Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jun 1964

Vol. 57 No. 13

Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1964 ( Certified Money Bill ): Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

I am confident the Bill will be regarded as a non-controversial measure when I explain that its purpose is to increase the salaries of judges and district justices in the light of the adjustment which has taken place in the general level of remuneration since the present rates of judicial salaries were last fixed in 1962. The percentage increases proposed are 6 per cent for the Chief Justice; 10 per cent for the President of the High Court, Supreme Court judges, High Court judges and the President of the Circuit Court; and 12 per cent for ordinary Circuit Court judges and all district justices. The figures arrived at by the application of these percentage increases have in all cases been rounded to the nearest £5.

As Senators are aware, the general level of salaries and wages, both in the private sector and the public sector, has in recent months been raised by 12 per cent as a result of a comprehensive settlement between employers and employees. This ninth round increase has been applied to the various public services with effect from 1st February last, at an estimated annual cost of about £7 million.

The proposals now before the House represent the result of careful examination by the Government of the question of judges' pay. Having regard to the substantial nature of the increase given to other persons paid from the public purse, and to the prospect of stability held out by the recent general agreement, the Government felt that increases of the order now proposed are unavoidable unless long-established relationships in the matter of pay between judges and other groups are to be upset in a fundamental manner.

For that reason it is proposed to apply a flat increase of 12 per cent to all judicial persons up to and including ordinary Circuit Court judges. In relation to the judges of the Superior Courts, the Government felt that there was scope for some modification of the general ninth round pattern; hence the proposal to fix the increase for Supreme Court and High Court judges at 10 per cent and the increase for the Chief Justice at 6 per cent. The effective date in all cases will be 1st February of this year, the date from which the ninth round increases were applied to the other public services.

I trust the House will agree that against the background which I have outlined the present proposals are not only reasonable but unavoidable. The total annual cost will be slightly less than £19,000, and I trust that the proposals will commend themselves to the Seanad.

Professor Hayes

We are in agreement with the Bill. Indeed, I find myself in agreement with the Minister's arguments except that I would have put them slightly differently. The Bill arises because of the necessity for increased wages to offset increases in the cost of living and a decrease in the value of money largely caused by increased taxation imposed by the Minister and his colleagues.

The judges, naturally, have to get increases in their salaries to correspond in some degree to what other people are getting. The judges deserve these increases. We have inherited a judicial system with the working of which our lawyers and citizens were familiar but not always satisfied. In 1924 certain changes were made, particularly the setting up of the district court which has worked extremely well.

Though favouring these increases, I do not at all argue that judges have to be extremely well paid to keep them honest. If they are not naturally honest and well selected, they will not prove to be as good as our judges have been. People referring to this subject should remember that judges administer the law as we frame it, but at the same time the outlook of judges is of very great importance to everybody. It should not be considered that this is a matter very far up in the air, away from the life of the ordinary citizen. It is not. The judges and the role they play concern all of us, rich and poor, big and small. They have a considerable influence on our lives and on the law itself. Therefore, I do not think they should have to make a case to have their salaries increased. In the light of the work they do, this Bill is a suitable measure.

Mr. Murphy

As the Minister said, we are asked to agree to the application of the ninth round increase to the judges, appropriately scaled off at the higher level. This ninth round was not, as Senator Hayes said, simply a compensation for increases in the cost of living.

Professor Hayes

I did not use the word "simply".

Mr. Murphy

The Senator is not a simple man. It was not simply— I am not quoting the Senator—compensation for cost of living increases. There was an element of such increases in it but there was also an element of a share in the benefits of increased productivity for the workers. It was in that context the national agreement was negotiated between the Congress of Irish Trade Unions and the employers. I do not think we ever thought we were negotiating for judges at the same time.

Nevertheless, as we are now asked to apply the ninth round to them, we should have some explanation from the Minister as to increased productivity in the application of the work of judges in this country. I must confess, or may I boast, that I have not very much experience, but from what little I have it appears to me we are being asked to apply a level of salaries appropriate to the 1960s to a Victorian system. I thought the Minister might have been in a greater hurry to do something about the system rather than applying this higher level of salaries to the judges.

Mr. Haughey

I am.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister is, but I should like to know what progress he is making. Considering the position during the lunch interval, I took a look at the list of electors living round the Minister's constituency, in his neighbourhood, to get a picture of the situation because I had got the impression that under the present system grave hardship is involved for certain citizens. I looked through a list of about 1,500 electors in that area and found that out of that number only 270, or 18 per cent, were jurors.

An Cathaoirleach

This matter is hardly relevant.

Mr. Murphy

I was trying to bring out the question of the increased productivity in the application of justice through modern methods. If it is not relevant I must depart from it. There is one aspect which may be relevant and it is the payment to others involved in the dispensation of justice. Jurors are called again and again, every morning, until they are finally empanelled. If they happen to agree on a verdict they are paid a half crown for their service.

Mr. L'Estrange

Five shillings.

Mr. Haughey

A hundred per cent more than the Senator said.

Mr. Murphy

I do not know whether 12 per cent of the half crown would be ample compensation. Could the Minister explain what he is doing about this aspect of the dispensation of justice? Those people are suffering much greater hardship than the judges to whom we are now voting the ninth round.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I believe in the independence of the judiciary but more so in the dignity of the judiciary. It is undesirable that at frequent intervals we should have Bills introduced here to deal with judges' salaries. The Bill with which we dealt two years ago was introduced by the Minister on that principle, in that atmosphere. We opposed the Bill then because it was introduced at a time when there was a pay pause or wage freeze for all other sections of the community. Conditions now are entirely different and we have no opposition to the Bill.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator should have read the Dáil speeches.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

It is, nevertheless, a pity that these Bills should be introduced so frequently. It is a reflection on Government policy that they admit that in order to pay the judges in real money the same salaries they were getting two years ago it is necessary now to introduce this Bill, substantially increasing their salaries in order to restore them to the position in which this House and the Dáil placed them two years ago.

One point I want to make is a point I made at considerable length when the other Bill was going through the House. I cannot see why a rural district justice should be paid less than his city brother in Dublin or Cork. All ordinary justices throughout the country should be paid the same salary. Under this Bill a district justice presiding in a rural district is paid £170 less than his colleague in Dublin and Cork. I do not believe district justices and judges should be paid on the volume of work they do. In fact, it might be evidence that they were doing their work better and that they were better worth the money we are giving them, if they had less work to do. It might be evidence that the administration of justice was having its desired effect and that, certainly on the criminal side, it was acting as a deterrent. I do not believe either that a country district justice has less work to do than a city district justice.

Mr. Haughey

Would Senator Fitzpatrick equate the salaries of city justices with those of the rural justices?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

If the Minister thinks that a salary of £2,690 is fair and reasonable for a district justice in the city of Cork and if his majority in the House agree with him, I say he should consider paying the same salary to the district justice presiding in District No. 5 and every other district in this country. It is as simple as that. This Bill seems to suggest that a justice should be paid on the volume of business going through his court. I do not agree with that. I think he is paid for the responsibility he has, for the work he does and for the work he is ready and willing to do. If the Minister is convinced there should be a difference because one has less work to do than the other, I say a rural district justice has a greater variety of work to do. The man in the city may deal with road traffic cases, Rent Act cases and children's cases in the same court every day of the week. By and large, he has the same work to do and he has less thought to give to it. Today a rural district justice may be dealing with smuggling, the following day road traffic cases, fishery cases, civil cases, poteen cases, cock fighting or anything like that. Perhaps he has a more interesting time, but he certainly has to bring his mind to bear on a far greater variety of matters. I think this difference between the rural district justice and the city district justice should be removed.

Mr. Nash

I have often heard that a judge, when giving his decision, should never give his reasons, because his judgment may be right and his reasons wrong. It seems to me that all of us are unanimous that these increases should be granted, but we all believe that they should be granted for different reasons. Senator Hayes and Senator Fitzpatrick believe they should be granted because they say the cost of living has increased by 12 per cent in two years. Senator Murphy thinks they should be granted because productivity has increased by 12 per cent. As I understand the situation, this increase is a furtherance of a definite principle and policy. Up to last January whenever increases were to be granted anywhere there was an unseemly scramble for the national cake, even amongst the workers themselves. The largest national trade union is not only very loyal to its members but has always borne in mind that it has a national duty. For that I and, I am sure, most Irish people would like to pay them tribute. Other trade unions, with, perhaps, a lesser sense of responsibility, demanded most extravagant increases which could not possibly be considered, thereby, perhaps, acting to the detriment of those who took the broader view in the interests of their members, in the interests of the nation at large and in the interests of the common good.

If this country is to progress—and we all sincerely hope it will progress— we must forget we belong to different sectors and sections. One and all, we must be prepared to do what we can in the nation's interest. Any benefit which accrues to any sector of the people naturally helps every other sector. The Government apparently appreciated that the two sectors with the most conflicting interests are obviously the employers and workers. The net result was that in 1962 they established the Employer-Labour Conference. Various attempts were made to bring together the employers and workers and get them to agree on some definite principle that would apply to all. The negotiations broke down and the parties were brought together a number of times. Ultimately, to the credit of the Federated Union of Employers and the Congress of Irish Trade Unions——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid if I allow the Senator to continue, Senator L'Estrange might speak.

Mr. Nash

As a result of this conference, agreement was ultimately reached in January of this year. The Taoiseach then made it perfectly clear that this was being paid by reason of the increase in the national wealth and that it should be applied to every other section of the community—gardaí, teachers, civil servants, to everybody from the top to the bottom.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

It was not applied to the postmen.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Nash will now see the difficulty that arises from being too broad.

Mr. Nash

That is the real reason why this Bill comes before the House today. On that principle we should all agree, and be wholehearted in our agreement, that this increase be given. Reference has been made to jurors. A juror gets nothing for a criminal case and gets £3 for a civil case, which may go on for many days. A 12 per cent increase would be an insult to a juror for acting as a public-spirited citizen.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is nothing about jurors here.

Mr. Nash

I do not think that aspect of the matter arises. I suggest we agree wholeheartedly with this increase.

Mr. Haughey

There are just a few points arising out of the discussion. Senator Murphy made a point about productivity and asked what was being done to ensure greater productivity in regard to the judiciary. I think Senator Fitzpatrick gave what is the fundamental reply to that question. We do not want rough and ready or rapid justice. We want in this country sound, fundamental decisions.

Senator Murphy may know that I have established a Committee on Court Practice and Procedure under the chairmanship of a Supreme Court judge to examine the whole practice and procedure in our courts. They also will see in what way the administration of justice can, on the one hand, be expedited and, on the other hand, be made cheaper for litigants. The Committee are working away assiduously and have already presented one report. At the present time, they are dealing with the question of juries and examining the whole basis of the jury system. I am sure they will make recommendations in that regard.

I agree fully with Senator Murphy that the obligation to deal with jury service is a very serious burden on citizens. I hope we may get recommendations from the Committee which will enable us to lighten the load of those called upon, at the moment, to render this service.

With regard to Senator Fitzpatrick's point about the status of the provincial district justices as against city or urban justices, the situation is that in 1953 a Committee of the Oireachtas established this whole situation for a long time to come. It went into the whole question of the status of justices and judges and laid down a certain basis for the future. The Oireachtas, from time to time, grant increases on a pro rata basis, more or less, to the various members of the judiciary on the basis of the status which was established in 1953. I would not think it would be appropriate in the circumstances to do anything about that in this Bill. It merely applies the ninth round more or less automatically to judges and all other sections of the judiciary.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I would prefer if the Minister said he agreed with me in principle and that he would look into the matter.

Mr. Haughey

As I said, the Oireachtas set up a Committee which more or less established definite facts.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I am sure there are a lot of other things in that report.

Mr. Haughey

No fundamental rearrangement or re-assessment has been made since then. If any change were to be made in the basic pattern, then there would be a case for establishing another Oireachtas Committee to go into the question all over again and re-establish the fundamental basis as it was in 1953. At the moment, all we are doing is following an established practice and applying an all round increase to the judiciary.

Senator Murphy asked whether we got more productivity from the judiciary. In so far as the district court is concerned we reduced the number of districts from 30 to 23 so we now have 23 doing the work of 30. That represents an increase in productivity of 25 per cent approximately. As I said also in regard to another point raised by Senator Murphy, a Committee on Court Practice and Procedure was established to inquire into the whole question of juries. It is ridiculous to suggest that the ninth round increase is made necessary by a rise in the cost of living. As we know, the increase in productivity enabled an increase in wages and salaries to be given to different sections of the community. This agreement was come to on the basis of what it is hoped will be a comprehensive and stable arrangement. The Government undertook that whatever increase would be agreed on it would be applied to all the services. It is now being applied to the judiciary. Owing to the long established pattern in this field, we could not possibly contemplate otherwise. As I said in my opening remarks, this Bill is, in fact, unavoidable if we are to keep to the long established relationships on the matter of pay between judges and other groups.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 17th June, 1964.