Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Mar 1930

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 37—Circuit Court.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail, Liúntaisí agus Costaisí Oifigeacha Cúirte Cuarda agu Udarásanna Clárathachta Aitiúla áirithe; agus chun Costaisí Athfhéachainte Liostaí Vótálaithe agus Coisteoirí (54 agus 55 Vict., c. 66, Alt. 7; Uimh. 10 de 1924, Alt 45; Uimh. 27 de 1926, Alt 66; Uimh. 15 de 1928, Alt 9 agus Uimh. 37 de 1929).

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Salaries, Allowances and Expenses of Circuit Court Officers and certain Local Registering Authorities; and the Expenses of Revision of Voters and Jurors Lists (54 and 55 Vict., c. 66, Sec. 7; No. 10 of 1924, sec. 45; No. 27 of 1926, Sec. 66; No. 15 of 1928, Sec. 9; and No. 37 of 1929).

This is a Vote which is rendered necessary by reason of the fact that a temporary Circuit Court Judge had to be appointed while Judge Davitt was engaged elsewhere, principally, as the Deputies opposite are aware, on the Commission inquiring into the claims of civil servants. The sum of money required has, however, been saved in other parts of the Vote. This nominally comes before the House for confirmation.

Is the Minister making up his mind on the advisability of allowing Circuit Court Judges to be used for Commission purposes? Does he consider that is a proper course? These men have been appointed judges because of their expert legal knowledge, because they are skilled lawyers and suited admirably to Circuit Court work, and then they are taken away and put on to other work.

The Deputy is aware of the fact that it was by statute passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas that a judge had to be appointed to deal with the claims of civil servants under Article X of the Treaty.

That is so, but some other arrangements should have been made which would not interfere with the ordinary courts.

There was no question raised in the House against the view that a judge should be a member of the Tribunal set up to decide the claims of civil servants.

Perhaps the Committee at present sitting on the matter may be able to find some way out. As it is, there is interference with the normal course of business.

Vote agreed to.
Barr
Roinn