Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1959

Vol. 51 No. 14

Courts of Justice Bill, 1959 (Certified Money Bill) — Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. L'Estrange

I am opposed to this Bill and to the increases because I believe the time is not now opportune. This Bill comes at a very inappropriate time, at a time when, as we all know, we have a falling population, high emigration and unemployment, and a huge balance of payments problem, with a consequent urgent need for stability and lower prices if we are to achieve greater exports—which we all hope for—and pay our way. There is very little justification for increases ranging from £175 per annum to £485 per annum. I believe that will interfere with the stability which we need at the present time, and with the stability at which, in my opinion, we had arrived.

I think it will be agreed by everybody that the granting of these increases will spur every other section of the community to demand increases immediately. If we in this House are prepared to grant increases, and sanction increases, amounting to £10 per week to people who already have over £95 per week, how can the Government or any of us fail to answer the demands of the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and other sections of the community? We all realise that 70 per cent of the workers in this country have less than £10 per week and 50 per cent of the workers have less than £6 per week. It should be the duty of any Government to govern in the interests of the greatest number of people in the community. I do not believe it is right that we should have one law for the rich and another law for the poor because the cost of living affects all people equally. If we believe an increase of 2/6 per week is enough to cover the increase in the cost of living for the old age pensioners and that 10/- per week is enough for other sections of the community, if we give the increases proposed in this Bill we cannot claim that we are being just to the lower paid categories. God be with the days when we were told in this country that no man was worth more, or should be paid more, than £1,000 per year.

Senators have spoken here to-day of the setting up of a Select Committee to go into this question. We all know that, in 1953, a Select Committee of Dáil Éireann, representative of the Government and the Opposition, considered a memorandum submitted by the judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Circuit Court. There were submissions by the district justices on their claim for an increase in salary. It might be no harm to say, in passing, that the only time they can be got together is when there is a discussion of an increase in their own salaries. They can never be got together to discuss uniformity in sentences, the Probation Act, or the crime wave.

As a result of the recommendations of that Select Committee, the Government of the day decided to increase substantially the salaries of all members of the Judiciary. They got an increase in salary ranging from £250 per annum to £450 per annum. That was in 1953. I should like to point out to the Minister that the memorandum submitted by the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court stated:

We wish to make it plain that we do not claim any right to have our salaries increased from time to time on account of any temporary increase in the cost of living, whether reckoned by reference to the index figure or otherwise.

That statement was made in the memorandum submitted by those learned and responsible gentlemen. Surely if they made a statement like that in support of their claims in 1953, it is not unreasonable to ask why they are looking for this increase and why it is being made retrospective to 1st January, 1959. It is being made retrospective for these people who are reasonably well off but when the increase was given in the Budget to the old age pensioners of 2/6 per week— 1/80th of what one gentleman is getting in this case—it could not be paid and they had to wait for four months, until September, to get the increase.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington referred to the fact that Fine Gael or the inter-Party Government did not give a brass farthing and claimed that one of the increases was given in 1947 and the other in 1953. It might be no harm to point out that there was a change of Government in 1948 and another in 1953. The judges pointed out themselves in 1953 that they did not want an increase every time the cost of living increased.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Deputy McGilligan said it was only fate that stopped him from doing it in 1951.

Mr. L'Estrange

They got in 1953 the increase Deputy McGilligan was going to give them. It might be no harm to point out that the cost of living did not rise very steeply during the régime of the particular Government you have spoken of.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

He said he was going to give increases all the same.

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes, but they got them. They went out of office and another Government came in which gave increases of £250 to £450 per annum.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would refrain from commenting on views expressed in the other House.

Mr. L'Estrange

I believe that in our effort to secure a bright to-morrow with more prosperity in this country and to even the slices of cake to everybody, there is very little use appealing to employers and employees to make a real contribution and fight against inflation by moderating wage increase demands in Ireland when the Government themselves are not prepared to set the lead. The Government should practise what they have been preaching over the past few years. Nobody can deny that in granting an increase of £175 per annum to 33 district justices and up to £485 per annum to the Chief Justice, the Government are not showing any restraint themselves and are giving a bad example to the people to whom they appeal.

They themselves are throwing discretion to the wind and are kindling the inflationary fires which if the blaze starts could have dire consequences for the people and for the whole economy of the country. We have heard a lot to-day about the allowances being paid to these gentlemen. Judging by what some Senator said, one would think they were not getting any subsistence allowances or travelling expenses. Looking through the list, however, I find that one district justice got over £1,113 and fifteen of them had over £400 in the year 1958-59 in travelling expenses and subsistence allowances alone. That should have gone a long way to cushion them against the increase in the cost of living.

It might be no harm to state that when the last increase in travelling expenses and subsistence allowances was given to the judges in November, 1957, it was back-dated to June, 1956. Neither the Seanad nor anybody else was informed of the Order when it was made. We can be told that there was no necessity for the Government to publish the order, but on the same date, the officers of the Garda Síochána received increased allowances in a similar Ministerial Order and this was published and made available in the Library and in the Stationery Office. Why the secrecy in regard to the Judiciary? They are entitled to the same treatment as any other section, but if they get any increase, the elected representatives of the people are entitled to know about it.

Everybody will agree that we are asked to take a very important step in this Bill. According to what we have been told by many, the cost of living is supposed to have been stationary for the past year. We know that our exports are falling—they are down by £10 million. The national income is falling, and we all admit that the income of the farmers, the principal producers, is falling considerably. It is they who will have to bear the brunt of these increases. Other sections can pass increases on to somebody else, but the farmers cannot pass them on to anybody. We are giving these gentlemen additions to their salaries of £175 to £485. One thing we should remember is that once they get these increases, under the Constitution, these salaries cannot be lowered while each individual judge is in office. Even if the cost of living were to drop in the immediate future— and turkeys are 3/- a lb. less than they were at this time last year, to give one example—they will still get the increases in salary we vote to-day.

I have referred to inflation, and it is my firm conviction that the granting of these increases will lead to repercussions of a type out of all proportion to the value of the money involved. It is the duty of this or any other Government to hold the scales as evenly as possible between all sections of the community. That is not being done in this Bill. So far as the well-off sections of the community are concerned, the sky seems to be the limit. Those people are getting a 10 per cent. increase. We are told that the cost of living has increased by 15 per cent. We agree with that but still we give one man 10/- or 12/- a week to cover the increase and another man £485 a year. In my opinion, that is wrong.

The State is honouring its obligations to this section of the community reasonably well in the salaries which are paid.

There is no use in comparing salaries or wages here with Northern Ireland or Great Britain. One is a mighty Empire which can afford to pay high wages, but in agricultural countries, you cannot attain the same standard of living or hope to pay the same high wages. We are providing them with reasonable remuneration in accordance with the resources of our State. The Taoiseach has only £3,000 a year and his burdens and responsibilities are much greater than those of any judges.

I should like to refer briefly to some of the things stated by Senator O'Brien, Senator O'Quigley, Senator Stanford and others who said that judges must be above temptation and that the salary should be high enough to keep them above corruption. In the Dáil on October 29th, the Taoiseach said in Volume 177 at column 560:

I am sure all members of the House accept that the independence of the Judiciary is something which we should try to preserve. It is certainly something that all democratic Governments strive to uphold, and they try to express that aim in the levels of the remuneration fixed for judges.

He also said:

It means putting them into a position in which they will be, as far as possible, immune from improper influence of any kind, and it is no exaggeration to say, in my view, that an adequate and, indeed, a generous basis of remuneration for judges is the basis of their indedependence. It has always been so regarded here. It is indeed, so regarded everywhere.

I should like to know what is the real reason for this. Is it because the cost of living has increased by 15 per cent. or is it that we should give them a salary that will make them independent? Is it, as the Minister states, to meet an increase of 15 per cent. in the cost of living or, as the Taoiseach states, to make them as far as possible immune from improper influences of any kind? Those are outrageous statements. They seem to exhibit a mentality childlike in its innocence and in its ignorance of human nature. You cannot purchase integrity. A man is either honest or he is dishonest. Giving him money will not make any man honest. People who accept bribes do so because they are men of low character. Generally they are rich because it is the rich who have the power and influence to whom bribes are addressed. Bribes are seldom addressed to the poor working person. At the same time, we expect and we get integrity from the ordinary people of the country, from the majority of Irishmen, from the chambermaid and from the road worker, without having to buy them. It is wrong to say that we should have to buy the Judiciary. It is wrong that anyone should say that we have to give them a salary to make them immune from any improper influences of any kind. I should like to know, reading what the Minister stated the other day, whether we are to accept the proposition that judges and district justices are a section of the community who must be paid to stay honest.

The Taoiseach was not content with what he already had stated but he continued (at Column 566, Vol. 177):

I would like to think that there was no feeling of disgruntlement among the members of the Judiciary. I hope they will regard this Bill as an indication of the Government's acceptance of their claim and a reasonable attempt to meet them. I am quite certain that the vast majority of thoughtful opinion among our people will give an affirmative answer to that question and will, indeed, support the changes in Judicial salaries for which the Bill provides. I would regard that, and shall regard it as a very small price to pay for the preservation of the independence and the status of the Judiciary.

Does that mean that we must pay a price for their independence and for their integrity? The Taoiseach, in the words I have just quoted implied that in order to maintain the independence of the Judiciary, it is imperative that they should be paid at a particularly high level:

I regard it as a very small price to pay for the preservation of the independence and the status of the Judiciary.

I do not accept that point of view myself because I think there is some basic morality in everybody, in every one of us, which determines our interpretation of what is right and what is wrong.

Mr. Carter

I wonder.

Mr. L'Estrange

You can keep on wondering. This Bill deals with only a small and relatively privileged section of the community and leaves the problem of the weaker and more helpless section economically and financially untouched. Any increase given at the present time should be related to the country's economy and to the taxpayers' and the producers' ability to pay. I listened to speakers to-day like Senator Sheehy Skeffington, who talked about the Judiciary, and said that their standard was extremely high. I always say what I think and believe. I believe that the vast majority of the Judiciary are independent men of integrity, but I am sorry to say that there is a small minority who are not.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may not refer to the character or qualifications of judges.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Senator does not mind making reflections on the character of people who cannot answer for themselves.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am not stopping them answering for themselves. I am saying what I know and believe to be true.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is completely out of order in dealing with that aspect of judges on this Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Senator has finished now.

Mr. Louis Walsh

It would appear to me that the last speaker seemed to think it good political strategy or expedient to oppose measures which propose to rectify injustices to those concerned. To my mind at any rate, the case put up by Senator L'Estrange has not any merit: that men who cannot defend themselves properly should be required to carry on at a considerably lower salary according to present monetary values. It is wrong to pander to people who are not informed of all the relevant facts and who are unable to view matters in their proper perspective. The actual fact is the statement made by Deputy McGilligan in the Dáil at column 551, Volume 177:—

"I think £13,000 or £14,000 would meet all the increases."

If one considers the fact that income tax and surtax will take approximately £4,000, that would make the total increase about £10,000. Also the Taoiseach states that it is proposed to reduce the number of district justices by five or six and of Circuit Court judges by one; therefore, the amount which will be saved will be considerably more than the increase now being sought in this Bill.

This House accepts the fact that the Judiciary are the custodians or the trustees of the fundamental rights of even the humblest citizen of this State. They interpret the law as enacted by this Parliament, decree and enforce these laws, and accordingly it is only right, despite what Senator L'Estrange says, that we should attract men of integrity and ability, men who are accepted in their profession, men who are respected by their colleagues and by the public at large. There has been reference to the fact that some of these men were politicians before they were appointed onto the Bench. I do not think that that is anything of which they should be ashamed. Men who have experience of public life as members of the Oireachtas, or even as Ministers of the Government, who have been dealing with men and with their problems, have, as I am aware, some of them, made excellent judges. I think the experience which they have gained is a great asset to such men.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington referred to the fact that he was a son of a member of the Judiciary and I, too, claim that. I should remind the House that in 1924 the Cumann na nGaedheal Government gave a salary of £1,000 to district justices and, as Senator O'Donovan has pointed out, the value of that salary to-day is from £2,500 to £3,000, so that obviously district justices are not being paid anything like the salary they were paid pre-war. At that time, there were two district justices for County Donegal. It is now proposed that one district justice should cover the whole county.

Mr. L'Estrange

Across the mountains.

Mr. Louis Walsh

The mountains, unfortunately, are still there. In spite of the facetious remark of Senator L'Estrange, the mountains are still where they were. At any rate, this House has opportunities each year, when the Appropriation Bill comes before it, to criticise the salaries of the Civil Service.

I should like to refer the House to the fact that in the Department of Finance, apart from the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary, there are eleven Principal Officers. According to the Estimates, the salaries of these Principal Officers is £21,647. If one divides that sum by eleven, one finds that the average salary for each is £1,967. That means that these men are being paid a higher salary than it is now proposed to pay district justices in the country under the proposed 10 per cent. I do not think, therefore, anyone would suggest that the proposal, so far as these men are concerned, is in any way exorbitant.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington began his remarks by referring to the fact that the old age pensioners are being paid £71 10s. It is no harm to remind the House that that involves this State in an expenditure of well over £11 million per year and that every shilling represents a considerable number of hundreds of thousands of pounds. He stated that the reason they were not paid any more was that the money was not there. That was true. As I have suggested, the proposals involved in this Bill do not mean one penny of cost to the Exchequer if the proposed reduction in the number of district justices and certain Circuit Court judges takes place.

Some reference was made to the salary of the Chief Justice but when one considers the fact that income tax is approximately 7/- in the £ and that the men who are being paid such a salary have to pay surtax, the actual amount they will receive will possibly be half the amount proposed under this increase. For these reasons, I consider that the proposal is most reasonable. I agree that at some time in the future the Government should consider a further increase in the salaries of the lower paid members of the Judiciary, namely, the district justices, as Senator Ryan has already suggested, if the cost of living increases further.

Mr. Burke

I am very pleased that a measure of this sort comes before the Oireachtas rather than that the remuneration of the members of the Judiciary should be dealt with by some arbitration board or the like. In fact, it would be very much better for this country if the whole question of the remuneration to be paid to all State servants could be discussed in both Houses of Parliament.

The burden of the remarks made by Senator L'Estrange, a man elected in the agricultural interests, was that all salaries, remuneration or whatever you call it, must be related to the amount of money available. In Ireland, we are inclined to set up all sorts of arbitration boards which seem to take no real cognisance of the fact that our income per head and our exertions produce only from 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the per capita income available for distribution in the island of Britain.

Odious comparisons are made showing us how badly justices and others are paid in relation to what is paid in the North and in Britain. The fact is that we have found ourselves in large measure, principally by the operation of arbitration boards, and so on, a high cost economy and a high tax economy. Much of the salaries which judges enjoy is being taken back from them to help to pay the other State servants.

Earlier this evening, I felt I could support the claim made for district justices. District justices in the country enjoy a salary of only £1,760 a year. It is not a figure commensurate with their responsibilities, their status and so forth in the community. Senator L'Estrange mentioned that some district justices were drawing, in respect of travelling expenses, sums as high as £1,000 a year. That made me more convinced than ever of the impossibility of dealing with a measure of this sort in this House or in the other House without having the assistance of a Select Committee.

I should like to appeal to the Minister to consider, even at this hour, the request made by many Deputies in the Dáil and by Senators here to set up a Select Committee. I do not want to have a Bill such as this brought before us dealing with the matter in a sort of ad hoc manner by giving everybody 10 per cent. regardless of whether he requires 10 per cent. or not. I do not think that substantial justice is even approached in the Bill by giving some people over £500 a year and by giving the majority of the district justices something less than £200 a year.

I do not wish to say any more on this measure because it would be an understatement to say that it was adequately discussed. It was overdiscussed. There is nothing further one could possibly say on the matter except to reiterate and emphasise the fact that the complexities involved in doing any form of real justice to the people who have to pay the piper and also to the people who will be in receipt of the salaries cannot be solved except by a Select Committee. The bringing of this measure before us, asking us to vote for a 10 per cent. increase in remuneration for all the district justices, is not facing the facts in a manner that will bring a real solution. It is not a responsible way of dealing with the problem, considering the state of the economy at the moment and also the problem of giving a fair measure of justice to the members of the Judiciary in relation to the amount of money available.

Mr. O'Reilly

For a long time, all the speakers in this debate seemed to be unorganised workers of the Law Library. We heard many people chant the same hymn. Two barristers from this side of the House, Senator Ryan and Senator Cole, gave their views and expressed general approval of the Bill. We also had constitutional lawyers. Senator O'Quigley from the other side of the House chanted the same tune. I began to wonder if something was wrong with this Bill. I glanced through it. I saw it gave a 10 per cent. increase to the judges. I was not very much interested. I did not think the Bill would occasion a long debate. I thought most of us would make up our minds on the principle involved and would either agree or disagree. It did not occur to me that it would involve a long debate. Until now, I thought it would be an agreed measure.

I listened to the arguments of the gentlemen I have mentioned, together with the arguments of Senator Stanford and Senator Sheehy Skeffington. Since many others have offered criticism of the Bill, I suppose I may retain the right to do likewise. I may find myself in agreement with the Bill but for quite different reasons from those advanced by all these other gentlemen I have mentioned. Here is why I agree with the Bill and why I rose to speak at all.

I am one of those who believe that if we had less litigation, our country would be happier. If fewer people went to the District Courts when there is barely an issue to be decided, I believe our community would be happier, mentally and financially. In so far as this Bill may tend to make legal processes more costly, it has something to commend it. It is a new angle. I realise the necessary function of the Judiciary. They perform very important work. The men who serve as judges have given service and proved themselves eminent in their profession. That is why they find themselves on the Bench.

When I was sitting on the benches opposite, I heard a very able man who is now a judge make a case which I regarded as brilliant. Even if that man took part in politics, even if he came here and argued in this House, I do not think his capacity to be a good judge was impaired just because he took part in political activity. He was doing his duty as a citizen, as he saw it. He was entitled, as a freeman, to take part in politics. He was doing his duty. I know he gave good service in many directions and I know he is a very eminent judge.

It is a pity we have remarks about people on soap-boxes. Senator L'Estrange talked about buying honesty and integrity. One of the reasons—if this argument can reach Senator L'Estrange—for paying judges high salaries is to instil in our people the confidence that, because our judges are well paid, they are above suspicion. It is important that our people should feel that our judges are above suspicion and, in so far as the salary paid to them will ensure that in the minds of our people, it is a good thing. It would be disastrous if our people began to speculate about their integrity and question it. They would then lose confidence in justice. They would begin to wonder if the courts really tried to achieve the principle of justice. Senator L'Estrange seems to consider the salaries paid to our Judiciary excessive. It is no credit to him to suggest that their honesty has to be purchased for money. That is not the intention.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Taoiseach said that, not I.

Mr. O'Reilly

Senator L'Estrange is misrepresenting what the Taoiseach said. I am putting my interpretation on what he said and in my view it is the correct interpretation. No matter what Government appoint a judge, no matter what political Party the judge may have given service to, for any man to suggest that they are incapable of achieving the principle of justice without being bought to do so is something which I personally dislike as an outlook and it is not that I am so fond of judges as a class.

In so far as this Bill may tend to make legal processes more costly, it is good. The less litigation we have in this country, the better for our people. Sometimes very petty issues are brought to the District Court. The district justice has to listen to a lot of talk on a trifling issue and sometimes there may even be no issue to be decided. I have often wondered, if we had to reduce the number of district justices, how we would deal, for instance, with cases such as the prosecution of a person for riding a bicycle at night without a light. That sort of thing occupies quite an amount of the time of the District Court. The district justice, a man with legal training, must sit and listen to the arguments and pronounce judgment on the case. Such cases can prove to be a waste of public time and money.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will leave that matter. The organisation of the courts is not dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. Carton

The Senator should get down off his bike.

Mr. O'Reilly

I agree with the ruling of the Chair but I would remind the Chair, without offence, that, before the suspension of business, there was very wide discussion on matters of this nature. I had to listen to much material of that nature from Senators such as Senator Sheehy Skeffington. I am not in any way, however, questioning the ruling of the Chair.

It appears to me that one of the merits of this measure is that it will not ultimately involve any extra cost if it is intended to have a reduction in the number of district justices. That is a matter which is relevant to the Bill. I cannot see how that can be done if all the trivial cases that should not, in my view, appear in court at all, still continue to appear in the courts. That tendency is growing year by year, and unless we are to have eight hours sittings in the district courts day after day, I cannot see how we are to arrive at a position where we can reduce the number of district justices.

I respectfully suggest that that argument is relevant to the Bill since it is intended to have a reduction in the number of district justices. I would welcome that reduction because it would tend to make the process of going to court more inconvenient for people. If there were fewer courthouses, and if people had to go some distance, it might prevent them from going to court and taking an oath, which is a very serious matter.

An Cathaoirleach

I have already suggested to the Senator that he is going outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. O'Reilly

I know I am barely within the rules of order in making that statement.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is an understatement.

Mr. O'Reilly

As it is so very seldom we get a chance of expressing our views on matters of this nature, I was sorely tempted to give an expression of my views.

Mr. Murphy

The Senator should resist the temptation.

Mr. O'Reilly

I am convinced that there are people in certain areas—and I have one area in mind which is famous or infamous——

Mr. L'Estrange

Longford?

Mr. O'Reilly

No, part of Cavan. In that area, there are special sittings of the Circuit Court——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will now come to the question of the remuneration——

Mr. O'Reilly

——to accommodate cases——

Mr. Carton

The Cathaoirleach is endeavouring to address the Senator.

An Cathaoirleach

I have asked the Senator to come back to the immediate question of the remuneration of judges and justices.

Mr. O'Reilly

It is in the public interest that our people should have confidence in our judges and anything which tends to destroy that confidence is a very bad thing. Any speech in this House or anywhere else which tries to destroy that confidence is wrong. When there are issues to be decided which have regard to real matters, it is important that the people should have confidence in the courts and should have confidence that our courts are trying to carry out the principles of justice. Any statement by anybody anywhere which tends to destroy that confidence, or undermine it, is very bad indeed. Some Senators who spoke earlier in this debate said the judges were the unorganised workers of the Law Library. I wonder how unorganised they are. They cannot be so unorganised since they had so many able advocates——

Mr. Murphy

On both sides of the House.

Mr. O'Reilly

——on both sides of the House making the case for those unorganised workers. Some reality came into the debate when Senator L'Estrange——

Mr. Murphy

The Senator cannot organise him.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is still in it.

Mr. O'Reilly

It would not surprise me if Senator L'Estrange did not challenge a division, still running true to form. It would be interesting to see how certain people would vote having made a case for the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

"No man is worth more than £1,000 per year."

Mr. O'Reilly

There is a little avenue of escape by reason of the fact that a Select Committee may be set up to deal with an issue like this. I can never understand the thinking of people who argue along those lines. When a matter is a function of the Government, it should be the function of the Government. Is it to be the practice in this country that when certain awkward issues arise, such as salaries for judges, with no political kudos to be gained, even if the claim is just having regard to comparable employment, to set up a Select Committee? It may be expedient politically to set up some arbitration board and, in other words, to alienate the rights of Parliament and Government, but my view is that when a matter is a function of the Government, the Government should decide it and not alienate their responsibility and their power. No Government have the right to delegate their functions in these issues, awkward as they may sometimes be.

I do not believe the people who argue that select committees or arbitration boards should be set up, have thought very deeply about it or they would realise that once you start in that direction, you will ultimately have the members of such groups or boards or committees deciding issues that are properly the function of the Government. If democracy is to be preserved, it surely cannot be preserved by delegating powers and functions and duties which the Government should discharge. It is a very wrong thing for a Government to decide to shelve awkward questions by setting up a committee, unless it is a fact-finding committee set up to examine a situation and make a report. In that case, the Government would still be free to decide the issues involved. Once a Government come to the stage of having to accept the recommendations of such a body, that Government have given away the powers which properly belong to them. I feel if we were to start on that road, we would ultimately find that Parliamentary democracy was completely unworkable.

Mr. Murphy

Some half-hour ago, Senator McGuire said that all that could be said about the Bill had been said, but he reckoned without Senator O'Reilly and myself. As the House will know, there is at present a round of wage and salary claims in progress in the State, and the grounds for adjusting income, wages and salaries are generally based on the increase in the cost of living and a claim to share in the benefits of increased productivity. As a representative of organised workers, I welcome the fact that the Government recognise that a change in the cost of living justifies, and indeed requires, increases in salaries. I hope that the Government in dealing with their other less well-paid servants, will accept and give effect to the same principle.

I must confess, however, that I am rather puzzled by the spokesman from the front bench of the Fine Gael Party, because, as I understood the position, that Party are opposed to any adjustments in salaries or wages at the present time. I am sorry, that because of a meeting of a committee, I missed Senator McGuire's speech. I understand that as a spokesman for employers, he welcomed this Bill and expressed the opinion that, in fact, it did not go far enough. I understand he also referred to some judge's statement to him that there had been no increase in productivity in this country. Perhaps that is where he got that wrong information on that subject.

I referred to the attitude of the principal spokesman of Fine Gael. They are entitled to their attitude, but, as I said already, I must confess I am puzzled, because in a letter to the Irish Times on 9th October, their position was made clear by Senator Barry. That letter was in connection with Deputies' allowances and in it the Senator said that the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party felt “that the time was not opportune for any headline for increasing any rewards, salaries, wages or allowances in Ireland.” At that time they were talking about allowances which in fact had not been adjusted since 1947. Here in the Seanad I notice they are supporting this Bill and indeed expressing regret that there is not a bigger adjustment in salaries which were previously adjusted in 1953.

Mr. Carton

The Senator must be forgetting about Senator L'Estrange.

Mr. Murphy

I am saying the principal spokesman of the Fine Gael Party—

Mr. Carton

I thought you were losing sight of Senator L'Estrange.

Mr. Murphy

I could not lose sight of Senator L'Estrange. He is like a breath of fresh air.

Mr. McGuire

Two rounds against seven.

Mr. Murphy

At that time, the Fine Gael Party were talking about Deputies' allowances which, as I said, had not been adjusted since 1947, and they were opposed, and I believe are still opposed, to any adjustment in those allowances, whereas here they support a plea for an increase in the salaries of judges. They are entitled to their viewpoint but I must confess I am a little puzzled.

As a representative of organised labour, I cannot oppose the principle that salaries or allowances, including Deputies' allowances, should be adjusted because of a change in the value of money, but, like Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I feel that the Government are starting at the wrong end of the scale. I should be much happier, as I think most Senators would be, if we were dealing with a Bill proposing increases in allowances for old age pensioners, widows and orphans and other people dependent on social welfare benefits, and I should be especially happy if those increases were retrospective to 1st January.

Unfortunately, we are not dealing with that. We are dealing with increases in the salaries of judges. There has been a change in the value of money since last there were adjustments and I do not think that point can be evaded. If it is right, as the Government have accepted that it is right, to adjust salaries or allowances because of the change in the cost of living, then we have to agree with the principle embodied in this Bill. I do think that the Minister might favourably consider the plea which came from all sides that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. There seems to be a doubt as to whether the increase is being properly applied or whether it might not be of more benefit if there were different adjustments at varying levels.

I should hope that if it were agreed to send this matter to a Select Committee, consideration would also be given to the method of the appointment of justices. That has been mentioned from various sides of the House and in spite of what has been said I do not think there is any quarrel with or any opposition to the fact that legal people do take part in politics. I think they have a perfect right and a duty to take part in politics but what I am unhappy about is that with all Governments, it seems to be the practice to appoint justices and judges on no other criterion than the service they have rendered to their own political Party. That has been the practice with various Governments.

A Senator

That is not so.

Mr. J. Lynch

What about ability?

Mr. Murphy

I am sure they are also able men but we should be all much happier if we could feel that these people were appointed not because of the service they gave but because of their ability. As I say, I think they have a right and a duty to participate in politics, but I do not think the habit that has grown up is a good one and if this matter is referred to a Select Committee, I should like the committee to consider that aspect.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not expect this Second Reading debate to last so long but I was glad it did develop in the way it did, up to a point. I refer to what I thought was at least a making up of their minds by the members of the Fine Gael Party. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present in the Dáil during the course of the debate there but while I was waiting here, I have been perusing the debates in the Dáil and I have been trying to understand, from the speeches made by members of the Fine Gael front bench, what their attitude really was to the Bill. I must admit I have not been able to get any consensus of opinion from it. All I know is, so far as the Dáil is concerned, that the Government side of the House had to file through the Division Lobby at almost every step and stage of the Bill.

I was taken rather by surprise when I heard the majority of the Fine Gael Party not only supporting the principle of the Bill but suggesting that even greater salary increases should be given and suggesting that a 15 per cent. increase should be given and that perhaps more might be given in the case of district justices. However, Senator L'Estrange seems to have thrown a spanner into these works, with the result that again I find myself unable to garner what is the real attitude of the Fine Gael Party to the Bill. It might be suggested that the voting in the Dáil was against the refusal of the Government to set up a Select Committee, but in so far as I have been able to read through the speeches made in the Dáil, almost every one of the members of the Fine Gael front bench seemed to oppose the Bill for a different reason.

Deputy McGilligan said that it was a Bill that ought to be passed, and passed quickly, on the basis on which it was presented to the House and that there was no necessity to set up a Select Committee. Another front bench Deputy suggested that there was no justification for an increase of £10 a week in the salaries of certain members of the Judiciary, and yet another member based his case on the question of submission of the whole case to a Select Committee.

That might give Senator Sheehy Skeffington some illustration of the difficulty the Government found themselves in in preparing this Bill and presenting it to the Oireachtas. As has been said, it was in 1953 that the previous Bill increasing the salaries of the Judiciary came before the Oireachtas, and then again it was a Fianna Fáil Government which had to put the Bill forward and make themselves a cockshot as they felt they had a duty to do on both occasions.

The manner in which the Bill was debated in the Dáil indicated that it required some degree of courage to present the Bill even in the state in which it was presented before the Dáil, having regard to the manner in which it was being criticised not only in the Dáil but through the country. The fact was that the Government felt that the increase was justified, having regard to the increase in the cost of living. I should like to point out to Senator Murphy at this stage that the cost of living which was being taken into account was not an increase in the past 12 months but an increase since 1953, when these salaries were last adjusted, so that his contention that on that basis the Government should increase the salaries of all its servants completely falls to the ground. He knows—and I am sure he is a student of these statistics—that the cost of living has not increased at all in the past 12 months.

Mr. Murphy

Claims are not based on the change in the past 12 months.

Mr. Lynch

I know very well what the present claims were based on, and it is not on the basis of any increase in the past 12 months. I do not know of any trade union which has attempted to justify such a case, either before the Labour Court or in preliminary negotiations with employers. There is no basis whatever for the argument he puts forward to-day that there should be a similar increase in the salaries of State servants.

I should like to remind Senator Murphy and all other Senators that since the emergency there have been no fewer than six rounds of increases. I shall not comment on whether the increase now being granted can be described as a seventh round or not, but during that time every section of the community, with some notable exceptions such as the Judiciary and Deputies and Ministers, partook of those increases. Therefore, on that basis it is only justice that some increases should be given.

Many comparisons were made with the relative increases given to civil servants and to district justices. The cases that have been made—and there is a surprising uniformity in the manner in which they have been presented—were based on the increases given to civil servants from the year 1944 onwards. and on a comparison with the increases being given in this Bill to district justices. It is only fair, however, that the increases should be based on the initial year 1924, because in the years 1924 to 1929 when it was proved that there was a reduction in the cost of living, the salaries of civil servants were correspondingly reduced, whereas under the Constitution there was no reduction whatever in the salaries of the Judiciary.

There was, further, during the war years, the operation of the stabilisation order, and it was only at the end of the war that the increases which were due as a result of the increase in the cost of living during the war again began to be reflected in the civil servants' pay packets. If we take a district justice who was in receipt of £1,000 a year in 1924 and compare with that what he will now get under this Bill, the increase will be £925. His counterpart in the Civil Service with a similar salary of £1,000 in 1924 now gets something between £1,820 and £1,850. There might be limited increases in respect of certain bonuses which I am not taking into account here, but on these figures there has been a fairly close relationship between the increases given to the civil servants and to the district justices.

The suggestion that a Select Committee should be appointed was made on the other side of the House and also in the Dáil. I should like to remind the Seanad that a Select Committee was set up in 1953 and in fact I myself was chairman, and all the considerations as to the relativity of the responsibility and the relativity of the amount of work were taken into account on that occasion, and there was also taken into account that, in 1951, the Courts of Justice Act had been passed which increased the jurisdiction of the District Court. I shall refer to that again later, but in general, it is not the tradition or practice to examine too often the relationship between such Government servants and their responsibilities. The relationship of salary to responsibility was established then, and the increase now being given is due to the cost of living increase since 1953. I am suggesting that the relationship is not being disturbed on this occasion.

I have just said that the increase in the jurisdiction in the District Court was taken into account in 1953. Senator Sheehy Skeffington seemed to suggest that the increase in jurisdiction came after the Select Committee had reported in 1953, but that was not the case. The increase was effected by the 1951 Act and was taken into account by the Select Committee in 1953. I should like to mention in connection with these increases in jurisdiction that up till then the jurisdiction of the District Court in tort was £10 and in contract £25.

It was suggested to the then Government that, by reason of the fall in money values there was a corresponding fall in the amount of civil business coming before the District Courts. In fact, one could hardly envisage an action in tort in which the damages could be less than £10 at the present time. If someone falls off a bicycle or runs into a motor car with a bicycle, the damage to the motor car or to the bicycle would certainly exceed £10. Similarly, in contract, if an arrangement between people for the purchase of commodities falls down through alleged breach of contract, it is seldom that a claim comes before the District Court for such a breach rather than finding its way into the Circuit Court because invariably the plaintiff claims more than £25 and therefore more than the maximum jurisdiction of the District Court. Therefore, there was a falling off in the business of District Courts and raising their jurisdiction to £50 restored the status quo as far as the volume of civil business in the District Court was concerned. There was, it is true, a change in the criminal jurisdiction but again that was taken into account by the 1953 Select Committee.

I was surprised to hear Senator Murphy advocating a Select Committee. He might throw his mind back to 1953 when certain members of his Party were nominated and refused to take part in it. Accordingly they left themselves completely free to criticise the agreed recommendations, the unanimous recommendations, of that Committee and they did not spare the Government, I can assure Senator Murphy, when its recommendations came before the House.

Mr. Carton

So Fine Gael are not so mystifying after all.

Mr. Murphy

It is six years ago after all.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am not blaming Senator Murphy for that, but I have no confidence in the desire of Labour to take part in such a Select Committee, if it were set up and, not having taking part, using their opportunity in the Dáil to criticise whatever the Select Committee would recommend.

I was going to say, if the House had not adjourned before I made my speech in reply that I would have welcomed the tea break so that I could order my thoughts, but Senator Stanford very neatly arranged them for me in his nine points. Since he did pose them, I shall answer them in the order in which he did so and in doing so I think I shall be able to take up some of the other points made by other members of the House. He related his points entirely, I think, to the increase to which he said district justices were entitled over and above other members of the Judiciary.

His first point was the cost of living. It is, as I said in my opening statement, correct that the cost of living did increase over the period by 15 per cent. The increase provided here represents only a 10 per cent. increase in salary but the answer to that is that while recognising the justice of the Judiciary's claim, we must as far as we can exercise restraint. That restraint is taken into account by the fact that the salaries are not increased by 15 per cent. I think that is the only answer I can give—and it is a reasonable answer— to the point he made in that connection.

His second point was the increased work a district justice does. I think I have already answered that inasmuch as that increase is taken into account in the report of the Select Committee whose recommendations were adopted by the Dáil and Seanad in 1953. On that occasion, district justices received an increase of £450 as against £250 for the judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The third point was that justices should be above temptation. I do not think I need try to defend the integrity of our Judiciary because I think it is well established not only here but throughout the country and I completely ignore the unfounded allegations made by Senator L'Estrange in this connection.

Mr. L'Estrange

They are not unfounded, but you can ignore them, if you like.

Mr. J. Lynch

The only attempt I ever heard to attack the integrity of judges was made here by Senator L'Estrange and coming from that source, I think I am entitled to ignore it. It is generally agreed, even if Senator L'Estrange does not agree, that our district justices and indeed all members of our Judiciary are above suspicion and that their integrity and independence are beyond question. Nevertheless, it is our duty to maintain them in such a position. The test, I think, is to ensure that we shall get men of proper calibre, having accepted that nothing against their integrity is involved. There is, of course, and always will be, a complement of people anxious to take appointments on the Bench, whether at District Court or Supreme Court level. The fact that we have more applicants than there are vacancies does not perhaps establish that we are remunerating them sufficiently. Nevertheless, the fact that we can get among those who apply men of sufficient capacity and ability to perform their functions in the highest possible manner and in the best possible tradition establishes, I think, that we need not have recourse to the ordinary law of supply and demand in this connection. There is a supply and the supply happily is of sufficiently high calibre to take these positions. At the salaries they are paid, we can get men in whom we can have sufficient confidence.

Mr. L'Estrange

What about the man who was removed from office?

Mr. J. Lynch

The man who was removed from office was removed for different reasons altogether and his resignation did not reflect in any way on his integrity.

The fourth point made by the Senator was that lawyers are well paid and therefore may not be anxious to take up appointments on the District Court bench, where they are so much in the public eye and where their decisions are not only open to comment by the public but are open to appeal to a higher Court where they may be reversed and where possibly the quality of the work may be questioned. Lawyers are well paid if they are doing enough business.

Somebody suggested that it is wrong to deny a person who is a successful barrister or solicitor and who wants to serve his country on the Bench an opportunity of doing so because the salary is small, compared with the amount he can earn if he never went on the Bench. It is true that if a District justiceship were offered to those in active practice, among 75 per cent., you would get no takers because they are doing well enough or because they would not like the life on the Bench. As far as the High Court or Supreme Court is concerned, it is not unknown that many people earning high incomes would not be interested in an appointment. However, that is happily a matter of choice and if a person feels that his income will be reduced by going on the Bench, he is under no obligation to accept an appointment. Invariably people do not accept an appointment unless they look forward to the security an appointment on the Bench offers. That is a point that should be taken into account, too: there is security and entitlement to pension which is not the case where a practising barrister or solicitor is concerned.

The fifth point made by the Senator was that judges are precluded from accepting other posts of emolument. I think that applies to more than judges and justices. Most people in the public service are precluded also from taking up other posts. Comparison with the North of Ireland was the sixth point made by the Senator, as far as district justices are concerned. This applies also to judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court and in many other cases to persons in other public employment.

The seventh point he mentioned was the previous differentiation between district justices and others. I take it he means the differentiation that existed following the report of the Select Committee in 1953. This differentiation is being continued because —and I repeat it—the 10 per cent. increase is concerned only with the increase in the cost of living.

The eighth point was that district justices are precluded from promotion. That has always been the case. I shall not go into the merits of it. I think it is reasonably well accepted that a district justice who has taken up that position usually expects to find himself in it for the rest of his life, unless he resigns. The principle involved is that a district justice, by reason of making decisions which might be construed as favourable to the Administration for the time being, might expect as a result to get promotion. I think that would be a wrong principle. I am not suggesting it would happen. Nevertheless, as they say in ordinary references to justice, justice must not only be done but must appear to be done. Therefore, it must not appear that district justices, by making decisions or carrying on their courts in a manner that might be presumed to please the Government of the day, might as a result expect promotion. It is better to preserve their complete independence in this fashion. The last point he made, a comparison with higher civil servants, I have dealt with already.

I should like just to take up a few other points made by Senators in general. As far as pension schemes are concerned, this is a matter to which the Minister for Justice himself and, I think, the Taoiseach made reference in the Dáil. I think the Minister said that he would welcome proposals from the Judiciary themselves as to what they thought in this respect. It is well known that the members of the Judiciary are concerned about pensions. Whether, as a result of the proposals that they might make the Minister would be able to introduce a scheme or whether it would be necessary in this instance to appoint a Select Committee will be a matter for the Minister when the proposals have been formulated.

The points I have already made answer some of the arguments made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington when he referred to the disparity in the amount of work required to be done and that no account of the vastly increased jurisdiction was taken in making this flat 10 per cent.increase. I have said already that that was taken into account in 1953, but as far as the disparity in the amount of work was concerned, I do not know whether he was referring to the amount of work done in the district courts compared with the amount of work done in the circuit courts or whether he was referring to the disparity in the amount of work done by district justices inter se. If it were the latter, I think nobody can contend that we could devise a scheme to remunerate district justices in accordance with the amount of work they do. In the first instance, it varies from day to day.

Professor Stanford

As a matter of fact, I am quite sure that he was referring to the fact that over 90 per cent. of the criminal cases and 60 per cent. of the civil cases in general were dealt with in the district court.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Senator was not referring to the disparity in the work of justices inter se. I have already dealt with the amount of work done in the district court compared with that done in the circuit court because I believe that the change in jurisdiction was made largely to get back to the district court much of the civil work that had been done before the change in the value of money up to 1951.

I think these were in general the main points made. Having regard to the fact that the Select Committee reported as recently as 1953, I do not think a case has been made out for the establishment of a Select Committee in this instance. The increase that has been given is not so divergent as between the district justices and the principal justice when income tax is deducted. Take the case of a married judge without children. The net increase for the Principal Justice would be £219 and for provincial district justices, £125. The fact that a district justice is often appointed at a younger age than a principal justice would possibly imply that the district justice would have children in respect of whom he could make income tax claims. Therefore, his net increase in salary would probably be much higher than the £125 mentioned here.

These, as far as I can remember and as far as I have made notes, cover what the Senators said either in praise or criticism of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee.

SECTION 1.

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

Mr. O'Quigley

I think this is a section upon which I can deal with some remarks made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington on Second Stage. Senator Sheehy Skeffington made one remark about the disingenuousness of Deputy McGilligan who indicated that the Government in 1957 were contemplating an increase for the Judiciary and that Fate determined otherwise. The Senator seemed to suggest that what Deputy McGilligan was saying was, in fact, not true.

The position, of course, is this. The first inter-Party Government came into office in 1948 and in the year before that, judicial salaries were increased. They were in office until 1951. They came back into office again in 1954 and what happened, as probably Senator Sheehy Skeffington would not know or be in a position to know was as described by Deputy McGilligan that there was in 1956, 1957 and 1958 a case sub judice in the High Court and afterwards an appeal in the Supreme Court, the effect of which, if it went a particular way would have meant a substantial increase in the remuneration of the Judiciary. That was the reason nothing was done by the Government between 1954 and 1957. That case was not determined until after 1957. Therefore, what Deputy McGilligan says—that this matter was under consideration—is the fact of the matter. It was under such consideration and could not be dealt with until the case had been decided by the Supreme Court. It so happened that the judges decided against their own interests, which indicates a very high level of integrity indeed. The Minister seemed to make great play with certain differences. I must confess I did not quite follow what line he was trying to establish about differences in Fine Gael in their attitude towards this Bill.

Mr. Carter

This is a Second Reading speech.

Mr. J. Lynch

It is certainly not relevant to the section.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is very much relevant to whether the salaries should be increased. I am dealing with Section 1.

Mr. J. Lynch

Section 2 was called.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are on Section 1.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am talking about the increases being provided under Section 1 which refers to an increase of ten per cent. I am saying why they were not previously granted, why they ought to be granted now and why there are different views on what percentage should be granted.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

All that was said on Second Reading.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am entitled to reply——

Mr. Carter

The Senator is not entitled to make a Second Reading Speech on Section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

The whole Bill is contained in Section 1.

Mr. Murphy

Is Senator Carter in the Chair?

Mr. O'Quigley

I am entitled to deal with the proposed increase in remuneration, which falls under Section 1.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We have heard it all for the past five hours on the Second Stage.

Mr. O'Quigley

I shall have an opportunity of making a further speech on the matter contained in this section. I intend to avail of that opportunity to speak again, subject to the ruling of the Chair, and without interruption from Senator Carter. If the Minister had not adopted the queer and curious line of talking about differences of opinion on the Fine Gael front bench, and other differences which I did not quite follow——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They are there.

Mr. Carter

The Minister was merely illustrating the confusion that exists within your own ranks.

Mr. L'Estrange

Do you remember when no man was worth more than £1,000 a year?

Mr. Carter

Senator O'Quigley is turning into the chief apologist for the Fine Gael Party. Is that not the position?

Mr. O'Quigley

If the Senator would stop interrupting, I would remind him that I am not always wrong, as was demonstrated here this afternoon.

Mr. Carter

Senator O'Quigley's attitude is: "I may not always be right but I am never wrong."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the interruptions would cease the Chair might be able to see whether or not Senator O'Quigley is in order and give a decision.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We are sick of it. It is the same old stuff all the time.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister referred to a certain amount of confusion. I want to point out the moral to be drawn——

Mr. J. Lynch

Would the Senator dispel my confusion? I have been reading this again and again.

Mr. O'Quigley

I shall come to that, if I am permitted, and I shall deal with it briefly. The confusion about which the Minister speaks illustrates the necessity for cold and calm consideration in a Select Committee of this matter.

Mr. Carter

There is nothing about a Select Committee in this section.

Mr. O'Quigley

If I am not permitted to say it now, I shall say it on the Fifth Stage. I want to refer to Column 656 of Volume 177 of the Official Report. I want to show that the confusion in relation to the percentage to be awarded to the judges, which arises on this section, did not exist solely in the ranks of Fine Gael. The Minister for Justice is reported as saying in Dáil Éireann at the Column I have mentioned:

I may have been doing an injustice to the Judiciary by making the Government themselves decide whether or not this increase should be given to the Judges. I do not mind saying that if my recommendation had been accepted, they would have got more than the ten per cent. recommended in this Bill.

I want to point out that the Minister for Justice, with all the authority of his high office and with all the consideration he put into this Bill, was of opinion that the increase should be greater.

Mr. J. Lynch

We knew where we stood when we got into the House.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister's Party is extremely well controlled.

Mr. J. Lynch

We discuss things in a democratic fashion.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is a freedom permitted to the Fine Gael Party which may not be permitted to Fianna Fáil. That is why there may be differences of view on a matter of this kind. We are always striving to bring about the best interests of the people for whom we are legislating.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This discussion is certainly not relevant.

Mr. Carter

The Senator has been out of order from the beginning.

Mr. O'Quigley

I shall continue on the Final Stage of the Bill, having made my point to date.

Mr. O'Reilly

I want to draw the attention of the Chair to Senator O'Quigley's closing statement. I doubt if the Chair heard the remark. He indicated to the Chair——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is it a point of order?

Mr. O'Reilly

On a point of order, Senator O'Quigley, if I heard him correctly, indicated to the Chair that he will raise a similar point on the Final Stage, after having made the same point on Committee Stage.

Mr. L'Estrange

He said he would continue.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

He is quite entitled on the Fifth or Final Stage to make a general point.

Mr. O'Reilly

I want a ruling, Sir.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Chair has just ruled.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Quigley is entitled to make a general point in relation to what is in the Bill as a whole on the Fifth Stage.

Mr. O'Reilly

I gathered from the statement made by the Senator that——

Mr. O'Quigley

He sat down and submitted to the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. O'Reilly

——he intended to raise a matter which the Chair had ruled at that stage was a matter which dealt with the general principle of the Bill. I took it that the Chair had ruled that the point made by the Senator was a matter which raised the general principle of the Bill—in other words, that it was a matter which pertained to a Second Reading debate and not to a Committee Stage debate.

Mr. Burke

Senator O'Reilly is only trying to put the Chair right.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Quigley could reply on the Final Stage to something the Minister said whereas he might not be able to reply to it on the section. He would be within his rights in doing so on the Final Stage.

Mr. O'Reilly

If the Chair is satisfied, that is all right. I thought it was a reflection on the Chair. I felt that since it was the Leas-Chathaoirleach who sat in the Chair, there was a duty on somebody to see that the matter was satisfactorily cleared up. If the Chair feels I am wrong, I shall sit down but I thought Senator O'Quigley was flouting the authority of the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Not at all. That question did not arise.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."

Mr. O'Quigley

I merely want to exercise my right to raise matters on Report and Final Stages, in spite of the ruling of Senator O'Reilly.

Mr. O'Reilly

So long as the Senator does not reflect on the Chair.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order!

Mr. Burke

The Chair is being protected.

Mr. Burke

The Chair is being protected.

Mr. Carter

Neither must the Senator reflect on Senator O'Reilly.

Mr. O'Reilly

Through the Chair only.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Carter

The Senator is offensive. We could be offensive if we wanted to.

Mr. Burke

Provocative, I would say.

Mr. O'Quigley

Senator Carter has a lead on me in that.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Could we hear Senator O'Quigley on the Fifth Stage of the Bill?

Mr. Carter

I try to be offensive, but Senator O'Quigley is offensive.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order!

Mr. O'Quigley

When the Senator sees the Official Report, he will see that immediately the Chair said I might not proceed on those lines, I sat down.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order!

Mr. O'Quigley

I merely want to refer to the matter dealt with by the Minister in regard to the Select Committee of 1953. He indicated that a variety of matters had been gone into by the Select Committee, including the enlargement of the jurisdiction of the courts under the Courts of Justice Act, 1951. There are various ways in which a Select Committee can conduct its business but it seems to me that memoranda addressed to a Select Committee are not the best way of arguing a particular point of view.

If my information is correct, the members of the Judiciary in 1953 were not afforded an opportunity of making oral representations to the Select Committee as they were rather disposed to do. If indeed a Select Committee were established in relation to this Bill or in the future, it would be my view that an opportunity should be afforded to them and having made their case and having been heard and adjudicated on there would be no grievance on the part of anyone.

Professor Quinlan

On the point raised by the Minister about coupling this question of increased remuneration with increased prestige which we said was threatened by the present system of political appointments, I must qualify one point. I do not want it to be taken that those of us who raised it—certainly I am not— were in any way opposed to lawyers who have engaged in politics. I think that is an excellent thing but I should like to see them receiving their appointments from somebody who would be impartial such as the Appointments Commission. They would get full value for their political experience in such circumstances and get the positions upon merit alone.

Mr. Carter

On that point, the Senator does not believe in his own Constitution.

Professor Quinlan

I beg the Senator's pardon?

Mr. Carter

The Senator does not believe in the law of the land.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Carter

I am entitled to make my point just as Senators on the opposite side of the House are. I do not want to introduce any heat into these arguments on the Fifth Stage. I do not like confusion but I want to say to Senator Quinlan that he is not long in politics and he should not denigrate——

Professor Quinlan

I am not denigrating——

Mr. Carter

——the Houses of the Oireachtas or the Constitution of the land. The Senator says, in effect, that the highest tribunal in the land should not have the power to appoint a judge and, in effect, that that tribunal should delegate its authority to an inferior body.

Mr. L'Estrange

Professor of languages.

Mr. Carter

I want to make the point——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This matter is not relevant to the Bill. I was waiting for Senator Quinlan to finish a sentence to tell him he was not relevant. I allowed Senator Carter to reply because I felt he was entitled to do so, but I shall now put the question that the Bill be returned to the Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.