I must confess that when I see a Bill like this asking for a ten per cent increase in the salaries of judges right down from the Supreme Court, the figure that crosses my mind is that of £71 10s. per annum on which old age pensioners are asked to live. It is inevitable that we in this House, who are frequently told by the Government that not another penny can be afforded for this or that welfare, or for pensions or the unemployed, should recall this when we are asked to consider the terms of the present rather slovenly Bill. I shall justify that adjective in a moment. We are told, in effect, that the money just is not there, when we ask for it for the old age pensioners, but apparently money at least to some extent can be found for people with salaries of over £4,000 a year. That is inevitably at the back of my mind as I speak on this Bill.
I should like to say by way of general preamble that one might defend the view that in our society, as at present constituted, perhaps doctors and lawyers are paid too much, and nurses and teachers too little. When we read, for instance, that barristers earning fees of £5,000 or £6,000 a year make "a big sacrifice" when they go on the Bench, I am inclined to ask what is the corollary to that, what is the conclusion we should derive from it. Is it that we should increase the salaries of judges and Ministers, or that we should reduce the amounts of lawyers' fees in general? I should like to suggest in this general preamble that in terms of real service to the community many of the court activities of barristers, who may or may not decide to "make the sacrifice" of becoming judges, are in proportion to the fees attached to the brief.
After all, a sacrifice is made, too, by other members of the community— by nurses, teachers, university professors and lecturers who decide to remain in this country, and even by lecturers or university professors who decide to teach rather in Trinity College than in the National University, because the salary scale is lower in Trinity. Therefore, when we talk in terms of sacrifices on the part of the legal profession we should also see those sacrifices in proportion.
This Bill asks us to increase judges' salaries—all of them, lock, stock and barrel—by ten per cent. I referred to this as a slovenly Bill, a Bill with only two sections into which no thought whatsoever has been put. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is here today to defend the brief of the Minister for Justice and therefore what I say does not refer to the Minister before us; I feel that it is applicable to the Department which drafted this Bill, which in a single clause says: "Let us give them all ten per cent. and be done with it". It is exactly the Bill we would have if there had been no investigation of the case, no thought given to the matter, no attention accorded it by the Government. The Government might in that case be justified in saying: "Let them have ten per cent. now, and that will keep their mouths shut for the present till we have time to look into the matter." But the Government have had plenty of time. They have had years.
The Minister himself made a kind of apology today for the delay in dealing with this matter, but I think it is not good enough. They have been asked for years to do this. All the facts about the necessity for differentiation and so on have been put before them, and they introduce this Bill with the principle of differentiation in favour of the lower paid judges entirely set aside. There is no evidence in this Bill of a grasp of the basic situation in relation to these judges. There is no evidence of a grasp of the conditions under which the work is done and there is no evidence of realisation of the amount of work done by some levels—lower levels in fact, and of the disparity that there is in the amount required to be done by the others. There is no account taken either of the increased jurisdiction of district courts. Yet, as has been said by other Senators, the district justices' chance of promotion is restricted entirely to two courts.
Again, there is no indication that a comparison has been made with conditions across the Border, much less with conditions across the Irish sea. The Government's conclusion is that we should just, in a single introductory clause, throw them all 10 per cent. When the Government introduce Bills here to increase pensions—we will be considering one soon—they have a whole long, cumbrous mechanism to ensure that one little section will get 6 per cent. and another little section 4 per cent. When they have a pension which amounts to more than £100 then that shall be reduced and so on. They have a cumbrous Bill very carefully differentiating the grade of necessity of pensioners some of whom we know have pensions of less than £100 a year, but when it is a question of people in receipt of quite a bit of money all the Government can do is throw every one of them 10 per cent., irrespective of present salary.
It was said in the Dáil that any comparison with the North or Britain is quite unfair. I should like to make a comparison, and then establish the fact that it might be considered at least as partly relevant in this case. I should like to point to figures for stipendiary magistrates in the North of Ireland under the Six County Government. In 1948, the Belfast magistrate was on a salary scale of £1,100 rising to £1,400 maximum. In other districts, the resident magistrate—the equivalent of our district justice—was in 1948 on the basis of £1,000 rising to £1,100.
By 1952, the figures for these two magistrates, Belfast and other districts, were—£1,200 in Belfast rising to £1,600 and in other districts, £1,200 rising to £1,600. In 1957, the figures for Belfast were £2,550 and in other districts, £2,500. By 1959, the figures for Belfast were £2,850 and in other districts, £2,800. In both these cases, there was an additional £300. It was consolidated, I understand, in 1959. It had been paid originally by the Belfast Corporation. So by 1959 the Belfast magistrate is getting £3,050 a year. I think also, if I am correctly informed, that the jurisdiction of those magistrates is considerably less than the jurisdiction accorded to our magistrates in Dublin.
Yet the northern figure is £3,050. We will be told that they are backed by great wealth in the United Kingdom, and that we are a poor little nation which cannot afford to treat our people on the same scale. I would suggest that in certain things we maintain much the same standard. In regard to high powered American cars, they are much the same on the Streets of Dublin as on the streets of Belfast. We should not fight shy of the comparison with the North, but should be prepared to look at the figures, even though we are not able to accord absolute parity.
If the Government introduce a Bill which has one clause in regard to ten per cent., and if, as they imply, they know so little about the problem and the necessity for differentiating between the judges, surely the Government were in honour bound to appoint a Select Committee and reach agreement, as was done on a previous occasion? My view is that a Select Committee was required and, therefore, I shall vote against the Bill.
Therefore, I would urge the Seanad to throw out the Bill for the purpose of getting the Government to set up a Select Committee and go into the whole matter which they should have gone into long ago. From 1957 the matter, they say, has been "considered" In point of fact they have been sitting on it doing nothing. A Select Committee could have been appointed straight away. A Select Committee was required. I think the Seanad should refer this Bill back and ask the Government to bring in a defensible Bill, taking into account all the realities of the judiciary situation. The Government have delayed since 1957, since then judges were compelled to go with wig in hand, so to speak, to the Government and ask for an increase in salary. The Government delay has been responsible for the fact that some people feel it is now too late to have a Select Committee. I would say, as Senator O'Quigley said, that increases, if any, were decided upon, could be back-dated. It would be far better to get a good decision than rush this Bill now, and throw them all the ten per cent which at certain levels is unjust, from the community point of view.
The Minister's phrase in apologising for this was that he was sorry there had been a "greater delay than usual." That was his phrase and I noted it down. There was usually a long delay, but this delay was greater than usual. I agree with the Minister. I think it is something for which the Government should atone by setting up a Select Committee.
As has been said by several Senators, since 1924, the judges have only received two increases in salary. I think that is something that in fairness to them should be said in public. They received two increases—one in 1947 and one in 1953. I should like it to be noted what the nature of these increases was. In 1947, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court got an increase of 15 per cent.; High Court judges got an increase of 20 per cent; Circuit Court judges got an increase of 25 per cent. and District Court justices got 30 per cent.
The principle of differentiation in increase was observed pretty rigorously in 1947 by the Fianna Fáil Government, the Government of the Party at present in power. In 1953, when I understand a Select Committee was, in fact, set up, the increases were more simply done. They were done again by a Fianna Fáil Government in 1953. Then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the High Court judges all got an increase of £250, but the Circuit and District Court judges got £450— a percentage figure of something like 37½. Again, the principle of differentiation was observed. I think, in view of the argument which Deputy McGilligan put forward in the Dáil, it ought to be noted that while the judges got only two increases since 1924, both of these were given by the Fianna Fáil Governments. Fine Gael or the inter-Party Government did not give them a token brass farthing. Therefore, it is somewhat disingenuous when an official spokesman of the Fine Gael Party says this kind of thing in the Dáil. I quote Deputy McGilligan at col. 547 of Vol. 177 of the Official Report. He says:
Because of the very high positions these people occupy it was the view of myself and my colleagues in Government at the time that an improvement in their situation was required. The atmosphere in those days, of course, was entirely different because we had deliberately embarked on a policy of trying to level up salaries. Salaries had been pegged under Standstill Order, and by means of other devices, and held at a particular point.
They intended to do something. At col. 548 he said:—
The last group which needed attention then was that composed of the members of the judiciary and certain others whom it was my intention to put on equality with all the others. Because of the defeat of the Government in 1951, that was impossible, but in those days it certainly was the intention to recast judicial salaries. That would have been done in 1951 if Fate had provided us with the power to do it.
Fate did provide them with the power to do it, and only withdrew it after three years. Therefore, it is a little disingenuous of Deputy McGilligan to blame Fate alone. It may be responsible for quite a lot, but not for that piece of dilatoriness on the part of the then Government. In talking about this and attacking the present Govern-for its attitude, we ought to remember that the previous Government, and both Coalition Governments, did nothing at all in this regard.
Now I should like to examine the present situation. I should like to make a certain prefatory remark on this point, because it is slightly invidious to talk about the salaries of judges, for the reason that the judges are few in number. Their names are known to all. They have no right to get up and speak for themselves. A large number of the judges are personally known to many of the Senators. When one is speaking about such a small body of people, one is bound to feel a certain awkwardness about doing so. I feel, nevertheless, that one must speak and speak freely and speak the truth, as one sees it.
I was encouraged to do so by Senator O'Quigley in his reference to the Republican Courts. Suddenly I remembered that I am the son of a judge, because my mother was a judge in the Republican Courts. You will notice that it was possible for a woman to be a judge in an Irish court, so long as no salary attached to the position. It becomes impossible, of course, once a salary is attached to it. I feel therefore that in speaking on this I can speak partly, as it were, from within.
The first thing I should like to say —and I think it cannot be stressed too much—is that the judicial standard in this country is extremely high. It is the sort of thing one takes for granted. It is the sort of thing one ought to be able to take for granted in any democratic State. Perhaps it would be a mistake to take it too much for granted, and to imagine that we can knock the judges about a bit, and introduce rather contemptuous legislation in their regard.
It should be stated categorically and firmly that the judicial standard is high in Ireland, that the decisions of our courts are most respect-worthy, fairly arrived at, and soundly based on law, and are in short very impressive. One could think of minor exceptions, where the standard was not quite the same—the Tilson case, the Corcoran case and the MacSwiney case—but in almost all those cases you had minority opinions on the Bench also, and the standards of the Judiciary were consequently, by and large, nearly always upheld.
By and large, then, we can be proud of our Judiciary. That extends from the highest courts right down to the courts which do the majority of the work—because that is the position. The majority of the work is done in the District Courts. As was said in the Dáil, District Courts do between 80 and 90 per cent. of the criminal work and something like 60 per cent. of the civil work. The figures were not denied. If that is so, these are extremely important figures. They show that extremely hard work occurs in the District Courts, particularly in the Metropolis. Occasionally, it is true, we also get peculiar decisions in District Courts. Occasionally we get odd and slightly non-judicial pronouncements from District Justices, but they are exceptional. The rule is that these judges also are fair, judicial and sometimes exceedingly courageous in dispensing justice under the law in the District Court.
Occasionally, as I say, an odd district justice does flout the authority of the law or of the Government, but that is highly unusual. And if he flouts the authority of the Government, he is thrown out. If he merely flouts the authority of the law, of course, the principle of the "inviolable independence of the Judiciary" is invoked, and nothing is done. However, both of these are exceptional cases. We can say therefore of our district justices in general that they are men of learning, independence and courage. We should recall the pressures put upon them. Other Senators have referred to physical pressures in the courts. Other pressures, too, are put upon them. For one thing, they are very much in the public eye. Anything they say is noted down. When one thinks of that, one has to pay tribute also to the independence and courage of many of them.
Now, it is absolutely necessary to attract men of independence, learning and courage to this profession, and not merely to attract them but to hold them. The Government are not setting about doing that in a very good way if they say they can give only 10 per cent. to district justices. I am afraid it is evident that unless they scale down the increases to the other judges they will in practice be degrading the district justices in the public eye, as was suggested by other Senators, and I believe that to be a very bad principle.
Another principle that is invoked very frequently by the Department of Industry and Commerce and by its Minister—perhaps it is happy that he should be here today—and also, indeed, by the Taoiseach, his predecessor as Minister for Industry and Commerce, is the principle of increased productivity for increased wages and salaries. I did not notice any attempt on the part of the Minister to show that there was in the Supreme Court an increased pressure of work and an increased "productivity".
In relation to work done, there is no question but that, since 1953, with the very wide extension of the jurisdiction of the District Court, there has been very considerably increased productivity in the judicial decisions of the District Courts but not in any other court. If that principle is valid for workers, trade unionists, employers, and so on, if it is a principle that is practically sacred within the walls of the Department of Industry and Commerce, why should it not be applied to the Courts? Why is no reference made to it? Why is no reference made to the fact that so much dependence is put by the community on the work done by the District Court? And that being so, why is that not recognised at least by some differential figure when it comes to increasing salaries?
It has already been said that the jurisdiction of the District Court has very widely been extended since 1953. The figures I have quoted to the effect that nearly 90 per cent. of all criminal work is done there, and 60 per cent. of the civil work, are pretty startling figures which have not been denied. On the basis, therefore, of work involved, and the work done, in particular in Dublin and Cork District Courts, a far stronger case could be made for the District Courts than for the Upper Courts. At this juncture I think they should also be praised for their expedition. These Courts are expeditious. We read in the papers about a case that hits the headlines. A great number of columns are given to it. No column space is given to the vast majority of the cases that go through these courts expeditiously but fairly. There are many cases to which no reference is made. They are the day-to-day cases conducted in our District Courts throughout the country. Only a small number hit the headlines, but the work done is of capital importance to the community.
The amount of judicial work done in the District Courts is very great indeed. Nor does the amount to be got through result in any immensely long delay. To anyone familiar with the processes of law that take place in France, as I am, it can be said that our courts do their work most expeditiously. In France, some cases drag on for years. We would become very impatient if certain cases here took such a considerable length of time. We would say that they were dragging on for too long. We must recognise that the majority of our district justices work with extreme expedition, and that, I suppose, is one of the marks of an able judge. These men are then, by and large, a body of very able judges.
On the question of jurisdiction and its extension, it would seem to me, as has been suggested earlier, that the Minister ought really to say something in justification of this many-stepped ladder of courts that we have in this country. The Bill refers to the different kinds of judges, Supreme Court judges, High Court judges, District Court judges, and so on. At least a glance should be given to this apparent multiplicity and the question ought to be considered by the Government, in view of the increased jurisdiction granted to the District Court justices and the kind of work they are now asked to do, and proving themselves quite capable of doing, as to whether Circuit Courts are necessary at all, and if so, for what? In fact, I would suggest that the Government ought to come here and say to us: "We intend, in fact, at some fairly nearly date, to consider redesigning the whole judicial system, with even perhaps fewer but more mobile district justices in the remoter areas" and with perhaps those High Court judges referred to in Section 1 sitting not only in Dublin and occasionally in Cork, but regularly at other centres.
