Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Oct 1959

Vol. 177 No. 4

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

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

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete "now" and to add at the end of the motion "this day twelve months". —(Deputies McQuillan and Dr. Browne.)

Mr. Lindsay

The Taoiseach has said, in my view very properly, that you cannot purchase or buy integrity. That maxim can be applied with equal force to all sections of the community in whom any position of trust, however great or small, reposes. I agree that integrity or honesty cannot be purchased. There falls down the argument that in order to establish independence, in order to make a Judiciary immune from any improper advances, they must be paid, and paid substantially. Equally, of course, does the argument of the cost of living fall down when one looks at the present level of salaries and relates that level to the economy of a country such as ours.

I know it is correct, as the Taoiseach has stated, that judges in the Six Counties and Great Britain are paid on a higher scale. But Great Britain is an extremely wealthy country and the Six Counties, subsidised by Great Britain, can be regarded in the same light as far as the payment of these kinds of salaries is concerned. In my view, to determine the salaries of judges, one cannot relate it, on the one hand, to the cost of living and, on the other, to the purchase of integrity. It must be based, as very probably was done in 1924, on the selection of an arbitary figure related in composite way towards all qualities necessary in a judge for the proper dispensation of justice.

I want to say a word on the system of selection. I could not agree more than I do with the Taoiseach when he says it is the Government's right, as the duly elected authority by the people, to select judges. I do not think, in deference to my friend. Deputy M. P. Murphy, that there is anything wrong with a person taking part in the political life of the country, advising the people one way or the other as a member of a political Party and afterwards becoming a judge. More than any other country, this country has proved the success of an independent Judiciary which has, by and large, been formed on a political basis, and that goes for judges, no matter by what Administration they were appointed.

Mr. Corish

That is not the point. The point is that you must be active in a political party before you can become a judge.

Mr. Lindsay

Some people have been successful in fooling political Parties they were so active and have reached the top.

Mr. Norton

Wisdom came to the political Parties too late.

Mr. Lindsay

Be that as it may, the position is that, however they came to be appointed, whether it was for true or false service in a political Party, they gave satisfaction afterwards. As I am on the subject, neither can it be said that a person who does not enjoy a large practice in the profession, either as barrister or a solicitor, would make a bad judge. Experience has shown otherwise. Very often on the Bench a man displays qualities which were hitherto undiscovered. The system of selection, therefore, in my view, is perfectly all right. Experience shows that politicians who are successful legal practitioners are those people who fail very often to become members of Dáil Éireann.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already pointed out that the question of the qualifications of the Judiciary is not under discussion.

Mr. Corish

There never seems to be an opportunity here to talk about the Judiciary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Bill deals with their remuneration.

Mr. Lindsay

What I want to say is that prior membership of this House is not a disqualification for membership of the Judiciary or does not render their administration of justice in any way doubtful or defective. As put by the Minister, on the one hand, and by the Taoiseach, on the other, this is a sort of conflict between money values and a question of principle. I do not think it can be related to the cost of living, having regard to the high level. I do not think it can be related to independence and integrity, having regard to the universally accepted principle that one cannot purchase integrity. It resolves itself into an arbitrary figure and, having regard to the economic conditions obtaining here and the present structure of our economy and standard of living, I do not see that any case has been made for this increase.

If a case were made for increases, I might be able, as others in the House would be able, to go a certain part of the way with the Minister. For instance, if he were to distinguish between a Circuit Court Judge who sits in Dublin for every day in every term and the country-going Circuit Court Judge who does not sit quite so often. The same distinction is made in the case of District Justices who sit in Dublin and those who sit in the country. I want to support the view urged by Deputy McQuillan, and to which the Taoiseach has subscribed to some extent, namely, that the widows of judges, particularly of those who die in harness, should have some means by way of pension upon which to rely in the event of that sad occurrence which can take place at any time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not seem to arise on the Bill.

Mr. Norton

The Taoiseach referred to it.

Mr. Lindsay

He refered to it very fully by way of a superannuation scheme and he referred to it to the extent of saying that, as head of the Government, he has been in touch with the Judiciary on this matter and is awaiting their comments on proposals made by him. If any case is to be made for increases in the salaries of the Judiciary, it could well be made on this basis, that they might find, having regard to the standard of living expected of them, having regard to the standard of education they are expected to give their children and having regard to their exalted office and the consequent expenditure they are called upon to make, that saving certainly becomes more difficult for them than in other cases. In view of the conditions obtaining with regard to their widows and children in the event of a sudden demise in harness, that difficulty in saving must be an ever-present worry with them. If the case were made here that they wanted extra money in order to be able to save with greater confidence and make provision for a situation for which no provision exists at the moment, I would say there would be a basis to some extent for that.

The Taoiseach in giving the percentage increases related them very cleverly to the figures obtaining in 1924. He did that, I think, because, if he related them to the figures obtaining on the occasion of the last increase in 1953, the whole fallacy in this argument would be exposed. An increase in salary, whether it be for the Judiciary or anybody else, must be related to some extent to the position occupied by the salary recipient, but, in the main, must be related to the country's economy and the taxpayers' ability to pay.

Dr. Browne

I should like to clarify the position in relation to our amendment in view of some of the statements following upon Deputy McQuillan's opening remarks. First of all, in reply to the Taoiseach's suggestion that opposition to this Bill is an attempt at exploiting a situation in order to make the Government unpopular, let me point out immediately that Governments have on occasion to do unpopular things, but it does not follow from that that, because one speaks for the purpose of airing what one believes to be public opinion on certain matters, one is necessarily attempting thereby to embarrass the Government. Indeed, had the Taoiseach given a little thought to the amendment, he would have found that, were he to accept the amendment, he would save himself and his Government very considerable embarrassment, since the recommendation to increase judicial salaries following upon the appointment of an independent committee of this House would be a recommendation by both sides of the House. The Government would thereby be saved both the embarrassment and the political odium to which the Taoiseach feels opposition to this Bill may possibly give rise since we would all be jointly responsible for the decision taken.

It is because we fully appreciate that this question of assessing the proper remuneration for persons in these exalted positions in our society is so important that we believe we are not competent to say whether £4,000, £3,000, £1,500 or £2,000 is adequate compensation for the varying scales of responsibility which fall upon the shoulders of the different members of the Judiciary. Secondly, if an increase is necessary, we do not feel competent to decide that a two per cent., an eight per cent. or a ten per cent. increase is desirable over all, or whether the percentage should be varied in such a way that those on the lower scales would receive a higher percentage and those on the higher scales a lower percentage.

There are many considerations into which a committee of this House could usefully examine, with all the facts at their disposal, in order to reach an equitable decision. When people say the members of the Judiciary are overpaid, they should remember that there are members in the lower categories of the Judiciary who are only moderately well paid by present day standards. To condemn the whole Judiciary because one section appears to be overpaid is, in my opinion, being unnecessarily extravagant and, to a certain extent, a little irresponsible. Despite Deputy McGilligan's comments, I still feel that the precedent established—a precedent which appears to have satisfied the House on a former occasion, and the Judiciary likewise— is a good precedent, and a wise precedent. As I have already pointed out, I believe its adoption now would save the Government considerable embarrassment and, for that reason, it should recommend itself to the Government.

Like Deputy Lindsay, I found the Taoiseach's intervention, far from clarifying the position, only succeeded in making confusion worse confounded. I cannot accept the proposition that there is a section in our society who must be paid to stay honest. I do not say those are the exact words used by the Taoiseach, but that was the implication. He 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 do not accept that point of view. There is some basic morality in all of us which determines our interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. We do not become incorruptible because of a particular salary. If that principle were accepted, surely it should apply right down throughout every section of our community.

Consider the position of the Garda. They are in a very vulnerable position. They are the custodians of law and order. As compared with the salaries paid for similar work elsewhere, they have perhaps a greater grievance than have the members of the Judiciary. From that point of view and from the point of view of their vulnerability to corruption, or their being prevailed on to indulge in dishonest practices, they are in a much worse position. I do not think the case made in that regard is a valid one.

My remarks would apply equally to higher civil servants, who have very responsible functions to perform; to politicians, who have very grave responsibilities and very important functions in the State; to Cabinet Ministers; and, in particular, to the Taoiseach himself. All these sections in our society could justify the payment to them of fabulous salaries on foot of the argument advanced by the Taoiseach that, if the Judiciary are not extremely well paid, they will not remain honest. I join with Deputy Lindsay in dismissing that case made on behalf of the Judiciary, It is one which does an injustice to the Judiciary. I believe they are just as likely to remain honest and conscientious in the discharge of their functions without any increase in remuneration.

I cannot join with the Taoiseach in the case he makes that, because of the greater remuneration paid in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, there is necessarily a case for increasing the pay of our Judiciary here. That argument could equally well apply to every single section that goes to make up our society. It could apply with the greatest force perhaps to that section in which I am particularly interested, the old age pensioners, the unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance classes, and all the other classes dependent upon social services. These are at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts elsewhere. I do not think that argument helps the Taoiseach's case at all.

The Taoiseach suggested that there is no relationship between the attitude we should adopt to these people and the attitude to be adopted in relation to the higher civil servants. Now, Deputy McQuillan did not introduce that comparison of his own accord. He introduced it because it was first introduced by the Judiciary themselves in their submission to the Commission in 1953. On page 11, they set out the different scales of salary for the various higher civil servants, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, various secretaries of Departments, the secretariat and so on, so the comparison has been made by the judges themselves.

We believe it is relevant and we also believe it is permissible to compare these people. On the general question of conciliation, we do not see why it should not be adopted. It is a good practice; it is a fair practice; it is one which leaves no feeling of discontent in the mind of anybody, whether agricultural workers, rural workers, salaried workers, civil servants or whatever they may be. So long as they feel there was a fair examination of their claim for increased remuneration, then everybody is satisfied, including, and most important, the public who will have to foot the bill. Consequently, we believe the precedent already established is a good precedent and one to which the Government should continue to adhere.

On the question of the other point made by Deputy McQuillan with regard to the conditions of appointment and the facilitating of a committee to investigate those conditions, he became rather—heated is not the right word —concerned about this whole problem of the appointment of the members of the Judiciary. He seeks to break away from the sacrosanct principle that the Judiciary must be appointed by the Government. There may be a case for the continuation of the system whereby the members of the Judiciary are appointed by the Government, but I do not believe there is anything really sacrosanct about such a conception of appointment. It seems to me that the slogan that they must be the supreme authority and that the Judiciary must be ensured of independence of the Government is one of those phrases which people have accepted from generation to generation without any very deep thought or examination. It is rather like the idea which was accepted at one time of the divine right of kings. Those slogans were not examined to see if they had any real validity.

There may be a case for the retention of the present system, but I do not think that the suggestion that it ensures the independence of the Judiciary is correct. I think the contrary is true, although I should like to make it quite clear that I join with other Deputies in believing that the Judiciary have been independent of successive Governments. I do not think it necessarily follows, or need necessarily follow, that because the Government choose a member of the Judiciary, he is independent of the Government. That does not follow at all and, on the contrary, indeed a member of the Judiciary who may have been appointed by a particular Government may have less reason for feeling independent of that Government which appointed him particularly if he happens to have been closely affiliated as a political colleague with the men who appointed him, prior to his appointment.

I suggest, if that is the case the Taoiseach makes for the retention of the present system, it is not a valid case. It would be wise to examine the position in the light of the fact that there is some public disquiet that the making of appointments to the Judiciary appears to be solely determined by the amount of political service and the quality of the political service rendered by the appointee before the Government came into office. Whether or not the Taoiseach is prepared to face up to that, the Minister should be prepared to do so. That is a generally accepted belief amongst members of the public and it is no good pretending that is not so.

I should like to reiterate the two points we have made in our amendment. The precedent already established should be repeated. The Taoiseach asks: why single out the Judiciary? We are with the Taoiseach in that question: why single out the Judiciary for special treatment? We have no hesitation in saying that if a joint committee of this House goes into the case made by the members of the Judiciary for an increase in salary, and if, as the Taoiseach suggested, instead of 10 per cent., the increase recommended by the joint committee were 15 per cent.—I do not agree that it would be; I doubt if it would be 10 per cent., but if it were 15 per cent.—we are prepared to abide by that decision because it would be the judicially considered view of persons able to examine all the facts and come to, what we can and must accept, as the decision of our colleagues, as a fair, just and equitable decision on the facts as they had them before them.

On the second point about the assessment of the conditions of appointment of the Judiciary, I do not think a case has been made by the Taoiseach for the retention of the present system. If he really wanted to satisfy the public, he would allow a special committee to examine the whole question. If that committee reported back to this House that there is no better alternative to the existing situation, then we would readily accept their decision.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I must say I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what Deputy Dr. Browne has said. I do not entirely approve of all he has said but his speech has been a helpful one. We find ourselves in this House today necessarily discussing a Bill which the Minister and the Government felt they had a duty to bring forward. It is known by anyone who was associated with discussions of this kind that there would be, and I think there have been, many unfortunate remarks in relation to the Judiciary.

I should like to say as a lawyer, as an Irishman, and as a person interested in the welfare of this country, that we have been extremely fortunate in the high standard of our Judiciary since the State was founded. When the State was founded, it was necessary for Irishmen to establish a really Irish Judiciary here. I think that, generally speaking, that Judiciary has redounded to the credit of the country. We have not had in this country a bench of judges that has in any way been subservient or servile to the Executive authority. Deputies will appreciate that from time to time our judges have expressed not merely their independence but have very definitely established it. There have been many Acts of the Oireachtas which to the annoyance and embarrassment of the Government in office at the time, our judges have held to be without the Constitution. Indeed, it is not many years since, in the face of threats of violence of one kind or another. Irish judges gave first-rate evidence of their determination to carry out their duty in spite of what the cost might be.

I appreciate, as a lawyer, that any member of my profession who speaks does so in relation to a profession that has never had the advantage of a good public relations officer. Generally speaking, most people enjoy a good opportunity of attacking lawyers. Perhaps in some cases that may be justified but it is, whether or not people appreciate it or realise it, a very old profession and a profession I think in respect of which every lawyer is proud.

I suppose it inevitably follows that many people, when they discuss the position of judges, feel that this is one of the opportunities they have of attacking judges and attacking the Judiciary. I think that is understandable. It may be human nature. However, it is unfortunate because I do not think the question of judges' salaries and their terms and conditions of appointment can ever fairly and rationally be considered in view of the quite unreasonable prejudice that exists in the minds of many people.

It is worth recalling here—I know it has been said already but it is no harm to repeat it—that the high standard of our Judiciary should be noted and that the pay and allowances of the Judiciary in the Republic are very much lower than those of a Judiciary with a far more limited sphere of activity in the other part of the island. Judicial salaries here are lower than in Northern Ireland or in England. While the judicial system is not comparable in other countries I think it is nevertheless true to say that judicial salaries here are a very much lower than in most other countries.

There is also a fact to be considered which has already been mentioned but again it must be repeated. We do not here provide any pension or means of subsistence for a judge's widow. That is a regrettable state of affairs. I know of the widow of a former judge who, in the autumn of her years, is forced to exist on the charity of friends or on her own desperate efforts, late in life, to earn her daily bread. That appears to me to be quite a wrong state of affairs. Obviously, it is something which should be remedied and I think probably would be remedied by the good sense of this House if we were given the opportunity of doing so.

This Bill has been introduced in certain economic circumstances in the country and introduced—it could not be avoided; I appreciate that—without any prior consideration by the different groups and Parties in the House. While that is the correct procedure to be adopted under the ordinary Rules of the House, I think it is unfortunate in relation to judges and in relation to other persons in a capacity like that. I entirely endorse the view expressed by Deputy Dr. Browne. The question of Judicial salaries and conditions is pre-eminently a matter to be considered either by some joint committee of this House or by an independent ad hoc commission. I am strongly of the view, in relation to the salaries of other groups of persons also—take Ministerial salaries and, indeed, the allowances of Deputies—that it would be a good thing if matters of that kind were considered independent of this House by some group of persons who would have no interest other than to see that the right thing was done. I have no doubt that, following the view of such a commission, this House would be guided and would be in a position to act intelligently and properly.

As things are now, the Minister, without any prior discussion, has proposed a Bill which is to provide for a flat 10 per cent. increase of a retrospective kind for the four judges. It would, I think, have been more understandable if the proposal, instead of for an increase, were to provide a pension for a judge's widow. It would be more understandable if that were the proposal in the Bill but it is not. The Bill was introduced by the Minister without any examination independent and apart from the House. In these circumstances and in the light of other factors which cannot be ignored, the Fine Gael Party feel compelled to oppose the Bill. I certainly feel—it is only a personal suggestion—that the Minister would serve the country better if, even at this late stage, he would withdraw this Bill and if, instead, with good sense and with reason, he and his colleagues in the Government established some independent commission to consider not only the question of judges' salaries but the question of Ministerial salaries, Deputies' allowances, and so on. Such an examination would be understood not only in the House but throughout the country.

There is a danger, a very real danger, that things of this kind, when they are thrown into the arena here, will become a political plaything. As a result successive Governments are careful of taking a step which may be necessary. We in this House are in very real danger of putting ourselves into a straitjacket, and that could best be avoided if this whole question were examined independently. I appreciate that people often say that one is inclined in face of a difficulty to establish a commission to inquire into it. I suppose that is a tendency. It often is an easy way out of a difficulty but sooner or later a decision has to be taken responsibly.

Deputies will appreciate that in the middle thirties when the then Government felt it necessary to reassess the level of Ministerial salaries and Deputies' allowances and, I am not certain but I think also, judicial salaries, they did establish an ad hoc body to consider them. That body considered the views of persons in different walks of life throughout the country and carefully considered the whole scale of salaries. Following that consideration, the then Government were able to report to this House. They found the House to be receptive and that the House was able with dignity to take appropriate action. No one at that time could feel that what they were doing was wrong or intemperate and I think the general public appreciated the manner in which the problem was faced up to then.

The need for such a step is more acute now. The Minister will have heard from Deputies that at the moment there are sections of our community who are facing very definite difficulties. There is not in the economic conditions of the country now the kind of prosperity which enabled the Tory Party in England to sweep into power a month or so ago. Times are difficult for many sections and in times of difficulty of that kind a Government, anxious to discharge their responsibility, have a particular duty to do it prudently and properly. I have little doubt that whatever case there was for an ad hoc examination of a similar problem 20 years ago, that case is all the stronger now.

I would urge the Minister not to proceed with this Bill at the moment. If he proceeds with it, inevitably in the course of a discussion of this kind things will be said which perhaps should not be said. If the Minister and his colleagues consider this matter, give new thought to it and adopt the procedure which I have suggested and which Deputy Dr. Noel Browne suggested in another way, the Minister will find sense prevailing in this House.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate but I do so because I feel from the various contributions that have been made to the debate that a principle is now challenged. If any member of this House is prepared to obtain justice for one section of the community and do an injustice to another section, he is not worthy to represent the people. There are a number of unemployed people in my area who are in very bad circumstances. There are a number of people whom I am trying to help day after day. I have presided over numerous meetings to bring about settlements between workers and employers. However, there is a principle involved in this measure on which this House is being challenged.

The principle involved here is that this House decided in 1924 to give a certain salary to our judges. Are we to say here that the people who fixed that salary in 1924 were wrong? If we accept the principle in relation to meeting the increased cost of living for every section of our people, this House has to be just and fair. I am not in agreement with certain statements that have been made today. Are we to say in future: "John Jones, you may go out on strike and get an increase in salary. Pat Murphy, you are all right. You stay at home because you have enough." Paddy Burke, Seán MacCarthy and anybody else like them are not supposed to do anything. You cannot have one law for one section of the community and another law for another section.

Nobody in this House or outside it can challenge me with not having tried to help every section of the community, but I am concerned here with one question. If we have done a just act we should stand by it. If an unjust act had been done in 1924 then this House should have withdrawn the allowance given to judges in all subsequent years. Some of the Deputies who spoke here today wanted to be on both sides of the fence. They are entitled to take that attitude and, as another gentleman once said, I would die in defence of their right to say what they think. However, are we to say that the increased cost of living applies to one section of the community and not to another? I am very sorry that public representatives should make statements to the effect that one section of our citizens is entitled to an increase and that another section is not so entitled.

I have the honour, for the time being, of being a member of this House, and it may be used against me by certain people outside that I stood up and defended a certain section of the people against another section. I am defending no section. I am defending the principle that if the cost of living has gone up for one section, it has gone up for the others. The Minister and the Government have gone into this matter very carefully. The district justices are not satisfied. They think they should get more and other sections think that they should get a great deal more, too.

I say that we are establishing a precedent here today not on a judge's salary but on a principle that will react very badly against us because we shall be looked upon as people capable of making one decision for one section and making an adverse decision for another section. We are here to try to be fair to all sections, irrespective of class or creed. One man may be able to live reasonably well on a particular figure, while another man may not be able to live on the same figure. That is a matter into which I do not intend to go now, but we are here to be at least just and fair, and if we are not just and fair and if we do not give a decision according to our consciences, then we are not worthy to be public representatives.

Mr. Norton

Although he does not appear to realise it, Deputy Burke's speech would justify his voting against this Bill.

Mr. Corish

He would not know that.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy enunciated very flowery principles, all of which he said he was going to employ in the service of passing the Bill. A lot of the same arguments are convincing reasons why the Deputy should vote against this Bill. The Deputy wants to do justice to everyone but this Bill is not being just to everyone. This Bill deals with a small number of people and it is because the Government are not being just to everyone that the Labour Party cannot see its way to support a Bill of this kind.

If this question of the remuneration of judges were a matter for the Government to decide, or for the Fianna Fáil Party to decide, that would be their business and their responsibility and this House would have no further concern. But the action of the Government in bringing in this Bill dealing with the financial problems of the Judiciary imposes on every member of this House the responsibility of deciding on the merits of the Bill. You cannot evade that responsibility; it is there and you must discharge it. But I submit that as public representatives we are not entitled to discharge the responsibility just with one eye on the Bill and with the rest of our visual powers blank, so far as the rest of the community is concerned.

This Bill can be considered only against the background of the economic position and by bringing into focus all the other meritorious claims which could be made by a variety of our people in all classes of life whose incomes are very substantially below that which is enjoyed by those who are to benefit under this Bill. It is because that responsibility is imposed on each and every one of us that the Labour Party desires to explain its position. If justice were being done to everybody, we would be in favour of this Bill, but if this Bill is dealing with one section and ignoring the claims of everybody else, then we think it is a disastrous Bill and we are not prepared to support it while other claims, at least as meritorious, and in fact in many instances more meritorious, are left aside or ignored by the Government.

This Bill apparently has a number of facets. The Minister for Justice defends it on the ground that as the cost of living had gone up, the remuneration of the judges should go up also. The Taoiseach, however, came into the House and he abandoned that side of the case. Instead, he said that there were two convincing reasons for granting this increase. He said that the salaries of judges were higher in the Six Counties and in Great Britain than they were here, and that our judges should therefore be pushed up closer to the scales operating elsewhere in order to show that their intellectual capacity and integrity were high in our estimation and high in the estimation of anybody who considered a person's salary against the background of his intellectual capacity. That was one of the claims advanced by the Taoiseach.

The second claim was that you had to give the judges a certain income in order to be sure that they were incorruptible and that they were honest. I think the Taoiseach over-played his hand in this matter. He was talking about incorruptibility and honesty. At what point do we purchase those attributes or for what sum? Incorruptibility and honesty are not just cattle at a market; they are not just pedigree cattle for which you pay so much to get the pure breed. How much are we to pay for this incorruptibility? How much have we to pay for this honesty? Can we purchase it only in a Chief Justice, for example, for a £500 a year increase? Can we get the same incorruptibility and honesty for £200 in a district justice ?

I think the Taoiseach's statement here this evening, and his whole speech in that field, was a gross reflection on the Judiciary. Nobody has questioned their ability; nobody has questioned their integrity or their intellectual capacity to discharge the obligations assigned to them under statute. Nobody has ever dared to question the honesty or integrity of the Judiciary and arguments like giving them £100 or £200 a year to maintain their integrity and honesty must only recoil on those who make the statement and be, in fact, a reflection on the judges.

I think sufficiently well of the Judiciary to maintain that if their salaries were reduced, their integrity and honesty would remain unimpaired. To talk of purchasing honesty by giving increases of this kind, as the Taoiseach did, is a gross reflection on the high reputation of a body which is not yet —and I hope never will be—before the bar of public opinion in Ireland, at which their credentials in the field of integrity and honesty would be questioned.

What has it come to—this question of integrity? If people have no sense of honesty or integrity, you just cannot buy it with money. It would have been just as logical for the Taoiseach to point to the Minister for Finance, the man who handles all of the nation's finances, who controls its entire Civil Service, who has wide powers under statute and who is paid £2,125. Does anybody question his honesty or integrity? Did anybody ever question it with all these responsibilities? Did anybody ever question the honesty or integrity of the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the immense power he has, particularly in the licensing field? Nobody denies that.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance have unimpeachable integrity at £2,125 per annum. Why then is it necessary to give increases to maintain the integrity and honesty of persons with £4,800 per annum? I want to know what is the justification, assuming the Front Bench are honest for £2,125 per year, for saying: "We cannot keep these fellows honest unless we give them an increase of £500 a year on an income of £4,800?" Would somebody reply to that question ?

As I said at the outset, this whole business is relative. It is on the basis of its relativity that it has to be considered by this House. Deputy Burke, who has now fled, said that he wants to be just to everybody. He wants to do this for the judges, and he wants to give everybody an increase. I put it to Deputy Burke, and to anybody else who thinks on this: is it not perfectly absurd to think that you are doing justice to people with an income of £6 or £7 a week by giving them a 10/- a week increase, while at the same time, you give an increase of £500 a year to persons with £4,800 per year ? If your economy is such that we can afford increases of £500 per year, on incomes from £2,000 to almost £5,000 per year, how and why do we adopt this Lazarus-like attitude in respect of other classes of the community who are simply living hand to mouth?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare has said that the Government do not intend to increase old age pensions. In 1959, with the cost of living higher than it has ever been in living memory, an old age pensioner is expected to live on 27/6d. a week. He is expected to pay rent, buy clothes, milk, fuel and all the other odds and ends of things necessary for human existence for seven days a week on 27/6d. That is the other side of the scale and we can do nothing about it. The Parliamentary Secretary says "No, the Government do not propose to do any more. These people got a half crown sometime ago." The old age pensioner today has a 1908 standard of living. All his pension will buy is what 5/- would have bought him in 1908, and the Government have no remedy for a situation of that kind. However, they can find the remedy in the case of other people with incomes of from £2,000 to almost £5,000 a year.

I do not think this Bill can be considered in isolation. You cannot look at this Bill solely from the standpoint of the judges. In equity, they may have a claim. They press their claim on the grounds that they had a certain contract that gave them a certain income and they are entitled, from the standpoint of the reduced value of money, to have their incomes altered to allow for the fall in the value of money. That is their claim, but so have other people claims in that respect among the hundreds of thousands of people who do not get £6 a week on which to keep a wife and rear a number of children. How then can we look at the Judges' side only and not at the other side which concerns these people?

The Government, by bringing in this Bill. have imposed upon us the obligation of saying whether we will adjust the financial problems of a section of the community which is high up in the social scale, and are, at the same time, to leave aside, without any amelioration whatever, the claims of those who, in my opinion, have a right to have their grievances dealt with by this Legislature. By bringing in this Bill, the Government have imposed a special responsibility on each and every Deputy to say where he stands. Is he going to look at this from the standpoint of the judges only and ignore the claims of many other classes? If that point is put to us, we are going to say: "No; we are not going to meet the claims of one section only at the expense of other and more needy sections of the community." In presenting this to us, the Government have completely put it out of focus.

We are not prepared to support this Bill until the Government give evidence of their intention to deal with the problems of other people, weaker and more helpless, economically and financially. If they do that, then it is a new problem, but as long as the Government adopt the attitude that they cannot give any more to the sick, to the unemployed, to the widows, to the old age pensioners, or to a large section of their own employees who are also feeling the pinch of the increasing cost of living, then we are not prepared to underwrite this measure. If the Government deal with the other problems affecting large masses of the people, we shall look at the situation again, but we cannot be lead into voting for a Bill which deals only with a small and relatively privileged section of the community while the problems of the masses are left untouched. In this Bill, so far as we know, they have no intention of dealing with the problems of these classes.

Mr. T. Lynch

A lot has been said about not saying anything about the Judiciary, and it has been stated that people spoke disrespectfully about them. I was present during most of this debate and I did not hear anybody speak disrespectfully about the judges. I think we have the right of public representatives to give our views on a measure like this and to convey the views of the people who sent us here, and I can truthfully say that so far as the people I know are concerned, they would be against this measure. I think that would be the response or the reaction that any Deputy would get if he consulted his constituents.

I do not propose to speak disrespectfully of the judges but I should like to say this much to the Judiciary, that, from the privileged position they hold, they should themselves respect the feelings of witnesses and people who come into their courts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies may not discuss the actions of judges. We are discussing their remuneration.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is claimed that this House must vote a 10 per cent rise to the Judiciary and the reason given is to offset the rise in the cost of living. The people who will pay this are those of whom it has previously been said they are the main producers in this country, the people who breed livestock, cattle and sheep, and there has been a considerable fall in the price of these because the price of beef and mutton in Dublin shops is down. I do not think we are as hard on the Judiciary as the French queen who said to the people that they could eat cake. Our Judiciary can eat beef and mutton. They have up to £5,000 a year and the security of their positions. When they retire, they have pensions.

It has been said that if they die in harness, their widows should be provided for. I do not see why we should provide for their widows when we have not taken any steps to provide for our own wives, if we should die before them. I do not see why the Judiciary should be put into any privileged position. Deputies should look to themselves. The people of the country do not consider this rise should be given to the Judiciary any more than they consider a rise should be given to Deputies.

It is very difficult to make a speech when other Deputies are talking. If they spoke in whispers, I would not mind.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Conversations should not be carried on in the House.

Mr. Corish

There was a complaint recently that we were not speaking loudly enough.

Mr. T. Lynch

The manner in which members of the Judiciary are appointed was discussed here today and I have no fault to find with that. It was said that a man could be appointed because he attached himself to a political Party and got promotion for his assistance to that Party. If a man has been of service to his political Party, he has had the courage to show that he has political opinions and I would rather see him advanced to the Bench or made a District Justice than see a "cute boyo" get on, the fellow who tries to play both sides. If there were to be no advancement for members of the legal profession because of their political opinions, we would probably find very few members of that profession would enter politics. Many other professions have no interest in politics or in public administration and we should look to that and let that be a lesson to us.

The members of the House give a great service to the country and that is something that is not recognised. The country confers a great honour on a man who is created a judge and paid such a high salary. It is a reflection, I think, on that man when he has such a salary to suggest that he might die without having provided for his wife and taken out an insurance policy. Outside the metropolitan courts, the salaries of District Justices are not great, but, of course, they get the smallest rise.

Lastly, I want to say that I have been informed that the Department of Justice has been endeavouring to get the Judiciary to come together for some years past in order that they could make a statement or give a ruling on what should be uniform punishments the courts should inflict in certain cases.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid that matter cannot be raised on this Bill.

Mr. T. Lynch

I think it is no harm to say that the Judiciary could not be got together for that purpose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter is completely out of order.

Mr. T. Lynch

In view of the answer I got from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare this afternoon, that the Government would not even consider giving a bonus to the old age pensioners for Christmas week, one week in the year, I could not support this Bill. The Government have taken up the attitude of Scrooge as far as the old age pensioners are concerned and the attitude of lán a' mhála, as far as the Judiciary are concerned.

Mr. Loughman

I have listened to a great, portion of this debate, and it was completely unrealistic to me. I happened to hear the last part of Deputy Norton's speech and his objection at that stage was that we could not consider only the judges, that we should consider a variety of other people. All these people will be considered and have been considered in their proper course, but, in my opinion, it would be very hard to bring the judges in with all these other cases that have been mentioned. I think it was a poor argument, although perhaps the Deputy made better ones earlier in his statement. Why he should use that as an argument that judges should not get an increase is beyond my understanding.

Deputy Lynch said that every Deputy had a right to give his views. Of course this House sees to it that every Deputy can give his views within the rules of order. The Deputy was justly called to order on a couple of occasions, but so far as the matters relevant to the debate are concerned, every Deputy is quite free to say anything he chooses. I think that Deputy Lynch could have no complaint so far as that is concerned.

He stated that the people were against this measure. Oddly enough, it happens that I had this question raised at a pretty important meeting in my constituency, at a meeting representative of the entire area of South Tipperary. The matter had to be explained and when that was done, I can assure the House that the meeting was 100 per cent. behind the Minister's proposal, and justly so, because if any increase could be justified, it is an increase to the Judiciary.

Deputy Lynch misunderstood the Taoiseach's statement so far as widows are concerned. If I understood him properly, he said we should not provide for the widows. If he had listened to the Taoiseach, he would know that what the Taoiseach said was that some arrangement was to be made whereby the judges would forfeit portions of their pensions and have them transferred to the widows but that that would involve no expense whatsoever to the State.

Mr. T. Lynch

On a point of order, I did not say that the Taoiseach said anything about widows. I said "other speakers", and the record will prove it.

Mr. Loughman

We shall see what is in the Official Report. I am going on what I heard the Deputy say; perhaps I did not take him up correctly, but I want to draw attention to the fact because it seems to be a sore point with him.

The Taoiseach said that, in 1924, £4,000 was fixed as the salary of the Chief Justice and the proposals in this Bill, if carried through, will bring the salary to £5,300. In 1949, we had a devaluation of the pound. I think everybody agrees about that and it involved a reduction in the purchasing power of the pound of one-third. If you take one-third of £5,300, you will find that on the basis of the 1924 valuation, it is now worth £3,500, which is £500 less than was granted to these judges back in 1924.

I heard some of the Deputies talk about the old age pensioners, among a number of other people. It is very grand to talk about 170,000 people. All of them have votes. I suppose it is popular to groan about their distress and say that nothing is being done for them, and that nobody wants to do anything for them who has the power to do it. Many people who have not the power to do it are anxious to do everything for them but, strange to relate, when they had the power, they did very little for them. That, to my mind, is the odd part of it.

If you gave an increase of a farthing to the old age pensioners, it would amount at the end of the year to much more than the total which will be needed to provide the judges with the increases which are being given to them now. According to my calculations, a farthing per week to the old age pensioners at the present time would amount to more than £9,000 per annum. We are not now giving to the judges anything like £9,000.

I should like to know what the salaries of the judges were in 1900. If these salaries are examined, it will be found that they have not been much increased since then, and that the judges, above all people, were given no attention as far as increases were concerned, whereas every other section of the community have had their salaries trebled, quadrupled and in many cases increased five times. The old age pensioners about whom we weep so much have had their weekly pensions increased over five times.

Mr. Corish

Five times ?

Mr. Loughman

I remember the pension being 5/-. Since 1924, they have not been increased that much. Perhaps they were increased three times. From 1929, they have been increased. I do not see why judges, considering their importance and the wonderful record they have up to the present, should not have a chance of having the losses which they sustained because of the reduction in money values made good. Even the £5,300 which the Chief Justice will get will be very seriously cut by income tax. In fact, I should like to know how much of the increase which is being granted will be recovered by the State, by way of income tax. I rather think it will be cut, so that the amount will be very small, indeed, when everything is paid up.

We should realise that judges must live according to a particular standard. We should see to it that their remuneration will enable them to live at that standard. All this talk we hear about all that the judges will get and that nobody else will get anything is, to my mind, playing to certain people. Judges have a right, as well as any other section of the State, to be treated according to the position they hold. I suggest that there are many practising lawyers in this country who earn in a year much more than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I know then when there is a judgeship vacant, they are happy to take it and we are happy to have people who will sacrifice increased earnings to have the steady post. Very often, if they take up the post and become judges, they sacrifice themselves to some extent.

At any rate, I welcome the Bill and I have no hesitation in doing so. I have no doubt that the people will welcome it also. As I said at the outset, I had this matter discussed at a very full meeting representative of the entire area of South Tipperary. I admit it was one section of it, representing, perhaps, more than half of the county. They were 100 per cent. in favour of the Minister's proposal in so far as we were able to explain it. I welcome the Bill and wish it every success.

Mr. Sherwin

I am objecting to the Bill on principle. If we are asked to put the Judiciary above suspicion, I suggest that the members of this House should also be above suspicion. We make the laws. If you like, we make the balls and they throw them. Comparisons were made by Deputy O'Higgins. He referred to the setting up of some commission to investigate the need for increases, both for the Judiciary and the members of this House. Other members made comparisons with old age pensioners and all those in receipt of social benefits. I came into this House not for any gain. I could do much better outside. I just like the vocation and that is why I am here.

I am concerned with the fact that this House should be above suspicion. Whenever the question of allowances for Deputies arises, some Party tries to make political capital out of it. Some members of the House are better off financially than others and, like the old members of Parliament, they could do without allowances.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

I would remind the Deputy that the question under discussion is the remuneration of judges and not Deputies.

Mr. Sherwin

Yes, Sir, but I think I am entitled to make comparisons. Comparisons were made by Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Loughman and I think I am entitled to make comparisons. As I said, on principle, I object. The whole question of the remuneration both of judges and members of the Oireachtas should be considered. I hold that the Judiciary should be above suspicion because they have to administer justice and because they are only men, in spite of what some people might think. I agree that they are all men of fine character, but even men of fine character can be tempted. If a man cannot pay his way or live up to the standard he is used to, he will be tempted. That was proved in the last War when men of high character were brought to the level of savages. Men can be tempted. I agree that the Judiciary should be above temptation.

It should not be a question of political tactics. The remuneration of members of the House should also be considered. I strongly object to Judges getting an increase when a poor man had to resign because he could not live on his salary. Some members may think that this allowance may help to cover a man's expenses but where a man depends on it to make a living, it could also make a pauper out of him. The members of this House should be above suspicion, as well as the Judiciary. I do not think this matter should be opposed from the point of view of political tactics. We should be above all that. We should decide what is just and equitable.

As we are dealing with the Judiciary and as this point has been touched on by other members, I object to the practice of members of this House being given priority in judicial appointments. It makes the members of this House suspect. It could be and is in the public mind that members of this House are picked for judgeships. I believe that that is true to some extent. In my opinion, no member of this House should be chosen for a judgeship. They should all be chosen from outside.

There is not much that one can say on this measure. I object to it on principle. This whole business should be considered in an equitable way and other persons such as the members of this House should equally be considered. This is not the time for the arguments used by the Fine Gael Party. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. They ought to consider people in want. This is above political tactics.

Mr. W. Murphy

As one member of the House who very seldom stands up to speak on any Bill, I feel it is incumbent on me to do so and say a few words on behalf of the people in county Clare, the people whom I represent with the other Deputies for the constituency. I sought to understand what their ideas are about this Bill and the way they would accept it, had they the opportunity to vote on it that I have. In speaking on this Bill, I do not intend for one moment to criticise the Government for introducing the Bill, nor do I intend for one moment to attack the Judiciary for looking for what they think they are entitled to. Yet, I feel that it is my duty, knowing the realities of life in county Clare, to say that it would be utterly impossible for me to vote for such a Bill.

Reference has been made here to the salaries which the Judiciary in other countries receive. I ask every Deputy listening to me this evening, who can compare this country with the countries where the big salaries are paid ?

I would not for one moment dwell on the question of how the Judiciary are appointed. That is no business of mine. The main matter before the House tonight is: are we going to vote for this Bill or are we not? Personally, I shall not vote for it and I shall give my reasons. I believe, taking one thing with another and the circumstances surrounding their case, their present salaries are far and away beyond the salaries of others who, perhaps, have to do more and to spend much more in carrying out their duties.

If the Government have the money to pay the proposed increases, they should hold that money and any money that they might put with it and give it to the other section of our people who are today, one might say, scraping the very earth for an existence. Time and time again, through their representatives, they have asked this House for what might be termed the bare necessaries of life, necessaries of which this House has deprived them. It is for that reason that I speak on this Bill.

As I said, I do not want to be too critical or to be severe in my criticism, but, as a member of the House, I should like to put before the Government and the House what they are about to do. Remember that in doing that, they are just opening the gap and placing us in the position that, no matter who may come in with demands, whether they are right or wrong, if this Bill goes through, we shall certainly not be in a position to say,"You are not entitled to it." The answer that will be slung in our face will be,"Consider what the man with £4,000 gets and what the labouring man in Clare and the old age pensioner get."

I am not attacking the Bill in order to play to the mob. I never play to the mob. I do not mind the mob. I have always expressed my views and will always express them, in this House or outside it.

I consider that when the Judiciary looked for this increase, they went too far when they asked that it be made retrospective to 1st January last. When increases were granted to old age pensioners and widows, they were not payable at the time they were sanctioned but became operative as from 1st August, four months later, when many of them had gone to their reward.

I am giving my just and honest opinion to the House and the Government. It does not matter to me what the Government do; that is their own business; but I would ask the Government to be wise and careful. If they have this money in hand and if they have money to spend, let them think of the lower and middle income groups.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I would not for a moment impugn the honesty of Deputy W. Murphy or question his sincerity, but I do feel that irrelevant matters have been dragged into this discussion, and, with all due respect to Deputy W. Murphy and the other Deputies who have mentioned social welfare benefits, these things have very little, if anything, to do with the provisions of this Bill. I should be very surprised to learn that the sentiments expressed by certain members of the Fine Gael Party are held by a majority of the Fine Gael Party. There are some members of that Party in the House at the present time who, I feel, must take a poor view of this attempt to drag a debate about the remuneration of the Judiciary into irrelevant mob appeals concerned with old age pensioners. widows and other very deserving people. Nobody would object to any provision for an increase in social welfare benefits but that matter is not relevant and should not have been brought into this debate.

The suggestion put forward by Deputy O'Higgins and more or less touched on in the amendment in the names of Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Dr. Browne is that the question of the remuneration of the Judiciary and, incidentally, of Deputies. might be left to a commission. I do not know if they suggest a Select Committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas or some other type of commission. That suggestion is, indeed, a good one but I do feel that in the matter of the appointment of members of the Judiciary and in the matter of fixing the allowances of Deputies, it is this House and the Government which should accept responsibility and not any outside body.

Deputy Lindsay said that he objected to the increases mentioned, that people practising at the Bar or practising as solicitors sometimes make considerable sacrifices in order to accept appointment to the Bench. I do not know that that is altogether accurate. What I do know is that it is essential to attract ability as well as integrity. It is admitted on all sides that the integrity of our judges and justices is unimpeachable. That is a very good and essential thing, but it is something which the Government and the House should be very jealous in preserving. I believe the Government are jealous that that position of the judges and justices should be preserved and that it is because of that this Bill is now introduced.

Although the Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary in this country and as such, is paid more than anybody else, neither he nor the other members of the Supreme Court are in my opinion, the most important judges in the land. I think the most important judges are those who decide the day-to-day small cases of the people in the District Court. It is particularly important that we should try to attract the very best type into the District Bench. It is very seldom, in the course of an average small country practice, that a solicitor will find himself pleading before the august Supreme Court assembly. It is very seldom he will have an issue which will involve going that far. But every week, every month, dozens if not hundreds of times a year, he finds himself in the District Court pleading small cases about this, that and the other.

It is essential that the District Justice should be a man of integrity, a man of fairly wide experience of the type of problems he will be called upon to determine, and that he should have a fairly wide experience of the psychology and mentality of the litigants who give evidence before him. I do not propose to criticise the justices. It would be invidious of me to do so, even if I had criticism to offer. I have always felt that it is better, as a matter of practice, to appoint solicitors from the country to vacancies in the District Court. I feel that because they have the experience of litigants and of the problems they will be afterwards called on to decide. Without in any way disparaging members of the Bar, living and working in the Bar Library in Dublin, they are not in intimate contact with the people and their problems in a way that would qualify them to sit on the Bench afterwards. That, I must emphasise, does not involve criticism of any particular justice. I do not want to be understood as offering any criticism of anybody on those lines. What I am saying is that I believe the important court is the poor man's court.

As a logical corollary to that, I would suggest that this Bill, if anything, does not do enough to put the salaries of the District Justices on a par with the dignity and importance of the work they are called on to do. I am aware that on each of the two previous occasions when increases were offered to the Bench, some special consideration was given to the position of District Justices. It is clear from the figures quoted by the Taoiseach today that their position has been more improved proportionately than that of the various other members of the Bench. Even so, having regard to the increase in the jurisdiction—and therefore in the importance of the cases they are called on to decide—and to the fact that it is their court which hears the vast majority of the day-to-day problems of the people, I believe this Bill, if anything, does not go far enough in remunerating them. As I said in an interjection when Deputy Lindsay was speaking and as I have repeated here now, it is essential to attract ability as well as integrity.

Mr. Lindsay

Ability commands its own price.

Mr. S. Flanagan

If we do not increase the remuneration of justices we shall not be able to attract the ability required of the occupant of the District Court. All that sitting on the Bench has to offer is security. Of course, that is a consideration of very great importance to certain people. They are prepared to sacrifice the probable income they would have from their continuing in practice for the security of a guaranteed future, more particularly when practice of the law is something intensely personal which disintegrates very rapidly if the person falls ill or is otherwise prevented from carrying on his work. It does offer security, but the time will come when the attraction of that security will not be sufficient to bring to the Bench the type of person we must have. Nothing is more unsatisfactory than the feeling of hopelessness which prevails among the ordinary people when they get the impression after a period of time that the District Court Bench is occupied by somebody who is not competent or who does not understand their problems. That has not happened very often, but it has occasionally happened. Great care should be taken to ensure that it does not happen again.

If anything, I think we are not giving enough to justices; but I have no criticism whatever to offer of the proposed increases to the other members of the Judiciary. It was suggested by some speakers that we have no right to make comparisons with Great Britain and Northern Ireland in this matter. I think it was clearly pointed out by the Taoiseach today that we are not, in fact, trying to make comparisons with Great Britain or Northern Ireland. What the Taoiseach did was to show the percentage increase which occurred in both those countries in the salaries of the various occupants of the Bench in a period comparable to that from the foundation of our State. He proved conclusively, taking the base year as 1924, that all the occupants of the Bench in Great Britain and Northern Ireland had done vastly better than their counterparts here. It will be remembered that the base is very different, because the remuneration of their counterparts in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1924 was vastly better than that offered to and received by the occupants of the Bench here.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4th November, 1959.