Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1953

Vol. 43 No. 3

Courts of Justice Bill, 1953—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

This Bill has four main objects. First of all, it proposes to increase the jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Courts in civil cases so as to bring the jurisdiction of these courts more into line with the present day value of money. Secondly, it provides for a rearrangement of the Circuit Court circuits and the District Court districts. Thirdly, it allows for the appointment of an additional High Court judge, which appointment has become necessary because of the congestion of business in the High Court. Finally, it authorises increased salaries for judges and justices. In addition to its main provisions the Bill contains a few miscellaneous provisions about which I think there will be no difficulty.

There is not much I need to say in regard to judicial salaries. The Bill carries out the recommendations of the Select Committee of the Dáil except in so far as the date of payment is concerned. The view of the Government is that, because the increased salaries proposed in the Bill are so much better than the salaries originally proposed, it would not be fair to the taxpayer to ask the Oireachtas to authorise payment of the new salaries from a date earlier than 1st April, 1953.

As regards judicial pensions, it is proposed that a judge appointed in future shall not be entitled to retire on pension until he has reached the age of 65 years unless his retirement is brought about by ill-health. The same provision will apply to justices. In addition, the Bill proposes that the qualifying period of service of a justice who is to get full pension shall be reduced from 30 years to 20 years. The pension provisions of the Bill will not apply to existing judges at all, but they will apply to existing justices, if they so elect.

Section 5 of the Bill deals with the expenses of members of the judiciary and the section will replace Section 77 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, which has been found defective and difficult of interpretation. It is not intended to alter the existing practice in regard to the payment of these expenses and Section 5 of the Bill will simply provide a clear and unequivocal statutory foundation for what has always been the practice.

As I intimated in the Dáil, the Government does not propose to proceed with the reorganisation of the Circuit Court circuits, nor do I propose to go ahead with the reorganisation of the District Court districts, until the report comes to hand of a special committee we propose to set up to inquire into the operation of the Courts of Justice Acts. The Bill, however, proposes that power to re-organise should be given to the Government in the case of the circuits and to the Minister for Justice in the case of the districts. In regard to the circuits the figures available leave no doubt that the work in the Circuit Court is unevenly distributed and that in some circuits there is too little work, whereas in the Dublin circuit the two judges permanently assigned may well have too much work. The same is the position in regard to the District Court districts, outside the Dublin Metropolitan District.

When the circuits have been re-organised, the idea is that there shall be one supernumerary circuit judge who will be available to assist any of his colleagues who, from time to time, may need assistance. In the District Court, we will probably have five or six extra supernumerary justices who will also be available to assist their colleagues. This position in both the Circuit and District Court will last for a few years and will act as an insurance against any particular circuit or district created under the Bill having too much work. As I said, however, it is not proposed to go ahead with the reorganisations until the report of the special committee is available. By that time, we will be able to see more clearly how the increased jurisdiction is affecting the work of both courts.

I now come to the proposal to increase the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and the District Court. In both cases, the reason for the increase is the same, namely, that money has lost more than half its value since the present financial limits were set by the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. In the Bill as introduced the increase in tort was limited to £25 but the demand to increase the tort jurisdiction to £50 was so insistent in the Dáil and so strongly supported by a number of Deputies on both sides of the Houses, including solicitor Deputies, that I agreed to do so. The matter was left to a free vote and the Dáil decided by a large majority that the jurisdiction in tort and contract should be the same.

I come now to deal with the miscellaneous provisions in the Bill. Section 12 reintroduces a practice which existed during the emergency under which High Court judges on circuit did not visit appeal towns where there was no business. This section was put in at the suggestion of the president of the High Court. Section 13 of the Bill allows for the remittal and transfer of actions on consent of the parties by the master of the High Court. This section was also put in at the suggestion of the president of the High Court.

Section 15 allows for the reconstitution of the Superior Court Rules Committee and provides that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society shall be entitled to two nominated members, instead of the president of the society who is at present an ex-officio member. This is being done at the request of the society. The section also clears up a doubtful matter concerned with the power of the rules committee to make rules in regard to election petitions.

Section 19 of the Bill validates a practice which is considered to be of doubtful legality and under which part-heard actions are transferred from one venue in a circuit to another. Section 29 of the Bill clears up a difficulty which arises under the Rent Restrictions Acts and this section was inserted because of a recommendation of the Rents and Leaseholds Commission.

Section 31, of the Bill, which deals with desertion cases, validates an existing practice which we have been advised has no legal foundation. Finally, Section 30 of the Bill makes it quite clear that there is an appeal to the Circuit Court from an order of the District Court under Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907.

The foregoing are the main provisions of the Bill and the other provisions are purely consequential. The immediate cost of granting to the members of the judiciary the increased salaries proposed and of providing an additional High Court judge will be approximately £29,000 a year but the eventual cost, when the number of circuits and districts have been reduced, is likely to be no more than £16,000 a year. The increased salaries will, of course, mean higher pension charges and there may be some slight increases in judicial travelling and subsistence expenses.

Before I conclude I should like, as I did in the Dáil, to thank, on behalf of the Government, the members of the Select Committee of the Dáil who so kindly gave their time to the study of judicial remuneration and produced such a helpful report. I should also like to thank those members of the two branches of the profession who saw me from time to time and raised various points in regard to the Bill. At times we were able to accept the arguments advanced and, where we were unable to accept them, they were nevertheless given the most careful consideration. In all cases the views of each branch of the profession were brought to the attention of the Government. I am saying all this in case there may be any suggestion that the decisions in regard to the matters in the Bill were come to without full examination.

Professor Hayes

This is a Bill with which, in general, I think we all find ourselves in agreement. The Bill has had a very curious history. It is long delayed and could certainly be regarded now as being very much overdue. The Minister says it has four main objects, but, from the point of view of the layman, one could say that it consists of two entirely dissimilar parts, one of which deals with salaries of the members of the judiciary and the other with the jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Courts. One would like to suggest that these two things should be kept separate, that the salary question could have been dealt with in a Bill entirely by itself and the other matters dealt with in another Bill, because then the delays that have taken place might not have been so great and so bad for the persons concerned.

The first point that strikes me with regard to the connection between these two things is that the jurisdiction of certain courts must naturally be altered in view of the changed value of money and that jurisdiction is altered by doubling in tort and in contract the amount of money that can be involved in cases before these courts, but that particular procedure is not followed with regard to salaries; that is to say, the district justice and the circuit judge now find themselves in the position that business which did not come into their courts before now comes into them, and the district justice is dealing with claims for larger sums of money because £25 in 1924 is considered more than the equivalent of £50 to-day. If that is so, surely the £25 he got in 1924 would be worth far more than £50 to-day, but, while his work is increased on the basis that the value of money is half what it was, his salary is not increased on that basis at all.

Before coming to the merits of this matter, it strikes me also that it should be possible—I know that the law is complicated and difficult and that it is quite foolish to say that the draftsmen should write in plain and simple language, because they just cannot, for a variety of reasons, one, of course, being the history of all these legal matters—to set down in the Bill, so that any ordinary person could find it, what the salaries of the judges are going to be. You cannot find them in the Bill, unless you do a certain amount of mathematics.

Mr. Boland

A little addition.

Professor Hayes

It is much more difficult than addition. The salaries were fixed at certain figures in 1924. In 1947 they were all increased on a percentage basis, 25 per cent. in some cases and a different percentage in others. Having worked that out, you come along and find in this Bill the addition of a sum of money, not a percentage. You find what their salaries are and you then discover that you did not take notice of the change in the value of money. It certainly seems extraordinary that you could not put into this Bill, in 1953, after a delay of two years, what the salaries of judges are going to be so that he who runs may read. You would require three Acts of Parliament and a ready reckoner to find out what the salaries of the judges are and if you are not very skilled in the reading of Acts of Parliament and the handling of a ready reckoner you will be in a bad position.

Mr. Baxter

You would want to be a professor.

Professor Hayes

Not all professors are professors of mathematics.

Mr. Douglas

Thank goodness.

Professor Hayes

With regard to the question of jurisdiction, the Minister's statement that that is going to be the subject of a special inquiry would indicate that we ought, perhaps, accept that and let the experiment be tried for a period until the committee has made its report and confine ourselves to the question of salaries.

Certain members of the judiciary, district justices—I do not want to argue this but it certainly should be said—were promised in the clearest possible manner in an official letter from the Department of Justice that their salaries would be increased from the 1st July, 1951. Matters were then held up and a special committee appointed. The special committee recommended unanimously, I think, that their salaries should be increased as from the 1st April, 1952. Now, in the month of December, 1953, we are on the eve of passing into law a Bill which will increase their salaries from the 1st April, 1953.

I suggest that there must be a considerable amount of bungling and mismanagement in that and very bad faith with people who have no remedy such as other people who can go out and hold public meetings and so forth. We should remember that all these people, from the highest to the lowest, are doing a very important job. One may be impatient with slowness and it may be that sometimes people would like to streamline certain processes, but I am entirely confident that the present system, where the judiciary is entirely separated from the Executive, is as sound one and it is well worth while putting up with delays and occasional stupidity for the purpose of having the whole system exactly as it is. Let us appreciate what we have now and what we would have if we changed the system, having regard to the system of courts which obtains in other places.

It may be unpopular to advocate good pay for people whose salaries appear high, but these people are doing an all-important job and they should be placed in a secure and attractive position. It would be well worth while for everybody's sake; it would be well worth while not only for the commercial community, but for ordinary poor people as well as rich people.

The comment I would like to make about it—I made it often before—is that these people have the misfortune to be specialists and not administrators. In the State as it is now managed the specialist, whether he be a lawyer, engineer or doctor, is not going to get the same treatment from Departments and from Ministers as the administrator. The increases these people are getting are not in line with the increases given, I think, to the higher grades of the Civil Service.

At any rate, más mall is mithid—I suppose it is better late than never. The people who have been waiting for these increases have made a very sound case. They are getting rather meagre justice at this particular moment. They are getting it in a very belated manner and apparently in a very begrudging fashion, but such as the Bill is we are not able to improve on it. We have to be thankful for small mercies. I would like to see this question of salaries separated from such questions as those relating to jurisdiction and appointments. If that were so, one could get a clearer discussion. In the meantime I am in favour of passing the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Baxter

I agree with practically everything Senator Hayes has said. This action of the Minister's is belated and I do not know why this matter does not commend itself to the Administration and the Legislature generally. On the whole we can be proud of our courts and of the people who adorn our benches. I agree that if you want to secure the services of the very best available to the people in a judicial capacity you must be prepared to pay them well. It would be very unfortunate from the point of view of the administration of justice and the interpretation of the law if we did not have the best possible talent available to us.

How are we going to secure that if we do not show our appreciation by paying a remuneration comparable with the remuneration paid to men of the same ability in other spheres? District justices in the country areas are paid lower salaries than their colleagues in the City of Dublin. I do not say that the people in the City of Dublin are overpaid; I do not think they are. I find it difficult to understand why it is that we pay members of the same type of court one salary in one place and a different salary in another place.

I imagine we should not put anybody on the District Court in the country if he is not of such competence that he could be transferred to the capital at any time. He should have inherent in him that understanding of the law, that wisdom and general knowledge which would justify his transfer from any part of the country to the City of Dublin if that were regarded as good for the service. As I say, members of the District Court are paid less in the rural districts than in the city. If the Administration is not satisfied with the person or if they do not like him, they can hop him from one part of the country to the other. I do not know what the position is in that respect.

The interpretation and administration of the law are just as difficult in rural districts as in the City of Dublin. Life is, perhaps, complicated. I think that in an urban centre in the country you find more complicated problems to resolve. The urban and rural communities have their difficulties and a district justice must be able to understand both sides.

There is the view that these people are paid on the basis of the amount of work done. I think that is an old appreciation of the value of services rendered. If that be so, I wonder is there any other set of servants administering the affairs of this State who are paid on their output. Is that not what it amounts to? If that be the standard fixed, they are just paid on the number of cases they handle in a year. I wish we could do that with everybody from the top to the bottom. If everybody in this State were paid on that basis it would be amazing how many people would be going around down-at-heel, but at least you would know when they were down-at-heel that they were paid on the basis of output.

If that is the basis, and I understand it is, it is a thoroughly unsound one. If you take the case of our Circuit Court judges, I think their salaries are the same wherever they serve, whether it is the city or the country. I do not know why there should be this reflection on the members of the judiciary who serve as district justices and it is something which the people from the rural community should take exception to. The person whom you require to administer the law and justice in the country to-day really wants to know the country and wants to know his people and it may very well be it is a mark of the competence and efficiency of district justices in many areas, and an indication that they are doing their job well that there is not more work to do. If a man has the common sense and the capacity to ensure the maintenance of peace and make people who want to go into his court, appreciate that it is not going to be so profitable, they will stay out and settle their differences. That man is lowering his output by doing that.

I consider there is justification for a re-examination in this regard. Speaking as a countryman, I believe that there should be the same equitable treatment in regard to the studying of problems from the bench down the country as in Dublin.

There is just one other comment I want to make—and it is in support of the Bill—in regard to the increase in jurisdiction of our courts. That is a very welcome decision. If the Minister took the line of least resistance in that matter I am very glad that the Dáil had the common sense and the understanding of the needs as they are in the country to-day to decide as they did. The more decentralisation we have, even in the law, the better for the country. This whole idea of cramming all the law into the Dublin courts is not good from any point of view. I have no doubt at all about the competence of these people to determine issues. In fact, whether a lawyer becomes merely a district justice or the president of the High Court or the Supreme Court, in many instances it is merely a matter of fortune. Therefore, there is no doubt that many of the people that man our benches in the lower courts are as competent to give a decision on the issues that come before them as any lawyer sitting in a higher court.

I am quite satisfied that the Minister could have gone even further and justice would still be done. However, in so far as he has broken from the position as it was and increased the jurisdiction of the lower courts I am glad to support him. I agree generally with what Senator Hayes has said and it would be a very good thing if the Minister would also agree because I believe what he said is supported by reason and fact. If the Oireachtas wanted to do justice in the way it should be prepared to do it, the line that should have been followed by the Minister is the line indicated by Senator Hayes in his speech.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Táimse leis i bfabhar an Bhille seo agus, ar nós na gcainteoirí eile a labhair, is dóigh liom gur cheart é a dhéanamh roimhe seo; ach is fearr déanach ná riamh mar adúirt an Seanadóir Ó hAodha. Tá dualgas orrainne anseo neamhspleáchas na mBreithiún do choimeád sa tír seo. Tá sé sin curtha síos i mBunreacht na hEireann, ach níor leor go mbeadh sé sa Bhunreacht mura mbeadh sé le feiceaíl trí íocaíocht a bheith ar aon-dul leis. Ní fhéadfaidís a bheith neamh-spleách mura mbeadh íocaíocht ard a ndóthain acu chun na dualgaisí a bhíonn orthu do chomhlíonadh.

I am thuairimse, go dtí seo do bhí bearna ró-mhór idir Breithiún na hArd-Chúirte agus na Cúirte Uachtaraí agus Breithiúin Cúirteanna Ioctaracha. Is maith liom anois go bhfuil an bhearna sin á lionadh beagán, ach b'fhéidir go bhfuil sé róleathan fós.

Is mór an tathrú atá tagtha i gcás an dlí. Is cuimhin linn go léir an tráth sa tír seo nuair nach mbíodh meas madra ag na daoine ar an dlí ach do dob shin í an uair a bhí Rialtas Shasana i mbun na tíre ach anois unair atá rialú na tíre fúinn féin tá an meas ar an dlí agus ar na cúirteanna ag fás in aghaidh an lae.

As I have said in Irish, I am very much in favour of this Bill. It is only right that those people who administer the law in this country should be placed and kept in an independent position. The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the Constitution of the land but in my opinion that would not be sufficient without placing those people in an independent position as regards remuneration. The judges of all the courts in the country, high and low, are placed in a position apart from the general community. They have to follow a certain rule of life and it does not matter whether they are judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Circuit Court or the District Court. They have to follow the same rule of life and have to preserve their immunity from the general public. That in itself is a certain sacrifice to have to make. They have also to observe a certain social standard, whether they are in the cities or in the country. It is well that we would take that into our calculation when determining what remuneration these judges should get.

The same principle applies to judges whether they belong to the upper courts or to the lower courts. I have always held the view that there has been too much differentiation between the remuneration paid to the judges of the higher courts and that paid to the district justices. The district justices have to live the same kind of life, they have to keep themselves apart from the people in the same way as the judges of the higher courts. In any case I am glad to see that their salaries are being stepped up to a degree that will enable them to keep up their social standing in the country.

Senator Baxter referred to the differentiation proposed in this Bill between district justices in Dublin and Cork and those elsewhere. He maintained they should all be on the same level when they are all qualified in the same way and that there should be no distinction in salary or any other way. I would not hold with Senator Baxter in that. Everyone knows the job of a district justice in Dublin is much more exacting than it is down the country. There is a greater rush of business in the courts in Dublin and the cases that present themselves are often more difficult and the justice would not have the same amount of time to deal with them. Again, the cost of living in the city is much higher than it is in the country and that must be taken into account. I think the Minister is wise in preserving the differentiation between metropolitan and country justices.

There was a big discussion in the Dáil on this measure and I am glad that the Minister emerged from it with the Bill very little amended. He was confronted with a good many lawyers. No doubt they were very helpful. I have read the debates and I must say the contributions made on this measure in the Dáil were very good, but whether we would all agree with them or not is another matter. As regards jurisdiction, I think it would not be appropriate in this House to go into that very much. After all, the Dáil has already decided.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

That is no reason why we should not go into it.

Mr. Kissane

The Dáil has already decided this by an overwhelming majority. Of course, there is nothing to prevent us from discussing it here, but I do not think that anything we can do would alter the position that has been reached in the Dáil as regards the jurisdiction that should be given to the Circuit or District Courts.

There was the question of the law of contract and the law of tort. The financial limitation in both has been stepped up—from £25 to £50 in the case of contract and from £10 to £50 in the case of tort. I would consider the latter a very great jump. Whether it can be justified or not is another question. I do not know if any really cogent argument was put forward in the Dáil for having the financial limitation in the case of the law of tort on the same level as it is in the case of the law of contract. The question is whether it is easier for a district justice to come to a decision in the case of the law of tort than in the case of the law of contract. I hold—as many of those who spoke in the Dáil held— that the law of contract is much simpler. Where an issue on the law of contract is being determined, you have first of all to find out whether there is a contract at all or not, whether there is a unity of wills to bring about a valid contract and then whether the terms or conditions of the contract have been fulfilled or whether they are capable of being fulfilled. That does not take very long to decide.

The case of tort is a much more difficult and complicated matter, especially in connection with those cases that come into courts from time to time, accident or "knocking-down" cases, where there is a plea of negligence put forward by the plaintiff against the defendant and a plea of contributory negligence put forward by the defendant against the plaintiff. There is always this fictitious person who is known to the courts and to the law as "the reasonable man", to ascertain what a reasonable man would do in such a case, whether he could have avoided the accident or not had the person exercised reasonable caution. All this has to be found out in an action in tort and is no easy matter.

In any case whatever financial limitation is put to the jurisdiction of a district justice or Circuit Court judge there is always a way of circumventing it and, indeed, it is being done. We all know that a client, on the advice of his lawyer, will go to the High Court, sometimes even with a flimsy case.

Professor Hayes

And sometimes win with a flimsy case.

Mr. Kissane

Yes, whereas he might lose with a more serious case. The best way to illustrate that is to give a practical example. I remember a "knocking-down" case which was brought to the High Court although, indeed, it was more appropriate to the Circuit Court. It had to be, then, an action for £1,000 damages. It was the case of an old lady who was alleged to have been knocked down. She was not knocked down at all. She was turning the corner when a car came round at a quick pace. She fell beside it in a fright. She immediately went to bed and on the advice of her solicitor took an action against the driver of the motor-car. The claim was filed in the High Court but before it came to hearing the case was settled. She got something like a couple of hundred pounds damages because the insurance company was frightened into settling the case when it was brought to the High Court. Also, of course, there are higher fees for the lawyers in the High Court. The case was settled and as soon as it was settled the old lady emerged as hale and hearty as ever. I am only giving that as an example of how things can be defeated.

I welcome this Bill. No matter what some of the Senators have said about it, the retrospective payment is generous enough—going back, as it does, to the 1st April, 1953. I am sure that those for whom the increases are intended will be quite satisfied. I think their case is being fairly met.

Professor Hayes

Quite satisfied?

Mr. Kissane

Yes.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

After many vicissitudes, the Courts of Justice Bill, 1953, has found its way into the Seanad.

I would oppose this Bill, and strongly oppose it, were it not for what the Minister has told us. He said that, in the relatively near future, we may have a commission set up which will inquire generally into the working of the courts and into the jurisdiction that will have been conferred upon them by this Bill and that, to some extent, the Bill will be only in the nature of an experiment.

The question of the remuneration of judges and justices of our courts has been delayed too long. That is another reason why I shall not oppose this Bill. As Senator Hayes has indicated, the matter of the remuneration of judges should have been dealt with by a separate Bill, and another Bill should have been introduced to provide for the matters in the present Bill, other than the remuneration of members of the judiciary. In the circumstances which I have mentioned, I am supporting this Bill.

I trust that the Minister's hopes as to the additional jurisdiction which he is giving to the Circuit Court and the District Court will be justified. I have an open mind on the matter. As to the Circuit Court, I am rather inclined to think that the Minister is making a mistake in seeking to reduce the number of circuit judges by one. It may be that time will justify the Minister in his view that he will be able to do with only nine judges instead of, say, ten as to-day. I have some experience of the Dublin Circuit Court. We have two judges on that circuit who work extremely hard. They are doing their very utmost to keep abreast of their normal work within their jurisdiction to-day and they are finding it extremely difficult to do so.

It must be remembered that until, say, two years ago, we had three circuit judges sitting in Dublin. To-day, we have only two. After this Bill has been passed the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court will be considerably increased. I find it difficult to imagine that the judges who will be there will carry out all the work which they will have to do by reason of the increase of jurisdiction. I am not overlooking the fact that, to the extent that the jurisdiction of the District Court will have been increased, some work which they do to-day will be taken away and in that way make room for additional work. With the growth of Dublin and the growth of litigation generally and with the growth of business by virtue of Statute which has extended so much within recent years—with the added jurisdiction—it will be impossible for us in Dublin to carry on with only two circuit judges. The Minister has told us that, by rearrangement of circuits elsewhere, he may be able to ensure that there will be no difficulty or trouble in getting the work done in the other circuits. Let us hope the Minister is correct. The jurisdiction of the District Court has been considerably extended. Again, I have an open mind on that matter. At one time I thought, in regard to the increase of the jurisdiction in tort from £10 to £50, that the Minister was going too far. Perhaps he is not. We shall have great difficulty in some District Court areas in having the District Court jurisdiction in contract and tort carried out to the satisfaction of people—at any rate, so far as time is concerned. In my view, it will be impossible in certain District Court areas to give full effect to the added jurisdiction.

I now come to the position with regard to the salaries of some justices. As the House has heard, there are different salaries for country and city district justices. Senator Baxter suggested that perhaps the justices should be paid on a flat rate—that there should be one figure for all justices. Senator Kissane said no. I do not know. Possibly something can be said for both views. A justice has a District Court near Cork City. There is a justice near Waterford City, and we have a district justice near Dublin City. To a very large extent, these justices do a great deal of city work. I think they should be paid in the same manner as justices appointed for cities who, under the Acts, are called metropolitan justices. The Minister should provide that justices whose districts include part of cities, such as those I have mentioned, should be on the same basis in regard to salary as metropolitan justices.

I am disappointed as to the salaries provided for justices, circuit judges and High and Supreme Court judges. I think that in all these cases the salaries should be higher. Really, I think we do not pay these men in the way we should pay them. We are extremely fortunate in this country in that our courts and our system of the administration of justice and, for that matter, our system of appointment of justices and judges command the respect and complete confidence of the people. The fact that the people of this country have complete faith and confidence in our courts is a matter of which we—members of the Oireachtas—should feel very proud. Of course judges cannot give satisfaction to everybody. A judge or justice always gives satisfaction to a successful litigant, but to the unsuccessful litigant he is perhaps the worst judge in the world. However, that view is only held for a short time and, generally, our system of the administration of justice has the complete confidence of the people.

To that administration of justice we should be able to attract the very best people we can find and we shall not attract the very best people unless we provide adequate and remuneration for them. I suggest that the remuneration here is not adequate and I would oppose strongly that part of the Bill were it not for the reasons I have given. The Select Committee reported that the increases should be made retrospective as from April, 1952. The Bill provides otherwise—that they should be retrospective only from April last. I think the Minister should reconsider that matter because I feel that all parties concerned, judges and justices, have been too long deprived of an increment to which they were and are entitled. Their remuneration was increased last in 1947 and since then there has been a very considerable fall in the value of money. Taking that suggestion with the Minister's reason for increasing the jurisdiction as mentioned by Senator Hayes, it cannot be said that I am unreasonable and I ask him to consider it very carefully.

The Minister takes power in the Bill to appoint an additional High Court judge and I say that he is quite right in that. There is urgent need at present for an additional High Court judge. There is a substantial amount of work waiting for another judge. It may be said that if we appoint this new judge we may have a judge at times not doing anything. I am sure that this will not be the case but it would be much better that we should have a judge at times with nothing to do rather than have a lot of work ready to be done by a judge who was not there. I fully approve of the power the Minister is taking to appoint a new High Court judge.

It was also said in another place during the passage of this Bill that the law vacations should be shorter and that judges should sit longer hours. I am sure that the vacation should not be very much shorter. Recently one of the vacations—what might be described as the summer or long vacation—was shortened slightly, but I am not so sure that any of the other vacations should be shortened. People engaged in the profession of law, solicitors and barristers, have other things to do besides attending courts, and barristers and solicitors welcome the opportunity which the vacations provide to enable them to get done work that cannot be done while the courts are sitting. As to earlier hours, the hours from which judges should sit and to which they should sit, again we have something to do besides being in court at 10 o'clock or 10.30 o'clock in the morning. Most people find it difficult enough to get to court at 11 o'clock and they are not away a bit too early from the court at 4 o'clock.

I hope for the success of the Bill and I thank the Minister on behalf of my profession for the considerate manner in which he received the views of my profession and for the assistance which he and the members of his Department have at all times given to my profession.

Mr. Boland

I very much appreciate what Senator O'Reilly has said and I should like to say that if we had got in the other House anything like the reception for the proposed increase in salaries that we have got here, I would not have been reluctant to increase them much more than they were increased. It may be within the recollection of Senators that when we set up a committee to go into this question, two Parties refused even to take part in it. These are some of the difficulties which we have to face in matters of this kind. I certainly do not feel too happy that we were not able to carry out exactly what was promised, but, at the same time, what has emerged as a result of the deliberations of the committee is that actuarially the district justice and others are in a better position than they would have been, if they had got what they were told they would get in the letter written to them nearly two years ago.

I have had the matter examined actuarially, because naturally I have to try to meet some of the complaints made, and the financial benefits proposed to be conferred by this Bill on justices and circuit judges are much more valuable than the financial benefits they were told they were going to get and the capital cost to the State of the provisions in the Bill exceeds what was promised by about £45,000.

Professor Hayes

The capital value?

Mr. Boland

Yes, the capital value —you know the way actuaries work.

Professor Hayes

I knew there was a snag. You could not prove that to anybody.

Mr. Boland

What they were promised was much less per annum than the committee afterwards recommended and I want to repeat what I said in my opening statement, that I personally and the Government feel very grateful to the members of the committee because they took a lot of the political burden off our shoulders and shared it with us. Unfortunately, there is in this country a strong objection to giving people who have what are considered large salaries any increase and that is the reason I was not able to do all I should have liked to have done. Senators know that they were promised £300 a year increase and they are getting £450 under this Bill. The increase does not go back as far as the committee recommended, but we thought that, having regard to the fact that it is a big increase, going back to 1st April was meeting them pretty fairly. I was sorry as a member of the committee that we did not go back further, but we had to consider other services and, when all these things are taken into consideration, we feel that, on the whole, they have not done badly.

Senator Hayes, I suppose, has reason to object to the way in which the salaries are dealt with in the Bill and to the way in which they were dealt with in the other Bill, but we hope to consolidate all the Courts of Justice Acts soon and one will not require to be a mathematician to find out exactly what judges are paid when that consolidation has been completed. I agree that there are two parts in the Bill, but the last Bill in which there was an increase of salary for judges in 1947 also contained other provisions. The Act which set up the courts also had other provisions.

Professor Hayes

That was a foundation Act.

Mr. Boland

It was, but we followed that in subsequent Acts and, when we had to increase the salaries, other matters were put in as well. I think it is not a bad line at all.

Senator Kissane was right in what he said about the difference between the work in the District Courts in Dublin and in the country. There is no question that it is much more difficult work in the city and I think Senator O'Reilly agrees that it is much more difficult work. There are more cases and some of them are very much more difficult and the justices have often to deal with more experienced counsel. Generally speaking, I think the life of a district justice in the country is far more easy than it is in the Dublin District Court. Anyone who knows the position will admit that there was always that differentiation and I think it was quite justified.

With regard to the Circuit Court, we are going to have, as I stated already, an inquiry into the whole judicial system in the country. It is proposed to set up a committee and all these questions in regard to the Circuit Court and the work to be a done will be considered. It may be of interest to Senators to know that we made an examination of the work done in the Circuit Courts in the country during the past year. In one case the judge sat only 73 days and in another 85 days. In Dublin the sittings are over twice as long as that. I am quite satisfied that the judges themselves have made no objection to this and a lot of them are quite prepared to do more work.

Under the 1946 Act, I think, Dublin was reorganised and we made provision for a President of the Circuit Court. A judge can be brought in from outside to help in Dublin. They have been doing that. I think that meets Senator O'Reilly's point. If there is an increase of work in Dublin and one judge is slack he will have no objection to helping in Dublin. I do not think there is any more I can say. I am very pleased at the reception the Bill got here as opposed to the reception it got from certain sections in the other House.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next stage?

Mr. Boland

In view of the fact that this committee is set up and that there is really not much to amend, perhaps the Seanad would complete the Bill now?

Professor Hayes

We cannot amend the Bill in the way we would like to amend the provisions with regard to salaries. If we accept the Minister's statement that the question of jurisdiction would be investigated, we should not put down an amendment to that part of the Bill.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

I would like to ask the Minister to deal with the point raised by Senator O'Reilly relative to the alteration of status of the near metropolitan justices.

Mr. Boland

I dealt with that matter in the other House. An amendment was put down which was ruled out of order because it imposed a charge. I pointed out that the work of the justice in County Dublin very largely originated in the County Dublin although the court meets in Kilmainham. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, Deputy Lynch, pointed out, as did Senator O'Reilly, that other areas in the same country could equally claim the same status as the metropolitan justice if we were to do as suggested. I and the Department have examined the matter and we think there is no case for it.

There are now two justices permanently in that area whereas formerly there was only one. I really think there is no case to give this justice the same status as a metropolitan justice. It would mean that those justices who always worked in the city could be required to deal with work in the county also. It would really affect their position. There was no special case that I could see.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

A large portion of the No. 12 District Court area comprises the City of Dublin. Perhaps, in that case the Minister might later on see if he could, provided the facts warranted such action, have the justice dealing with that area treated as a metropolitan district justice. The area now includes places like Ballyfermot, parts of Rathfarnham and Howth. If the Minister tells me he will reconsider the matter with a view to having, if the facts warrant it, the justice brought within the city area as a metropolitan justice, I would be satisfied.

Mr. Boland

I am not going to give a promise of that kind. Although the courts are held in the city, a lot of work originates in the county. Some areas have actually lost. Some of the metropolitan areas were formerly in the county. There are two justices where there was formerly only one. The whole thing will be examined when the reorganisation takes place. I do not want it to be taken that I am giving a promise.

Mr. O'Higgins

Would the Minister direct specific attention to this particular case? Senator O'Reilly is quite right. Portion of this area now takes in part of the city. The Minister and his Department are well aware that it is an area in which there have been rather colossal building activities over the last few years.

Mr. Boland

We will look into the whole thing when the reorganisation takes place.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hartnett

I would like to ask the Minister, in the case of the few Circuit Court judges and, perhaps, judges of the High Court or justices who are already retired, whether he would consider paying pensions to them at a higher rate appropriate to the new increased salaries? Circuit Court judges and High Court judges are all over 72 years of age. I think it would be a very generous gesture on the part of the Government.

Mr. Boland

If these things could be confined to one or two individuals it would be very easy. Unfortunately if we went in for retrospective payments of that kind we would bring in great numbers. I cannot agree to the Senator's request for that very sound reason. If you could confine it to one or two it might be all right but you can never do that. It would have to have general application.

Mr. Hartnett

There are not more than two Circuit Court judges and, perhaps, one judge of the Supreme Court involved.

Mr. Boland

There are many thousands of civil servants who would be involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 10 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. O'Donnell

As an ordinary member of the public who has no connection with the law, I would like to make one or two remarks. In my experience this is the first time I have seen the State take vocational guidance in a matter of this kind. I would like to congratulate the Minister on that because I know it is not the custom in other Departments to do that. I understand that in regard to this Bill the Law Society, as well as the committee of the House, was consulted. This is a very good precedent and I hope it will be carried out again. In many instances in other Departments, Ministers first make the decisions and afterwards seek other people's comments upon the decisions to which they have come.

There is one thing that strikes me with regard to what Senator O'Reilly said. He was congratulating the Minister on the general quality of the judges and this is a commendation with which I entirely agree. It does seem to me, however, as an ordinary man in the street that these gentlemen who dispense justice should by no means be left open to bribery or corruption. That has never happened here and I hope it will not. One remark he made which I cannot allow to pass without comment is that in which he was congratulating the Minister on the manner of appointment. I am afraid that is not generally accepted because it is felt by the public that the appointment of certain judges has a certain political quality.

Professor Hayes

Or lack of quality.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am not going to say that that in any way reduces the reasonableness of those appointed but to the public it does seem that certain judges have been appointed——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is this relevant to the Bill?

Mr. O'Donnell

Senator O'Reilly spoke about the same matter.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not think it is relevant to the Bill.

Mr. O'Donnell

I will accept your judgment.

Professor Hayes

Perhaps when Senator O'Donnell was saying the Minister accepted vocational guidance he had not read the appendices to the report of the Dáil Committee which show the memoranda sent in by the judges and the district justices about their salary. If he read what they said they wanted, what the committee suggested they should get and what the Minister is not giving them, I do not think he would be so complimentary to the Minister with regard to accepting vocational guidance.

I would like to ask the Minister, now that he is getting the Bill through and since there has been so much delay, how soon after the Bill becomes an Act will the amounts provided for be paid? It is because of the delay that has occurred that we have departed from our usual practice and as the particular season is coming could the Minister say how soon the payments will be made?

Mr. Boland

I will undertake to see that they are paid with the least possible delay and I hope well before Christmas. I think Senator O'Donnell is wrong to say that other Ministers do not consult the people concerned in various legislation. We do not always accept what they propose, I quite agree, but we get very valuable help. In connection with this Bill most of the suggestions that were made by the law association and by the committee were accepted. As far as the committee is concerned—I may be wrong—I remember that the only thing we did not accept was the date from which payment should be made. Generally speaking, it has always been the practice to consult the interests concerned; of course you cannot accept everything that is put up.

Question put and agreed to.