra powers if those given already were not sufficient.

Dealing, again, with district justices in the country, a number of them are in big country towns, some of which are very near the City of Dublin. They are men who have to do practically the same kind of work as a Dublin justice. They will probably have nearly as much work to do as a Dublin justice when the Emergency Powers Acts cease to operate. It seems very hard, seeing that they will have all that work to do, plus travelling and other expenses, that they should be on a lower salary than a man in the City of Dublin.

Mr. Duffy

I have thought it desirable that somebody other than a lawyer should speak on this Bill. The lawyers have their own point of view on this but, even though it is a genuine and bona fide one, it is not that necessarily of the other less fortunate members of the community. I am not going to discuss the mechanism of the Bill because I do not profess to be an authority on that aspect of it. I propose to restrict myself to one or two points regarding which I have a point of view. The Bill seems to be largely concerned with a proposal to increase wages, or shall I call them, salaries or allowances or whatever else they may be described as. On the last occasion the Minister was here with a courts Bill I expressed the opinion that the district justices were inadequately remunerated. I think I expressed the view—if I did not it was in my mind— that some of them were unable to meet their obligations. Now, one may say that a salary of £1,000 for a district justice is very substantial. That is true, but it has to be remembered that a number of our district justices were appointed at a time when £1,000 had a different significance from what it has to-day. If, before 1936, £1,000 was regarded by the State and the Oireachtac as a reasonable rate of remuneration for district justices, it is obviously inadequate now. I doubt, however, whether the proposal in this Bill is adequate.

I think everyone will agree with Senator O'Dea that it is not equitable to draw the distinction that there is in the Bill between two justices, both living on the same road or in the same street in Dublin, and pay them different wages or different salaries simply because they operate in different areas. One justice may operate in Dublin City or in Dún Laoghaire. He is entitled under the Bill, if he is not a principal justice, to, I think, £1,430, but the justice who operates only in Balbriggan, Swords or Kilmainham gets £1,300 a year. There seems to be no scientific arrangement which would justify that discrimination. When this subject was discussed here before, my general view was that a reasonable salary for a district justice, having regard to the changes in the value of money, would be £1,500 a year. That is my view to-day. There may be some point in giving an allowance over and above that amount to a principal justice in Dublin because he has something more than the ordinary justice to do. He has other administrative work to do, and he has to be distinguished from his colleagues who are not principal justices. Some allowance has to be made for that distinction.

I want to say that I am in agreement with Senator Hayes who drew attention to the unscientific manner in which this Bill is drawn in so far as it refers to percentage increases instead of setting out boldly what the salary is to be. I think that, if we want to be fair to the public, we should repeal the section of the Principal Act which lays down the salary, and put a new section in its place saying that the salary of a district justice is to be £X, and that the salary of a Circuit Court judge is to be £X, and so on, rather than to be setting out percentages. Here is how the percentages will work out. In the case of the Chief Justice, he will receive £4,600; the four other judges in the Supreme Court will each receive £4,025; the President of the High Court will receive £3,450, and the ordinary judges of the High Court £3,000. Is there any reason why these figures should not be rounded off, or why the section fixing the salaries originally should not be repealed, with a new section substituted setting out in round figures what the obligation of the State is in relation to salaries?

Senator O'Dea referred to travelling expenses. I understand that a district justice receives a round figure of £200 a year as a travelling allowance. That may have been all right at one period, but it would seem to me to be utterly inadequate in certain cases. I do know that there is substance in what was said by Senator Sweetman that when a justice did in fact have to travel in a certain way on one or two occasions that he was put at a great disadvantage. I agree that during the emergency period when they could not get petrol they must have suffered great disadvantages in that way. In any event, a district justice appointed in the country must use a car and should be allowed a reasonable sum to permit him to do so. Otherwise, he is at a great disadvantage compared to the justice who adjudicates in his own neighbourhood and has not to use a public service vehicle or any other class of vehicle to enable him to do his work.

I should like to say again, in regard to district justices, that there is a good sound principle of having a fixed rate for that position. If we decide that there is to be a certain rate, then that rate should be fixed irrespective of whether the district justice lives in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Cavan. It is quite immaterial, from the point of view of the district justice, where he operates. The main thing is that he is doing a particular job, and there should be a flat rate for that job.

In regard to the higher salaries, I am not prepared to agree that the proposed new rates are justified. I do not think there is any justification whatever for giving an increase of £600 a year to the Chief Justice. He has £4,000 a year already. I do not subscribe to that. I think he is adequately paid at present. A prominent member of the Minister's Party came to me some years ago in regard to certain proposals. We discussed, among other things, the salaries of judges. I expressed the view then, and I am prepared to do so now, that I think we cannot afford cheap judges. I think that we ought to pay the judges a sufficient salary to make them independent and to save them from temptation.

The suggestion of that prominent member of the Minister's Party on that occasion was that the Chief Justice was being paid double the salary that he ought to be getting. Now, it is proposed to increase it by another £600 a year. I totally dissent from that. I also consider that the other judges of the Supreme Court are adequately remunerated, and I draw attention to the fact that we carried on for 15 or 16 years with three judges in the Supreme Court. We now have five, so that we are making law pretty expensive for ourselves, and I for one do not subscribe to it. With regard to the High Court judges, I think £2,000 a year an adequate salary, and I notice that, whenever a vacancy arises, there does not seem to be any difficulty in getting candidates to fill the post. As a matter of fact, I think it is true to say that the Government would have the pick of the Irish Bar for any vacancy that arises on the High Court bench without any increase in salary.

Mr. Hayes

But they do not pick them.

Mr. Duffy

Perhaps Senator Hayes and the Minister will never agree as to what the judges should be.

Mr. Hayes

Everybody agrees as to the ability of the Irish Bar. There is no difficulty about it.

Mr. Duffy

And therefore there should be no difficulty in making a good selection, and there should certainly be no difficulty in making that selection with the big increase in salary. I remember a High Court judge telling me that every judge appointed improved his financial position because he became a judge, as distinct from the position in England where barristers earning £20,000 a year have taken judgeships at £3,500. That was a High Court judge expressing to me that, in England, every judge appointed made a sacrifice, because he accepted a salary very much less than half of what he was earning at the Bar. In Ireland, it is the opposite— every judge appointed, so far as I know, has improved his financial position by leaving the Bar to become a judge.

On the point raised by Senator Sweetman regarding the President of the Circuit Court, I do not know anything about the merits of the case as discussed by Senator Sweetman and Senator O'Dea, but if the purpose in view is to avoid the appointment of an additional High Court judge, I think it is meritorious. It is a very wise decision that, in the event of an emergency, there should be available to the Government an additional judge who is qualified to serve on the High Court bench. If it means a saving on the appointment of a new High Court judge, the decisión is wise and we should support it.

There is one section of the Bill, Section 14, which causes me some difficulty. The section authorises the appointment on a permanent basis of one additional Circuit Court judge. It does not name him, but it does everything else. There is no option but to appoint one person. I do not know who he is and I am perfectly indifferent, but I should prefer that the Minister would say clearly that here is a section authorising us to appoint A.B. as a Circuit Court judge, because he has done everything else. He says that he is already serving, that he is to have added years and that he is allowed to serve to the age of 72. It is clear that it relates to some person and, as I say, I do not know who that person is—I am not arguing this on the basis of any one person—but I say that if there is a Circuit Court judge to be appointed, the Minister should reserve some freedom for himself to select a person whom he considers best qualified for the post, rather than to put in a section of this kind which compels him to appoint a particular person.

Generally speaking, while I have expressed agreement with the view that district justices' salaries should be increased, and in fact that a higher standard ought to be set for district justices, I want to urge that the whole question of the amounts involved in the administration of justice ought to be reviewed. This State spends a very large sum, not merely on judges' salaries but on the administration of justice as a whole, and having regard to the large sums paid in fees—I do not suppose I can discuss these now—and the large sum expended on the administration of justice the matter is one which requires a good deal of thought. It has been said by some people that one of our difficulties is that the judges are overworked and in other cases it is said that the business of the District Court is not very well arranged, with the result that, in remand cases, prisoners and witnesses are being brought day after day before the court at great expense to the public and that a different arrangement of the work of the courts, probably a different arrangement of circuits, a re-arrangement of the areas covered by district justices, would obviate a lot of the expense.

I am not in a position to say whether that is so or not. Senators like Senator Sweetman and Senator O'Dea, who work in the courts, will probably know more about it than I, but it seems to me that the total expenditure incurred in the administration of justice is very high. I was told a couple of years ago by a person interested on behalf of the State in a prosecution that the costs ran to somewhere around £4,000. It was a murder trial, and his comment was that, if the costs incurred in the old British days exceeded £2,000, there would be a sworn inquiry to find out who wasted the money. He was engaged on behalf of the State in prosecuting the case, and his view was that it was a bad arrangement, that the court did not deal expeditiously with the case and that far too many witnesses had been brought up. I mention that because it seems to me that there ought to be a review of the expenditure on the administration of justice.

Mr. Hayes

When an Irish Government took over here from the British, one of the great difficulties which the prophets of evil had in their minds was the administration of justice. Looking back on 25 years of it, we can say that we have succeeded in having justice well and properly administered. This Bill is a Bill to increase the remuneration of judges and justices who have received no increases since their salaries were originally fixed, some as early as 1922 and others in 1924. I think that is correct. With some of what Senator Duffy has said with regard to High Court judges I might be in agreement, but we should, I think, agree with this, that one of the things we cannot afford to have is a badly paid judge. That is one of the things we cannot afford at all. I am not very interested in the difference between £2,500 and £3,000 for a very small number of High Court judges, if it is thought that the administration of justice will be improved by the extra expenditure.

With regard to the question Senator Duffy has raised—before I come to my own points—that, in England, people sacrifice money in becoming judges and that there is no such position here, I think it is true to say that there are people here who are making at the Bar more money than the salary which the High Court judges had, or which they will have when the Bill becomes law. But they are making that money at the expense of very hard work, of very great and very sustained effort, and obviously people will accept a fixed salary with a pension, with holidays and with a fixed amount of work, in preference to a higher income of an uncertain nature which depends entirely upon their own physical health and the maintenance of their own mental vigour. That is the reason why a Government can get barristers to accept judgeships which carry a salary lower than the amount of money a barrister can make in what is called the rough and tumble of the Bar Library. The reasons for that are quite obvious. On the other point that the Minister should have put in the name of the person whom he proposes to appoint as President of the Circuit Court, I think Senator Duffy is scarcely serious in that suggestion, because, if that were done, the individual in question—and I do not know anything about him—would, of course, be subject to debate.

When I said that we have been successful, by and large, with regard to the administration of the courts, there is this also to be said, that the most successful part of the courts is that part which is newest, that is to say, the District Courts. I think the Minister will agree with that. The District Courts owe their origin to the Cosgrave Government, and more particularly to the foresight and courage of Kevin O'Higgins who sent out the district justices and framed that particular scheme with the Attorney-General of the day. That scheme has worked admirably, and my sympathy goes to these people and to their position with regard to salaries. I put it to the Minister that there is general agreement—I think in his own Party as well as in others; Senator O'Dea expressed it to-day and I think it was expressed in the Dáil by members of the Minister's Party—that district justices are not being properly treated, when one considers all the circumstances.

There is a case for making a round salary for all the judges under the Bill, as has been suggested, and particularly in the case of district justices, there is an excellent case for giving a greater increase than 30 per cent. when one remembers that the district justices were appointed, some in 1922, at a salary of £1,000 and are now going to get an increase of £300, having had in the interval 24 or 25 years' experience. One could even extend that, and say that all the people appointed between 1922 and 1939 on a salary of £1,000 are now going to get an increase of only £300, which is very insufficient when one considers all the circumstances. Anybody in the Civil Service who had £1,000 in 1922 is certainly much better off than the district justice and anybody who went into the Civil Service with the qualifications sufficient to make a man a district justice, say, 20 years ago and even a shorter time ago, would fare very much better.

Apart from the question of the Dublin justices and the country justices, the man appointed at £1,000 a year is now to get £1,300. An assistant secretary on £1,000 in the Civil Service has now a consolidated salary of £1,525. The grades lower than assistant secretaries, principal officers, had £750 to £900, and, at the top of their scale, the £900 a year men in the Civil Service, of whom there are a considerable number, get now £1,395, with no social or public obligations of any kind, and with this added, that they have very considerable chances of promotion, whereas the district justice has no chance of promotion, although he is doing solid work. He is really the keystone of the whole arch of justice. It was an experiment when originally begun and it has proved to be most successful. It is one of the few things upon which all sides of both Houses will agree, that the district courts have worked—not only the work of the district justices in their courts but the work which, to a very great extent, I understand, they do outside their courts in the settlement of cases. The district justice in Dublin is living in the metropolis, where we have the headquarters of the police force, the Army and the Civil Service, so there is a considerable number of people on his own level and the public eye is not on him to the same extent as in the town of Mullingar or the City of Galway. There was a time when some people might have sneered at his obligations, but now we are all convinced that the classless State is not possible. I understand the place where the classes are most radically distinguished is Russia. In a country area, the district justice should have a salary sufficient to enable him to play a respectable rôle. I know the word "respectable" in the old Sinn Féin days was one that had a different meaning. I mean it in the sense of a "duine creidiúnach"—to be "creidiúnach" he should have a higher salary than £1,300 on present day values and there is no reason why he should have a smaller salary than his colleague in Dublin.

When we had some argument with the Minister for Education, we were told we made a psychological break in 1922, but political practice and even heads are more easily broken than minds. The Dublin District Court, like the earlier Metropolitan Courts, is still a rather unsavoury place and the justices in Dublin have very unsavoury work to do, though they do it nearer their homes. The argument is not for a higher salary but that they should get less work to do. I was only once in the Dublin District Court and that was accompanying one of the present district justices when he was tried by a divisional magistrate in 1919. The atmosphere is bad and I think the cure is to make them sit on fewer days per week. There is a good argument for an all-round salary of at least £1,500, rather than this extraordinary £1,650, £1,430 and £1,300.

The Minister made a fairly good case for special district justices in Dublin. I do not want to take anything from anyone, but the argument for giving a district justice at least as much as the assistant secretary to any Government Department is a strong one and there are assistant secretaries with more than £1,500.

Mr. Boland

Are there?

Mr. Hayes

What about the Department of Finance?

Mr. Boland

There might be there.

Mr. Hayes

There is an Irish proverb which says, "The priest christens his own child first". You will find there are assistant secretaries who are getting £1,525 and a great many principal officers who get more than £1,300. The argument that a district justice who abandons all hope of promotion should not get more than that is an unsound one. One may say he is not asked to take the job, but one should endeavour to get the best people and then give them an opportunity to live up to their office and fill the rôles they have to fill in the administrations of justice. It is not possible and certainly not desirable that a district justice should merely be a person who appears in court and retires home then to live in the cheapest possible manner.

We have lost certain members of our community and, therefore, if an Irishman is placed by an Irish Government in an Irish State in the rôle of district justice, very often knowing the Irish language, he should be looked up to and, whether we like it or not, that will not happen if a great many people in his area are earning far more than he earns. I put this argument to the Minister now, as, while we can argue it on the Committee Stage, we may not be able to put down a suitable amendment.

The district justices in the country have expenses which I know are such expenses that the Minister for Finance is not prepared to take into consideration—but there are more things in our philosophy than are dreamed of by the Minister for Justice. There are expenses which are unavoidable and which the justice should not avoid and he should be in a position in which he need not avoid them. They ought to be carefully selected and appointed and then reasonably well paid. When we consider Civil Service and other salaries of that kind, £1,500 would be a reasonable salary and I hope that the Minister will deal with it.

I am not a practising lawyer and therefore not competent to deal with this question of the President of the Circuit Court. I agree with Senator Sweetman, however, that it is better that the Circuit Court judges should be directed by a President of the Circuit Court rather than by the Department. Justice is something which affects not the rich merely but the poorest of the poor, and every man's rights and liberties, so the District Court is the most important and is worth paying for correctly.

Mr. Honan

I join in welcoming this Bill. The district justices were discussed on a previous occasion and Senator Mrs. Concannon and myself and others suggested that their salaries should be improved. I had in mind a gentleman acting in that capacity, who was a very good, decent-living man with a family, and he informed me that, were it not that he had saved a little money when young, he would not be able to manage his family responsibilities now. It would be a great pity if such a responsible position were not looked after properly and that can only be done by getting the best men and paying them accordingly. They have a responsible position and have to live up to it and raise their families up to that position, with provision for secondary schools and universities. I am glad that, on the previous occasion, I advocated the improvement of their salaries. I know very little of the requirements of the higher judges in the city, but I have rather intimate acquaintance with those in the country and I know their salaries are entirely inadequate, considering the travelling they have to do from court to court, incurring large expenses—which are not just merely for teas. I think that there is unanimity of opinion that an improvement would be very welcome. Personally, I think it would be desirable to improve on the £1,300, which is not sufficient when they are running a car and have other incidental expenses.

When the Minister was introducing the Bill and pensions were mentioned, I thought of the fact that it happens often that you hear of a man being pensioned and that he dies soon afterwards and the pension passes away with him. There should be an alternative scheme. I know that across the Channel there is such a scheme for higher civil servants, where they may accept a lower pension and in case of their early demise if their wife is still living as a widow the pension passes on to her during her lifetime. It is a very sad thing indeed, after a man's 40 years' work, if he should pass away immediately after retirement and the pension pass with him leaving his widow and other responsibilities entirely unprovided for.

I do not know if there is anything like that in our Civil Service, but it would be well worth consideration. It is just an actuarial examination and if a man makes the sacrifice he may make provision for those coming after him. Not alone district justices and judges, but all members of the Civil Service and other pensionable officers, should be provided for in this way. Very often, people who retire do not live long enough to enjoy the pension they have well earned, and if this provision were available many of them would take advantage of it.

Mr. Tunney

I am opposed to increases for any person who is in receipt of over £1,000 a year. That has been my view for my lifetime, as long as other workers are getting only £250; and while my own colleagues are out on strike and the Government is doing nothing about it, I cannot conscientiously support this increase. While I would like to express my views in the strongest possible manner in regard to that point, I cannot understand the mentality behind any differentiation in the wages of district justices. If anyone looks up the Press reports, they will realise I should be the last person to advocate an increase for the district justices in County Dublin. However, they have always administered justice and I stand for justice, and I think it too bad that a man whose work is as heavy as it could be in County Dublin— where the people from the city who commit motoring offences come before him—if later he is crossing through the city should meet city justices with higher salaries. From a trade union point of view, it is more or less scab labour that they should be asked to do that. I hope the Minister will look into that point. Their work in the county is heavy and is as well and as creditably done as anywhere else. They administer punishment severely where it is needed and, on the other hand, they are very reasonable with the first offender.

Justice is administered 100 per cent. correctly and I appeal to the Minister to take away that difference. The record of cases tried in County Dublin would show that, during the last seven years, the number is equally proportionate to the number of cases tried by any justice in the city. I cannot understand why the people resident in the city should be put on a higher pedestal than the district justice living in Ballyhaunis. There is the question of the back-to-the-land policy and trying to give the same respect to the people living on the land as those in the cities from the material point of view. I think Senator Hayes said that a man can live more quiently in the City of Dublin than in a country area.

At the same time, I feel that the judges have enough. We would be all right if everyone were as well-off as the judges. There should be an all-round levelling up in the salaries paid to the district justices.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Tá mé ar aon aigne le furmhór na ndaoine a labhair ar an gceist seo. Maidir le breithiúin agus lucht riartha dlí, caithfear aird do thabhairt gur féidir leo sin maireachtaint agus saol do riaradh le dighnit oiriúnach don phost, agus ná beidís faoi chomaoin ag aon duine. Caithfear dighnit an bhínse agus an bhreithimh do chóthú ar mhaithe leis an dlí, ar mhaithe leis an gceart agus ar mhaithe le meas an phobail ar an dlí céanna.

Ba mhaith liom focal a rá faoin idirdhealú atá idir tuarastal na mbreitheamh i mBaile Atha Cliath agus tuarastail na mbreitheamh contae sa chúirt íseal faoin dtuaith. Ní dóigh liom gur cóir an idirdhealú sin do dhéanamh. Ba cheart do dtuigfeadh an fear faoin dtuaith go bhfuil sé ar ionannas le fear na cathrach agus chomh tábhachtach leis. Tá súil agam go gcuirfear deireadh leis an idirdhealú sin agus go n-íocfar an tuarastal céanna le gach breitheamh.

Ní thuigim go bhfuil puinn difríochta i dtaobh costas maireachtála sa chathair agus an costas faoin dtuaith, i Tráighlí, i mBealach an Doirín nó i bPortláirge. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil difríocht ar bith ann maidir leis an bpost seo. Is stróinséir don áit ina mbionn sé an breitheamh. Mar sin, ba cheart go mbeadh an tuarastal céanna ag gabháil leis an bpost céanna, pé áit in Eirinn a bheadh an duine ag obair. Mholfainn don Aire géilleadh don mholadh so mar go bhfuil Seanadóirí ar gach taobh den Teach ag cuidiú leis.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

If my approach to this Bill was in any way influenced by arguments advanced several years ago, as to the disparity in wages and salaries of certain classes of the community, I would not support it as I intend to do. Those arguments set out in placards and otherwise the salaries paid to judges and Ministers of State, and side by side with that were set out the wages paid to road workers and agricultural workers. That did an irreparable amount of harm, because it raised false standards in the minds of certain people, and I am sorry to say that it looks as if these standards are still those of some people. Even the most extreme votaries of Communism never advanced the theory that the percentage of national income devoted to salaries and wages should be equally divided amongst all classes.

A certain basis must be taken as a guide, and we must consider the question of ability, the type of duty performed by the wage earner, education, social position, utility, and so on. These factors will always be responsible for a difference in the emoluments of sections of the community. In saying that I do not wish to insinuate that I feel that lower-paid workers are adequately paid. Quite a number of these people suffer from financial disability as a result of the wage they are paid, and I trust that they will shortly get the treatment to which they are entitled. Before people can be secured to qualify for certain important positions in law, engineering, medicine, and so on, they must be assured that after consequent expense they will have a scale of remuneration commensurate with the duties they must discharge. If it were otherwise I am satisfied that we would have very few doctors, engineers or technicians in this country. The efficient discharge of duty will always be influenced by the freedom of the individual from financial worry.

I know of no profession where freedom from such worry is more essential for a proper discharge of their duty than amongst the judiciary and district justices. I am not very much concerned with the judiciary, but I was delighted to hear other Senators stressing the importance of the position of district justices. My concern about district justices is because they are the tribunal before whom the majority of the people in rural Ireland must appear when at law.

District justices were first appointed in 1922 and I do not think that anybody would contend that the salaries paid then were fixed on a princely basis. In their case the £ has depreciated just as in the case of every other section of the community. One of the objects of this Bill is to restore equilibrium, and it is to be commended. I wholeheartedly endorse objections that were raised to any differentiation between the position of a district justice in the cities and the rural area. I am prepared to admit that the district justice in Dublin will have a longer list to dispose of than his brother justice in country areas but, as Senator Sweetman rightly pointed out, the former is near his work and has not to travel long distances to his courts that justices in the country have to travel. Very often they have to travel under severe climatic conditions and to dispense justice in buildings that are not as adequately furnished as courts in the cities.

I see no reason, therefore, why there should be any differentiation between the emoluments paid to district justices in the cities and those in the country. A flat rate would be more equitable. It has been stated by opponents of this Bill that if these positions were advertised numbers of people would be only too anxious to take them at the present salaries. That is so. There are no positions whether under the Government, local authority or other body that would not attract a number of people who would be anxious to take them at the salaries offered but that would be a short view to take regarding the filling of positions. Even in the legal profession as in other bodies there are three types, the good, the bad and the indifferent. Lawyers have to pursue a certain course of study, they have to satisfy the examiners that they have reached a certain standard before they qualify to practice, and quite a number of them have a greater aptitude for their profession than have others.

Senators will agree that so far as the ordinary people are concerned they classify lawyers as good lawyers and bad lawyers. The object of the State should be to secure the best lawyers for appointments to the Bench. They will not be secured if a small valuation is placed on the important duties they will have to discharge. I know a number of solicitors whose income from practise is much greater than what they would receive if they became district justices even at the new salaries set out in this Bill. Men could be secured for such appointments who would be dear at £100, whereas other men in the same profession would be cheap at £1,000 a year. I trust the Minister will hearken to the case that has been made by Senators as to the advisability of having equality of emoluments fixed for district justices.

There are a few matters that I find this Bill does not provide for and I would like to avail of this opportunity to refer to them. There is the question of District Court clerks, many of whom were appointed in 1922 and who are now near pensionable age. There is no provision made in the Bill for these people. I think members of this House who are solicitors would admit that the District Court clerk plays a very important part in the successful functioning of the District Court, and because of that, due consideration should be given to him, in the matter of salary and pension.

There is the question of people who, from time to time, are called away from their work to serve on juries. I know members of the farming and commercial community in the country who very often are taken away at the busiest time and made travel very long distances to the court and who receive no return by way of maintenance allowance or to cover out-of-pocket expenses. The Department of Local Government has provided for maintenance allowance for people serving on public bodies and also has authorised the payment of full transport expenses to and from the centres of meeting provided certain conditions are fulfilled. I maintain that people acting on juries are at least discharging as important a duty as is performed by members of public bodies and I feel that they should be provided for in this Bill. I hope it may be possible when the Bill is in Committee to deal with it.

Mr. Boland

That would be a different Bill—a Juries Bill.

Seán Ó Donobháin

Is iongantach liom ar fad an méid a dubhradh annseo indiu i dtaobh na difriochta atá idir costasaí an bhreithimh fe'n dtuaith agus costasaí an bhreithimb i mBaile Atha Cliath. Tuigeann gach éinne go bhfuil difriocht mór ionnta, gan dabht.

I think we have spoken in diverse tongues, certainly from the Opposition Benches, in connection with this Bill. The first thing I want to point out is that we are not discussing the salaries of anybody. We are discussing an increase in the cost of living. I cannot see how the matter would be dealt with otherwise than by the method established in connection with the Civil Service and in connection with members of local authorities.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are discussing increases in salaries. That is what the Bill deals with.

Mr. O'Donovan

It is a question of increasing salaries, I suggest, in view of the cost of living. Any increase in money is necessarily an increase of salary but I would suggest that we need not go into the question to establish what was a just salary in 1922 or in 1932 or what is a just salary in 1947. I think we would be more justified in discussing what percentage increase would compensate for the increases in the cost of living which have been caused during the emergency period than in going to all this roundabout way of playing to the gallery.

Mr. Hayes

That is very unfair.

Mr. O'Donovan

Senator Hayes suggests that that is very unfair. I say that the remark he passed during the discussion was more unfair, that there are good barristers and they were not appointed.

Mr. Hayes

There are the best barristers who were not appointed. There is no doubt at all about that. It is plain as a pikestaff. Everybody knows it.

Mr. O'Donovan

I could ask is the judge who was appointed as High Court judge from this House not the best barrister? We could get into personalities.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is better not to deal with it.

Mr. O'Donovan

That is the very reason that I want to point out that the remark was unworthy of Senator Hayes as Leader of what he calls the Opposition in this House. I think it would have been better left unsaid by him. There is the question of borderline cases, the question of County Dublin versus Dublin City. Naturally, no matter where a person draws the line, there would be somebody with a grievance. The justices appointed to the District Court in the city are paid a higher salary than the justices, or the justice, who has to operate in the suburbs of Dublin. As in every other case, there is somebody with a borderline grievance. I maintain, having seen the District Court in Dublin operating, that there is absolutely no comparison between their work and the work of a district justice in the country. The city justice has to deal with repulsive, nasty cases that no justice in the country has to deal with.

If Senator O'Dea, who looks at me with disapproval, had the same experience as the justices in the city have he would agree with me that there is no comparison between the duties of a district justice in Dublin City and a district justice in any court in the country. Therefore, the very fact of the work they have to do entitles them to a better salary. Our whole approach should be that the person must be paid in virtue of the onerous duties he has to perform. Therefore, I maintain that there should be a distinction in favour of the justice in the large towns.

The question has been raised as to the relative costs. I cannot agree with anyone who says that there is not a greater cost on the individual living in a city like Dublin than there is on the person living in the country. Senators have referred to the cost of transport and have said that there should be some provision made for it. I know that a justice who has to drive to a court in the country is very glad to do it at 11 o'clock on a fine morning. He might not like it at 11 o'clock on a snowy morning. I think a justice would prefer to drive his car to a court in the country than to have to go in a bus to attend the District Court in the centre of the city. I do not agree with the point made as to the cost of travelling and I certainly do not agree with the case made that there is not a higher cost of living in Dublin and I do not agree that the case should be made on this Bill, which is really dealing with the increased cost of living during the emergency.

The question has been raised about the number of justices. I have met nine in the District Court. I do not suppose that we will always have nine district justices in the city. The number has been increased on account of the increased amount of court work during the emergency period. It is the same in this country as in the world. There has been a loosening of a sense of law and morals which has entailed increased work. That will not last, and I am sure the same amount of work will not be imposed in the future on district justices in the city as has been imposed during the emergency and down to the present time. Therefore, the point made by Senator Sweetman that they should have less work and more days off rather than increased pay is a matter that will right itself in a few years as, we hope, other things, including the cost of living, will right themselves. I remember the time when there were only three district justices. There were only three resident magistrates before that. Then there were three district justices.

Mr. Hayes

That was before Fianna Fáil, obviously.

Mr. O'Donovan

There were district justices before Fianna Fáil and there were resident magistrates before Fine Gael. Another point raised by Senator Sweetman was that he did not want the Department or the Minister for Justice to control, to appoint or to regulate the altered system under the Circuit Court but he also said that the powers which were being conferred on the president were dictatorial. So, he does not want it either way. What does he want? To a layman reading Section 10 it would seem, right enough, that the newly-appointed President of the Circuit Court will have immense powers. I think we should put in the marginal note that he has duties as well. He is given power to do a lot of things and the duty is imposed on him of doing those things. A Senator referred to the fact that a judge may refuse to obey him. I wonder what would happen if the President of the Circuit Court was disobeyed. I do not know, from reading this, what the machinery would be but Senator Sweetman seemed to think that he was getting dictatorial powers and that there would be difficulty in having the orders which he is empowered to give obeyed. He did not suggest what the remedy would be and I would like to know if there is a remedy or if there will be a remedy or whether it will be feasible to implement the powers given to the President of the Circuit Court in this Section 10. Generally, the debate has gone on lines that I had not anticipated. We had everybody wanting increases in salaries.

Mr. Hayes

Only for district justices.

Mr. O'Donovan

Except Senator Tunney. He did not want anything.

Mr. Hayes

That was not so clear either. Senator Tunney had a mental reservation.

Mr. Boland

He started off that way.

Mr. O'Donovan

He wanted it both ways, like most of us, because next week or the week after, at some meeting down the country, Senator Hayes will speak of the extravagance, the squandermania of the Government, but when he comes in here, he wants to see equality between the country district justice and the city district justice. The next thing would be, if the Minister were soft in the matter, as he often proved soft with us, that the Government would be accused of paying out money without consideration of the cost to the taxpayer. We cannot have it both ways, and I do not think we should try to have it both ways.

Mr. M.J. Ryan

As a member of this House who is in close contact with the working of the courts, I feel that this Bill contains many admirable parts, with very few parts that are not so admirable. When I read this Bill it struck me that its title should be, not the Courts of Justice Bill, 1947, but "The Department of Justice (Relief from Worry) Bill, 1947". This Bill, apparently, was introduced to relieve the Minister for Justice and the Department of a number of worries which have been afflicting him for a considerable time. He has, no doubt, received representations from the judges and the justices as to the inadequacy of their salaries. He has received, perhaps, complaints about the working of the Circuit Court, and he has received representations from the justices about the unsatisfactory position of their pensions, so that the Bill has been introduced in order to enable the Minister to sleep soundly in his bed without having any nightmares to worry him.

Now, as regards the major portion of this Bill, it must command support and approval as regards the salaries of the judges and justices, having regard to their present-day cost of living and to the status which they are required to maintain. The increase in salary which they will receive under this Bill will be barely adequate to enable them to maintain their position as that position ought to be maintained. Therefore, that portion of the Bill must command unanimous support. Of course, some members of the House may say that that portion of the Bill which increases the salaries of the judges and justices does not go far enough. I quite agree that the district justices should get suitable remuneration for the work they do. I think, no matter what we may say here, that the policy of the Government has either been decided already or will scarcely be affected by our representations. Of course, the Bill seems to be the considered decision of the Government as to the amount of the increase which ought to be granted to the judges and the justices, and I do not think that any representations from us will affect that position.

Now, I would much prefer if this Bill had been limited to the salaries of judges and justices and to the pensions of district justices, and that the other provisions, dealing with the President of the Circuit Court and relating to the Circuit Court had been embodied in a Bill to be called, and rightly called, a Courts of Justice Bill. The introduction into this Bill of the provision dealing with the President of the Circuit Court means that a certain amount of controversy has been raised on an occasion when no controversy should have been raised. In my opinion, while there was considerable urgency for an increase in the salaries of judges and justices, there was no urgency whatever for the introduction into this Bill of a provision dealing with the President of the Circuit Court, because this provision not only provides for the appointment of a President of the Circuit Court but it raises other issues, issues as between the courts of this country—as between the status of the High Court and the status of the courts of local and limited jurisdiction which, I respectfully submit, should have been well considered before being introduced into legislation.

I have been reading lately in the Dáil Reports and in the Press that the Minister for Health is about to form what is known as a consultative council: that is a council of doctors to advise him on questions relating to the Health Bill now before the Dáil. We have seen the beneficial effects of what I may call co-operation between the medical profession and the Minister in hastening into legislation what might otherwise be an unpopular measure, and what was certainly an unpopular measure among certain people when it was introduced last year. We have also seen that the Minister for Agriculture has spoken about a consultative council of agriculturists. I know that, if the Minister for Agriculture introduced a provision relating to agriculture without consulting the agricultural interests, there would immediately be an outcry. Now, the provision in this Bill, dealing with the Circuit Court concerns the members of the legal profession, of persons who make their living in working in the courts and by the courts. I say that anybody who is able to make his living at any profession knows something about it. You may be pitchforked into a job although you have very little qualifications for it, but if you are going to earn your living by the sweat of your brow in open competition against the best brains in the country, then you must know something about your profession before you will succeed and make a good living at it.

I think it would be a very good thing if, before the introduction of the next Courts of Justice Bill, the Minister for Justice were to consult informally the President of the Incorporated Law Society and the Chairman of the Bar Council as to the measure he was about to introduce. Then he would be in a position to know the views of the work-a-day legal profession instead of having to depend upon civil servants, judges and other salaried people who are out of touch with the realities and practices in the profession. Therefore, I say that if the Minister for Justice had consulted the President of the Incorporated Law Society and the Chairman of the Bar Council before he introduced into this Bill the provision relating to the President of the Circuit Court that he probably would not have introduced it at all. That may be, perhaps, a paradox.

I have no great objection to the appointment of a President of the Circuit Court, that is qua President of the Circuit Court, but I have a very strong objection to the making of the President to the Circuit Court anex officio judge of the High Court. There is no necessity whatever for that provision in the Bill. As Senator O'Donovan has said: “Look at Section 10 of the Bill.” An outsider might be amazed, so to speak, at the very drastic powers given to the President of the Circuit Court. That is quite true. As I read that section, I began to wonder whether or not the President of the Circuit Court was not required to be a kind of judicial sergeant-major—that is to order the other circuit judges about. But that is a matter for the circuit judges, and I am sure the Minister ascertained the views of these judges before introducing these provisions. I am sure he has had representations from them, and, if they are satisfied with the powers given to the President of the Circuit Court, no outsiders—not even practising members of the profession —can have any grievance; but when the President of the Circuit Court, whose powers are set out in Section 10, is dealt with in Section 9, he is appointed as something more than President of the Circuit Court. He is appointed what is called an additional judge of the High Court. In other words, the President of the Circuit Court is to be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He is to be “My Lord” in the High Court and “Your Honour” in the Circuit Court. There are no rules of court at present which can deal with his position.

It has been suggested that a precedent for this appointment is the position of the President of the High Court who is ex officio a member of the Supreme Court. That is not a correct analogy at all. The President of the High Court, in status, takes precedence of the ordinary members of the Supreme Court. He comes next to the Chief Justice who occupies the position of the former Lord Chancellor and occupies the position of Lord Chief Justice in the old days, and in all the Judicature Acts, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the head of the King's Bench Division and the Chancery Division, were ex officio members of the Court of Appeal, but that created no difficulty whatever because they were all members of the superior courts of justice. Under the rules of 1905, the Supreme Court consisted of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, just as our High Court and Supreme Court are regarded as one, because the Supreme Court under the Constitution is an appellate court from the decisions of the High Court.

Certain question of law may be submitted to the Supreme Court from the Circuit Court, as provided in the Bill, but the function of the Supreme Court is to hear appeals from the High Court, so that, therefore, the High Court and Supreme Court are in one water tight compartment. The Circuit Court is in another. It is a court of low and limited jurisdiction. It can function only in a certain limited area and deal with cases of only a limited amount and limited value where land is concerned. Therefore, the introduction of this provision will cause a certain amount of difficulty and confusion. So far as I know, the only two reasons given for it are to give the President of the Circuit Court a certain status— it is like making a regimental sergeant-major an honorary first lieutenant— and because there is the precedent of the President of the High Court being ex officio a member of the Supreme Court.

This provision, in my submission, has not the support of any branch of the legal profession. In the other House, the members of the Bar and solicitors' profession asked the Minister not to proceed with this provision, but apparently his mind has been made up and I can only regret it, because, if he had consulted the members of the legal profession who are earning their living at their profession and working in the courts every day, he would have sensed their views on the matter. The Bar Council passed a resolution disapproving of it but that resolution was too late. The Bill had been printed and the Minister had committed himself and it was, therefore, a pure waste of time. The great advantage of prior consultation and conference between the Minister and the two heads of both branches of the legal profession would have removed a difficulty which ought never to have arisen. However, I do not think we can do anything about it, but it is something which should be a warning for the future, that the Minister should not rely solely upon his advisers in the service or his advisers on the Bench. They have what I may call merely a limited horizon and they are a limited number of individuals, but the professions as a whole contain some hundreds of practitioners who are fully aware of the implications of such a provision as this.

I can only say that I regret its introduction, as I feel that, in the actual working out of the provision, there may be a certain amount of confusion. Once the President of the Circuit Court sits in the High Court as a High Court judge, he will be very reluctant to go back and sit in the Circuit Court. We have always condemned what I may call temporary judicial appointments. They are sometimes necessary in the case of justices, and we have had temporary district justices who sit on the bench for a while and then go back to the Bar. That has never been tried in the case of the High Court.

We have had temporary circuit judges, but no temporary High Court judges, and this appointment is in the nature of the appointment of a temporary High Court judge. Instead of going back to the Bar, the man goes back to the Circuit Court and I think it is inopportune to bring forward such a provision as this without some warning to and some prior consultation with the profession. Personally, I have no strong feelings in the matter. I am merely voicing the views of the profession to which I belong, and I can only hope that, in future, when the new Courts of Justice Bill will be introduced, there will be that prior consultation between the Minister and the legal profession.

There are other provisions in the Bill which I welcome and particularly Section 16, which deals with a case stated by the Circuit judge. I do not think the Minister mentioned that, but reading the speech he made in the Dáil, that is the only section which might strictly belong to a Courts of Justice Bill as distinct from a "Department of Justice (Relief from Worry) Bill."

Personally, I welcome that paragraph. Under Section 22 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, a circuit judge was entitled to state a case by consent, but a decision of the Supreme Court practically made it useless. I am glad the Minister has introduced this section now, enabling the circuit judge to refer a question of law to the Supreme Court. Later on, perhaps on the Committee Stage, one might consider the reference of "questions" of law instead of "a question", as there may be more than one question to be referred.

I am a great believer in making the Supreme Court work, in other words, getting important questions of law which arise in the Circuit Court and even in the District Court decided authoritatively by the highest authority. Any legislation which enables a question of law arising in an inferior court to be decided in the High Court is always advantageous to the profession and to the litigants. I am glad this section makes provision for a case stated by a circuit judge to replace the case stated provided for by Section 22 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, which to a certain extent is now obsolete.

I strongly support the increase in salaries which has been granted and if the Minister could induce the Minister for Finance to agree to greater increases I would be very glad. I feel that the status and prestige of our judges and justices require that they should be free from financial worry. Many people who live in the country may be shocked at the high salaries that judges are paid, but that is due to a very superficial view of the whole matter. The farmers who never pay income-tax, who get food and so on practically for nothing, do not appreciate the high cost of living which prevails in Dublin, especially where judges with large salaries are concerned. I would like to know how many farmers receive begging letters and if they keep waste paper baskets for them. I believe that no one would think of sending begging letters to the ordinary farmer, but judges and those in judicial positions are fair game for these appeals on behalf of charity. Therefore, their salaries are barely adequate and I only wish they were greater. I wish the Bill well and trust that it is not too late for the Minister to reconsider the position of the President of the Circuit Court as embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Boland

Practically every Senator has done the same as Deputies in the Dáil regarding the district justices. As Senator O'Donovan said, we are not laying down basic salaries but providing for percentage increases on existing salaries. The differentiation between country justice and city justice was there already and we are only providing for a percentage increase. Senator Hayes is right about assistant secretaries, but nevertheless, they had £1,250 in 1939, and what I said in the other House about the 30 per cent. was that the district justice is doing slightly better as regards percentage increase than any member of the Civil Service, because a sliding scale was there in their case. Those who had £1,000 a year had come up to £1,200 odd, due to the cost of living in 1939, but they have undoubtedly more than £1,500 now.

Mr. Hayes

I will not argue it now, but it is not quite so simple.

Mr. Boland

I would like to have seen all these district justices, except the present city justices, on the same scale, but that was not possible and we have a percentage increase varying from 15 per cent. in the case of the higher judges to 30 per cent. in the case of others. That is as much as the Government is prepared to do and, on the whole, they are being fairly well treated.

Regarding the different nature of their work, the average district justice in the country has a much nicer time than the man in Dublin. He gets his expenses and also a certain subsistence allowance. It was not a flat rate, though I understand there is some question of fixing a flat rate now. That will have to be done by agreement. They are supposed to live in a centre in their own area and the travelling expenses count from that centre. They are paid subsistence allowances at the same rate as the higher ranks of the Civil Service. If I had the choice, I would prefer to be a country justice rather than a Dublin one. Regarding the travelling by bus, I think that happened only during the emergency, when there was very little petrol.

The question of the president was raised by Senator Sweetman and Senator Ryan. We went into that carefully. I did not think we were required to consult the Bar Council, with all respect to them. We consulted the judges and gave them an advance copy of the Bill. If we were doing something about the Bar, we would have consulted them. As I mentioned in the other House, the judges were consulted and we were told "they welcomed the general principle of appointing a president of the Circuit Court and were anxious to co-operate in carrying out their duties in accordance with the scheme proposed and appreciated that it would be a great advantage to the administration of the Circuit Court as a whole". I think that was satisfactory. They did not make any reference to the status of the president and I cannot agree with Senator Ryan on that matter. We went into it very carefully and decided it was necessary for the status of the president to have him ex officio a member of the High Court. It was not the intention that he would be there very often, but that he would be available if required; and I see no objection to that.

Senator Sweetman asked if members of the Rule-Making Committee were paid. They are not paid, but they have the services of a draftsman. The secretary is the county registrar and that is part of his ordinary work. As to Senator O'Dea's question about travelling expenses and maintenance, district justices are paid these but there will always be a dispute as to whether that is a satisfactory arrangement. They receive first-class travelling expenses if trains are available, and get the same rates if they use their cars. As to the point raised by Senator Sweetman, there is no necessity to make provision in that respect, as it is not anticipated that the question will arise. It would be very serious if it did. Senator Duffy stated that formerly there were only two judges in the Supreme Court and that there are five now. At that time there was another court, the Privy Council, which was the final court of appeal.

Mr. Sweetman

Nonsense.

Mr. Hayes

The Privy Council was never allowed to function.

Mr. Sweetman

The Privy Council did not function in this country after 1927.

Mr. O'Dea

They did.

Mr. Hayes

They were not allowed.

Mr. Boland

They were not there. They were done away with. I am not trying to throw odium in any way——

Mr. Hayes

There was another reason for having five judges. Was there not a mathematical reason, of one High Court judge and one Supreme Court judge being overruled?

Mr. Boland

That was so. As to the provision of pensions for widows, that would be a big job. It does not happen in the Civil Service and I am afraid the Minister for Finance would not listen to such a proposal. Senator S. T. Ruane referred to the position of court clerks and juries. They come under a separate Bill. Senator Ryan said that he would prefer to have two Bills. That was the original intention but there was no urgency about the position of president. That Bill was ready when the salary question came up. It was called the Circuit Court Bill and proposed to deal only with the reorganisation of the Circuit Court. When the question of an increase came up we decided that as payment of judges was provided for in the 1924 Act it would be as well to change the title and to call it the Courts of Justice Bill and to provide for the increases there. That is why all matters are dealt with in one Bill.

I would prefer if somebody else had to deal with the increases, but that was provided for in the 1924 Act. Anybody who knows anything about the amount of work done realises that there is a need to have someone to direct it. Those who know the position in certain of the big towns, in which no court sits, are aware that a considerable expense is incurred for witnesses, but there was nobody to say that a court should sit there. We might have asked judges to do so and they might turn it down. They will be required now to sit in these places and the convenience of the public will have to be considered. I think that is a big point.

Mr. O'Dea

Senator Ruane referred to the position of District Court clerks and the Minister stated that that would be a matter for another Bill. I should like to know if it is intended to bring in such a Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator cannot make a further speech now.

Mr. O'Dea

Is it intended to provide for people who were clerks and resigned, but later were taken on again for a certain time and then got no pensions?

Mr. Boland

There is some consideration to be given to the whole question of the clerks. All I can say is that if there is provision made, it will not be in the Courts of Justice Bill, but in the Court Officers Bill, and similarly with juries.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 9th July.