Deputy McGilligan, speaking on amendment No. 74 on the last day, on the question as to whether the age of retirement of district justices should be 65 or 70 years, raised, on that amendment, the general issue as to why district justices, who are part of the judicial hierarchy, should be placed on a different basis from the other members of the judiciary? He pointed out the tendency that existed, even so far back as the beginning of the new system in 1924, of treating district justices as if they were civil servants. He wished to know what was the reason for that, and if the Minister would justify the further extension of that tendency which appears to run through this part of the Bill. Taking the narrow issue of the retiring age of 65 or 70 years, it would seem to be unreasonable to suggest that district justices should have to retire at 65 years, Supreme and High Court judges at 72, and that district justices who sit in the old metropolitan districts in Dublin should continue up to the age of 70. Is that purely an empirical arrangement, or is there any basis of principle behind it? Is the reason for that that the Department of Justice takes the view that district justices ought to be treated in the same way as civil servants? Did they take the age of 65 years as the retiring age because it happens to be the normal retiring age for civil servants? Apparently, the outlook of the Department of Justice in relation to district justices is the same as their outlook in regard to their own officials who are civil servants.
Courts of Justice Bill, 1934—Recommittal (Resumed).
District justices are not regarded by the Department of Justice as civil servants, and it is not intended that they should be so regarded. In the next section they are definitely being removed from the scope of the Superannuation Acts. I admit that their terms are not as good as those of the circuit judges, but we can deal with that matter later. As regards the point that we are not extending the retiring age of district justices outside Dublin or Cork, the reason for that is that district justices in the country have to do a good deal of travelling, and it is considered that on account of the work which they have to do a considerable amount of expense would arise if those district justices were continued to the age of 70. There would be a considerable amount of sick leave. That is the main and, in fact, the sole reason behind this provision. In this Bill they are certainly taken out of the category of civil servants, except that their terms are not, as I say, similar to what the Circuit Court judges would receive. A similar proposal which was made when the 1924 Bill was going through this House was resisted. I do not know whether it was resisted on the grounds that they were then regarded as civil servants.
It was resisted on the grounds that they were not being made part of the judicial machinery of the State.
I think that is so.
It was resisted on that principle.
It is not being resisted on those grounds in this Bill. It is being resisted on the grounds that, in view of the work which district justices have to do, and the considerable amount of travelling which they have to undertake, there would be a good deal of expense incurred in sick leave, and so on, if they were to continue to the age of 70.
First of all, perhaps I might get back to the Committee's report. In its report the unanimous recommendation of the Committee was that the age of retirement for justices of the District Court should be 72 years. Seventy-two years was the suggestion made by the Committee; it is the unanimous suggestion in the report; so that here again there is the usual lack of observance of what the Committee recommended. This whole matter of retirement really does give a foothold for a discussion of most of the matters which appertain to the district justices. Previously those proposals with regard to the District Court were resisted, and were unfortunately beaten, the main point of resistance being that the district justices seemed to be put in an unfair position; that they were not made part of the judicial machinery; that they were not given independent positions subject to removal only for misconduct or incapacity in the ordinary way in which judges may be removed. The Minister tells us that the reason for keeping the retiring age at this particular, low point is the fear that, on account of the travelling which district justices have to do, their health would be impaired, and that after a certain age there would be a great deal of sick leave. Has the Minister any statistics with regard to the amount of sick leave got in the District Court, as opposed to the amount got in the Circuit Court or the High Court? Can the Minister tell us in regard to, say, the last couple of years, whether there was more ill-health in the High Court, the Circuit Court or the District Court, and what is the reason for this apprehension with regard to ill-health? I am sorry the Minister for Finance has left the House, because I thought the remarks of the Minister for Justice would have been rather apropos of a better arrangement with regard to giving the district justices more travelling allowances, so that they can travel in better comfort, and with more security to their health, thus keeping themselves in permanence at any rate in their positions as district justices for a longer period. I do contend that this suggestion of ill-health as a result of the travelling of district justices is not borne out by fact. It is not the experience of anybody who gave evidence before the Committee, and the Committee did finally report in favour of continuing those justices for a longer period.
I would urge again, as I was urging on the last day, that there is a very close touch between district justices and the common people—the country people. They have to be in close touch and very intimate association with them, and that intimacy and close touch are not at all impaired by their continuing long in office; if anything it is improved. They do have very much the same relation in ordinary matters to the people who come before them as was argued with regard to chief justices in connection with lunacy and minor matters. There is this almost paternal sort of position of the district justices. Arising out of their position they have to administer justice speedily. They have got to make decisions in a much more hurried manner than the judges of the other courts, and in order to have certainty and equity in their decisions they require a greater knowledge of the people amongst whom they move than do the other judges. In the case of the other judges it comes to the point where the fact that they are not in close touch with the particular people who come before them is an advantage. In the case of the District Court that is not so. To ensure a more rapid change in the judicial ranks at the lower end of the scale— I am speaking of the hierarchy, not with any intention at all of degrading them with regard to their positions—not having the necessity for quick change amongst district justices is all to the good. If it were proved that the district justices were becoming less capable of doing their duty, by reason of age, than the judges of the other courts, I would certainly agree that there would be something to be said for having the retiring age lower than with regard to the others, but I do not think that is the experience, and I do not see how it can be alleged. I certainly do not think that anybody can say in regard to the district justices in the country districts, where travelling is supposed to be more severe, and, therefore, more detrimental to their health, that there is any sign of weakened health amongst those particular individuals.
I think that the district justices have unfortunately been depressed very much in their whole activities. They are the lower order of the justices. They are not called judges. There seems to have been an attempt throughout—an attempt which I regret in so far as I took any part in it—to give them such an inferior position, and I would like to see that changed. There seems to have been, all through the discussions on the district justices, the belief that they were not really judicial personages. They were not subject to the same narrow method of removal. They were distinct in every way—in their salaries, their rights with regard to pensions, their age of retirement, and the fact that they could be removed for much less cause than the judges of the other courts. I do not think there is anything to justify us now, with our experience, in taking that stand in relation to them. The biggest fight that took place under the 1924 Courts of Justice Act was in relation to the position of district justices, and it was on this very point of depressing them by the change in the age of retirement, and the pension and salary rights so definitely put on a lower scale that it was almost in breach of the Constitution. It was giving us people who, although put somewhere on the fringe of the whole judicial machinery, were not definitely judicial personages, and had not the rights which those people were supposed to have. If we regard an independent judiciary as being of any value, is there any reason why we should depart from that good system of an independent judiciary when we come to the district justices? I can see none. They are at the heart of things. They deal with an immense number of cases. They move amongst the people more than anybody else. They undoubtedly perform a very useful function in the State, and of all the matters which were gone into before the Committee there is the cleanest-cut recommendation with regard to the District Court. There are merely two lines with regard to them:
"The evidence produced to the Committee was to the effect that the District Court is functioning to the general satisfaction."
There is no criticism with regard to their work. The Committee wind up by saying that they do not recommend any increase or decrease in the jurisdiction, but they do recommend a very definite increase with regard to the age of retirement. Why abandon the Committee, particularly when there was sufficient evidence produced to the Committee to warrant the expression of those two points of view—that there was general satisfaction with regard to their functioning, and that the age of retirement should be increased?
Only three district justices and one other person, a Mr. Gaffney, gave evidence on this matter before the Committee.
Quite a number of other people were questioned about the District Courts.
As to the age of retirement?
On a variety of things.
I am dealing with the age of retirement. In Question 923 of the evidence before the Committee, Mr. Gaffney was asked:
"If a district justice is in good health at 70, what do you say the age of retirement should be?"
His reply was:
"District Court justices require to be younger than Circuit Court judges, because they have to do a lot of travelling in all sorts of weather."
I admit that in Question 934, when he was asked:
"Would you say 70?"
His reply was:
"Yes, I think so."
The point I make is that they require to be younger than Circuit Court judges, and the basis of that is the argument I have already put forward, that they have to do a good deal of travelling in the country. That is the sole reason I am giving as to why the present age of retirement, 65, should be maintained.
Why, then. would you not modify it and have it on a sliding scale according to the travelling they have to do? That would be ludicrous, but, of course, you do not do that.
I should like to emphasise one aspect on the question of age. Hitherto these district justices have been appointed fairly young, and, therefore, they have had, or will have, a fair amount of time in which to earn their pensions. They will be appointed at a more advanced age in future than in the past, and the result will be that they will not be able to earn anything but a mere fraction of their salaries as pension if they have to retire at 65. The amount to which they will be entitled when they reach the age of 65 will not be sufficient to keep them in comfort for the rest of their lives.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Amendment No. 76 is out of order, as there is an implied charge. The same applies to amendment No.77.
It is only "may."
It implies a charge.
A contingent charge.
Even a contingent charge has to be adverted to by the Chair.
I am not moving amendment No. 78. I shall move another amendment instead on the next stage. The reason is that this amendment is retrospective and that, arising from the increased remuneration which assistant district justices would get, some of them would be entitled to arrears. One of them was appointed on 6th April, 1929; the next on 22nd May, 1930, and the third on 3rd July, 1930. The five years have accumulated in these cases. These assistant district justices have not put forward any claim for arrears, and I understand it is against all practice in the Department of Finance to give arrears.
Let us establish the precedent. It is a good precedent to establish. I suppose you will consult with these district justices as to whether they want arrears or not? When it is brought in, I suppose it will simply be something that will obviate the payment of arrears?
Yes.
If the question on amendment No. 79 were put in the usual form several subsequent amendments would fall, some of them amendments of substance. I propose putting amendment No. 79 in a form which will save those subsequent amendments. The form will be that a new section be inserted, as in amendment No. 79, omitting the first three lines. The amendment will then read:—
"Before Section 51 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Justices of the District Court shall hold office by the same tenure as judges of the Circuit Court."
I move amendment No. 79. I did not think this was going to be brought on this evening, and I challenge the whole section. I think it is an attempt to reduce the justices to the position of removable magistrates, who were so well-known in the old days. It is holding over their heads, so to speak, a sword of Damocles. I should not very much object to an inquiry into their conduct in the discharge of their judicial duties, but I think it is an awful thing to put into a Bill that their conduct, not only as judges, but in their private capacity, should be subject to investigation by a tribunal, no matter who that tribunal may be. It makes them a cock-shot for everybody in their district. Anybody who has a grievance against them will write to the Minister for Justice or the Attorney-General making some sort of complaint. If they remain out at night playing bridge or poker in some club, or if anything of that kind occurs, somebody who has something against them may write to the Minister or the Attorney-General, and there could be some kind of a Star Chamber inquiry into their conduct. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate how that inquiry is going to be held, whether it is to be in public or not. Will the district justice have the right to call witnesses? May he have the assistance of counsel? May he have the rights of the ordinary citizen who is impleaded before the ordinary courts of the land?
I move to report progress.
Lest there be any doubt regarding acceptance of amendments to the Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund) Bill, the Chair is prepared to accept amendments up to 11 o'clock on Tuesday morning.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday.