The Dáil now goes into Committee to consider the amendments from the Seanad to this Bill.
PRIVATE BILL. - DÁIL IN COMMITTEE.
As I indicated last evening, I propose that the Dáil should not agree with amendment 25 from the Seanad as it stands, but instead should accept the amendment, the terms of which I mentioned last evening, by which the position would be preserved exactly as it was stated by the President when the Bill was in Committee before the Dáil. A proposal which I have no doubt will be acceptable to everybody as a solution of the question that was raised is, that until the end of the financial year, that is to say, the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, the salaries of District Justices shall be paid out of a Vote, but that from and after that date the salaries of the District Justices shall be charged on the Central Fund, and so remove the Justices from the realm of discussion as to the discharge of their judicial functions. It has already been explained why a short period of payment by annual Vote is considered by the Executive Council to be desirable, and I do not think I really need add anything to what has already been said on that subject. The effect of this amendment that I propose, in lieu of the Seanad amendment, is to attain exactly the object aimed at by Deputy Johnson and other Deputies who supported his view, namely, that the discharge by the District Justices of their functions as judges should not be open to debate.
I beg to move accordingly: "That the Committee disagree with amendment 25, and that the following be inserted in lieu thereof: In Section 71, lines 3 and 4, page 16, to delete the words `to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas' and to insert in lieu thereof the words `until the end of the financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, be paid out of moneys to be annually provided by the Oireachtas, and shall thereafter be charged on and be payable out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.' "
I admit that I was one of the persons to whom the Attorney-General referred yesterday. He seemed to think that their persistence in placing these District Justices on the Estimates was due to some sinister motive. I was wrong, and I admit that, but it was not through any sinister motive it was done, but simply through pig-headedness. The Government having made up its mind to a certain course, absolutely refused to depart from it, but now it has made some concession, for which I thank it. The concession the Government makes does not altogether meet our objection to having District Justices liable to be canvassed on the Vote for the Estimates in any year. It is better to have this course for three years than that it should continue for ever, but I object to having these salaries put on the Estimates at all. I think the object which the Government wishes to achieve will not be fully achieved. The Attorney-General has given his reasons for the action that has been taken. He says that we, from time to time, will have power to review the number of District Justices, and to say whether fewer are needed. We ought to be able to say at any time whether more or fewer are needed, but, putting them on the Estimates will give us no power to say that there ought to be more. We can move a reduction, but not an increase, in the number. If, in our opinion, the number of District Justices be too few, we could not increase it to more than thirty-three. This is a purely one-sided arrangement in which we can reduce the number, but cannot increase it. As regards a reduction of the number of District Justices, that could be achieved apart from this amendment altogether. Under Section 66 of the Bill it is provided that the number of such justices shall not exceed thirty-three. Supposing the Dáil came to the conclusion that a larger number than thirty-three was necessary, could we not pass a resolution to that effect, and would not the responsible Minister act on such a resolution of the Dáil? I am always being told by the Minister for Finance in connection with other matters, that a resolution of the Dáil will absolutely have the force of law, and that the responsible Minister would be bound to act on it. Why should it not be so in this case?
I suggest to the Attorney-General that he will achieve his object with less friction here and in the Seanad if instead of putting forward this amendment, although it is an improvement on the original proposal put forward, he put forward an amendment to Section 66, providing that the number of such justices shall not at any time exceed 33, unless a resolution of Dáil Eireann authorising such increase be passed. I believe that would give an opportunity of reducing or increasing the number if it were necessary, and it would remove a very serious objection of allowing the conduct of the District Justices to be discussed in this House because of the ruling of An Ceann Comhairle that while the individual decision of a District Justice could not be discussed on the Estimates, their qualification, their possible partisanship, or lack of partisanship, might be discussed, and although the Attorney-General does in his amendment give a certain improvement upon the Seanad amendment, I think he agreed with me—the Seanad certainly agreed—in thinking that would be a most undesirable thing. I earnestly appeal, not in any partisan spirit, to the Attorney-General to take a little more time for consideration and to see whether an amendment of Section 66 would not do what he wants quite as well as an amendment placing the District Justices on the Estimates for three years.
The whole question of what would happen if the District Justices were on the Estimates and the question of rulings were hypothetical, and I call attention to the fact that I answered none of them. The Attorney-General said what he thought would probably be the ruling in one case, and a Deputy arguing against the Attorney-General gave a very emphatic ruling in another direction. I merely said that not having to deal with the matters at the time I could give no ruling whatever, and I think that should be made quite clear. I did state some of the problems which might present themselves to the Chair.
I was merely trying to suggest not that you gave a ruling, but that you suggested a hypothesis, I think.
I do not know if the Deputy thinks that the matter has not been considered with all the suggestions that should be considered, because I assure him it has really received every consideration from all those points of view. One might have expected perhaps that Deputy Cooper might have advocated what prevails in another place, because there justices of this particular rank— stipendary magistrates and so on—are on the annual Estimates, and are fully open to discussion as to the methods in which they discharge their duties.
We are not bound to follow that precedent.
No; but I rather anticipated that the Deputy, from his previous experience, might have advocated that course, and had he done so I should have found myself in opposition to him, because I do not, nor do any members of the Executive Council, favour the dragging of the judicial work of any of the courts into discussion or to debate the position of independence which it is desired to preserve. One of the questions which may arise, and properly arises, in every discussion is this, whether in the allocation of Justices, in the making out of the districts, which is a departmental and administrative matter, there may not be considerable room for improvement, and until we have felt our way for a couple of years and seen how the justices can best be distributed for the efficient discharge of their duties, and their districts made workable and a sufficient number appointed, it is desired to keep that open for discussion by the House, and it will be for the House to consider whether it should pursue any further discussion upon that matter. Certainly it will not be encouraged from these Benches. No debate on the judicial work of these Justices will be encouraged here. I must say I put that amendment forward to meet the point raised, and I think it is a fair and reasonable proposition, and I believe it will be accepted, where the same view is taken, in the other Chamber, and certainly there is nothing unreasonable or, as the Deputy said, pig-headed about it. It gives just that short interval allowed for consideration and then puts the Justices permanently upon the Central Fund and takes them permanently out of discussion in this House.
Question—"That the Dáil disagree with the Seanad in Amendment 25 and that the new amendment in lieu thereof be inserted"—put and agreed to.
The amendment is carried, and the new amendment is therefore inserted.
I move that the Committee disagree with Amendment 22 from the Seanad. The amendment reads:—Section 66. The word "justices" deleted and the word "judges" substituted therefor. The words "District Justice" and "District Justices" deleted wherever they occur and the words "District Judge" and "District Judges" substituted therefor.
The reason that I asked that the consideration of this amendment should be postponed until we had disposed of amendment 25 is this, that I believe the particular object of those who proposed to change the title of the District Justices was to remove the suspicion that they might not bear the character of judges and might not have attributed to them that independent position to which they are entitled under the Constitution. Now, having admitted the principle of charging their salaries upon the Central Fund in the same way as the salaries of other judges, and having thereby admitted their right to a position of independence in the discharge of their judicial functions, I do submit that the whole object of the proposed change in title has been achieved, and that once that object is achieved the preservation of the existing title of District Justice is one that would meet, I think, with general approval. At any rate the amendment as it has been made in the Seanad is quite incapable, as I mentioned last evening, of being given effect to in the text of the Bill. In order to carry out an amendment of this kind, or to give effect to an intention of this kind, it would be necessary to have had at least 20 different amendments made in the text of the Bill. As it stands, this amendment would have the effect wherever, for instance, the title of the former Act, temporary Act, District Justices Temporary Provisions Act, 1923, occurs, of changing that into District Judges Act. I therefore submit this amendment should not be agreed to and that the purpose is achieved by charging the salaries of the District Justices upon the Central Fund after a certain number of years, and also that the amendment as proposed by the Seanad is not incapable of being given effect to in the text of the Bill.
I think the Attorney-General has made it quite clear that this House has a right to reject this amendment sent down from the Seanad. At the same time, I think it is necessary to state at this stage that even apart from the logical question the Attorney-General has raised in connection with the alteration of the name, any such alteration that could be made or reasonably claimed would not be for the benefit of the District Court at all. The question of the District Justices was originally one of the first which came up before the Judiciary Commission. They are not the same as judges in this respect that I would hope and expect that the positions would be filled by men who have experience rather in the solicitors' branch of the profession than in barristers—in other words, by men who in the ordinary course of their work have come into more intimate contact with the people than that which falls to the lot of the ordinary barrister.
Clearly, amongst all sections of the Judiciary as laid down in the Bill, the only section that is open to the appointment of solicitors is this one of District Justices, and in my judgment it is a court that is, must be, and should be, a distinct court in itself, having practically no relation to the Circuit Court or the High Court. I think that the name District Justice for the position best describes the work that they would be called upon to do and I think any alteration of that would be very unfortunate.
Question—"That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in the amendment"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 74.
Amendment 27:—
After the word "summarily," page 17, line 4, the following words inserted "and the accused (inquiry having been made of him by the judge) does not object to being so tried."
There remains amendment 27, which stood over because of one small amendment that depended upon the result of amendment 22. I explained last evening the object of this amendment. It is introduced in the portion of the section describing the jurisdiction of District Justices, immediately after the provision that the District Justice must make up his mind judicially as to whether the offence before him amounts only to a minor offence. But it proposes to add that the accused person is to be given the express opportunity of taking exception to that ruling and of requiring his case to be sent on for trial by a jury. The amendment in its present form was proposed on behalf of the Government in the Seanad, and I now propose that it be agreed to, subject to the alteration of the word "judge" to the word "justice."
Question—"That the word `judge' in the amendment be deleted and the word `justice' inserted in lieu thereof"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the amendment, as amended, be agreed to"—put and agreed to.