I want to make it clear that we are confined to the dates in the amendment we are discussing.
Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1962—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In lines 11 and 12, to delete "with effect as from the 1st day of November, 1961."—(Deputy McGilligan.)
The amendment I was discussing covers all my amendments. That was permitted.
We intended to discuss all the amendments on amendment No. 3.
I had made the case, which I think you had accepted, that it is not easy to discuss the question of the date without its relationship to the matters——
It is not easy, but Deputy McGilligan can do things that are not easy.
The discussion on Committee Stage covers most things.
One discussion on all the amendments.
One discussion, but as it is Committee Stage, I am entitled to speak several times.
That is so, but I should like it to be clear before we proceed whether we are to discuss all the amendments on amendment No. 2. The original intention was to discuss all the remaining amendments on amendment No. 3 and then have separate decisions.
I intend discussing all the amendments generally but I may speak again once or twice on each amendment.
I should like the House to agree on that. I do not want someone discussing all the amendments on Amendment No. 2 and then duplicating the discussion on Amendment No. 3.
I do not control the House. I thought it was agreed last time——
Not agreed exactly.
I understood that a certain amount of latitude was allowed to Deputy McGilligan, and that he was going to make his main case on Amendment No. 2. He undertook not to repeat himself on the others.
I did not. I hesitate to agree with that. There are certain Ministers to whom a point cannot be brought home without countless repetitions.
That is another matter. If we had agreement that all the amendments would be discussed on Amendment No. 2 and decisions taken separately afterwards, I would be satisfied.
I would prefer if each of the amendments was discussed in turn.
That upsets the whole thing.
Not entirely. The first amendment deals with retrospection. I think it was agreed that it is not possible to discuss the date without discussing what is to be made retrospective. If it means an abbreviated discussion to get into the bracket of retrospection, I personally would prefer to have the whole thing discussed in one go, so to speak.
Not to have duplication.
On the question of retrospection, I moved an amendment to delete the phrase, "with effect as from the 1st day of November, 1961". I shall concentrate on that now. I see no case for retrospection in respect of judges who have been going along with salaries which were changed so recently as the legislation indicates, and so far as I know, there has been no public demand that these salaries should be raised. In those circumstances, while the amount of the increase given will come up in the later discussion, it is absurd to be giving it back to 1st November, 1961.
Since this measure was introduced, added force has been given to what I have in mind to say on this matter by the fact that the Budget has introduced certain payments for the betterment of other servants of the State. These service pensioners are to be given half of what is supposed to be, or agreed to be, the just amount, if they are to be paid in good money instead of bad.
The Budget proposes to give this half and it is only giving half of that half from next October. The old age pensioners are to be given a certain amount of money of which 1/6d. is to meet the depreciation in the value of money and 1/- is their share of the new prosperity which is supposed to rule in the country. If it is not possible to have the payments to these necessitous people made retrospective, I see no case whatever for the Chief Justice at £6,000 getting half a year's salary into his hand.
One of the effects of this, which probably was intended, is that the retired Chief Justice, who was content to take his salary and be in office for many years and to go out of office at the old pension rate, is to be given about £350 a year extra in pension after all the years in which he took his salary, which he was not reluctant to take at the time. Certain points have been made in the discussion that I would like to deal with but I want to call attention to this, that in the course of the debate the Minister for Justice, when the point was made that salaries for judges should be considered by a select committee or something approaching the form at arbitration and conciliation at present existing in the Civil Service, said in column 771 of the debate:
The Constitution lays it down that the judiciary cannot have conciliation or arbitration.
I should like to be referred to the Article of the Constitution in which that is laid down. I have read the Constitution from cover to cover several times and there is nothing in it offering any objection to conciliation or arbitration. All it says is that the salaries of the judiciary are a matter of law.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
On that matter, I shall say no more for the time being but I would ask again for your assistance, Sir, on the matter of these amendments. I am trying to confine myself to the matter in this amendment.
It is not intended to discuss all the amendments on No. 3? A good many would fall, as a result of No. 3.
If No. 3 were carried, it would finish a lot of others. If No. 3 were not carried, it would mean separate decisions on a lot of others.
Separate decisions but not separate discussions. There would be separate decisions on Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15.
And separate discussions.
No, not separate discussions.
I think we are prepared to discuss from No. 3 to No. 15 together.
Yes, when No. 3 is decided, many amendments will fall on it. I have endeavoured to avoid duplication of discussion which is something I do not think that any Deputy wants.
I do not think there is any suggestion so far of repetition unless Deputies confuse what is in No. 2 with some of the other amendments. Is it in order to talk on No. 2?
Yes. No. 2 is not finished at all. Deputy McGilligan is the only one who has contributed so far.
I should like to know what is being agreed on here. After all, I am interested in it, too.
I take it we are discussing No. 2 now and when that has been disposed of, we will discuss Nos. 3 to 15 together.
That is right —Nos. 3 to 15 inclusive. When a decision has been taken on No. 3, a number of others will fall.
I do not agree. Take No. 5—that proposes to deal with certain categories of the judiciary and I think it is desirable that separate discussion should be allowed on the different categories.
If No. 3 is negatived, No. 5 cannot be discussed at all, so there is a better chance of discussing it on No. 3. It would leave the judges with no salaries at all.
The point at issue in No. 5 is that a case can definitely be made for district justices but the same case cannot be made for the higher branches of the judiciary. Is it in order to segregate the discussion so that we can deal with the district justices separately?
No. 5 is consequential on No. 3.
If you rule that way, I must accept it.
I must rule that way. If the Deputy wants to get the best value out of the discussion, he should discuss Nos. 3 to 15 on No. 3. In that way, he can get in what he wants to say on No. 5.
May I take it there will be a decision taken on each of the others?
There will be a decision taken on Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 and, of course, on Nos. 3 and 2.
On No. 2, I want to say for a start that I do not think that any of this discussion would have taken place if the Government had been prepared in the beginning to set up a Select Committee of the Dáil to make recommendations with regard to the salaries and emoluments of the judiciary. If that procedure was good enough in 1953 and was acceptable to the present Taoiseach it should be good enough for the new Minister for Justice. All I can say is that the fact that the judiciary are now brought into the political cockpit and are now shuttlecocks is due solely to the fact that the Minister has failed to try to reach general agreement in this House, amongst the Deputies, by setting up a Select Committee to examine the whole question.
The Ceann Comhairle has, I understand, and I naturally accept his decision, ruled out of order the moving of an amendment that would have enabled the Minister to set up this Select Committee. I am, therefore, precluded from moving that a Select Committee of the Dáil be set up within a month from the date of the passing of this Bill. At the same time, I feel that in view of what the Taoiseach has said—that the fewer opportunities available for criticising the judiciary, the fewer opportunities for making Party capital out of the issue of their salaries, the better—I cannot understand why the Minister could not adopt the same approach to this as his predecessor. It is accepted that only a very limited number of increases were given in the past 40 years to the judiciary. One was in 1924, another in 1953 and a third in 1959. Now the extraordinary situation has arisen that in less than two years, since the 1st January 1959, we have two substantial increases given to the judiciary. It is not alone given to them from the date of the passing of the Bill but the Minister is so generous that he is back-dating the proposed increase. He is back-dating it to the 1st November, 1961.
The Minister argued that one of the reasons for the present increase is because other sections of the community got what is known as the eighth round of wage increases, but it is an extraordinary thing that the weaker sections of the community, who are not organised and who have no strong pressure groups to back up their just claims, have got no back pay, no back allowance. Instead, that has been put forward. I refer specifically to the weaker sections of the community, namely, the old age pensioners, the widows and the unemployed. Any help that is to be given to them as a result of the eighth round increase given to other sections of the community, will be dated from next August. Is there any justification for that type of approach, that the judiciary who are, we all agree, well paid——
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
I was saying that it was very hard to understand the mentality of a Government which will bring proposals before this House to back-date a payment to a section of the community which is already well off and at the same time, treat the old age pensioners and weaker sections of the community in such a callous fashion, to push forward the date on which their meagre allowances are to be given. Since 1st January, 1959, to 1st November, 1961, if we accept that date in the new Bill, it will mean the increases over that period—less than two years—given to the judiciary will range from over £1,100 to approximately £600. Is it seriously suggested that an increase of over £1,100 in less than two years is essential to help the higher members of the judiciary to meet the increase in the cost of living?
This is going away from the amendment.
No. I am mentioning the fact that you were not satisfied to give the increase from the date of the passing of this Bill; you must go back to 1st November. In other words, you are back-dating the payment and that is the second increase within a period of less than two years. Has the cost of living gone up to justify that approach? Has the cost of living in the past two years been of such a nature that we could justify increases ranging from the figure I mentioned down to £600? I do not think so. Unnecessary and unjustifiable as it is to give these increases, I think it shows absolute contempt for the poorer sections of the community to say that the Government have the audacity to backdate them to the 1st November. As far as having consideration for the welfare of the community is concerned, the Government are living in the clouds. The status symbol seems to be one of the most important things as far as the Government are concerned. The suggestion has been made that unless these particular categories of the State services are given substantial increases which are back-dated in this fashion, we will not get suitable personnel and we will not get men of the highest integrity to take up the particular appointments. That was dealt with here the last day and much of what I have to say in that regard might, perhaps, be more appropriate on another amendment.
I hope, when this matter is being decided, that the Minister will approach it in the same reasonable fashion as he approached the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. I hope he will realise there is a strong volume of opinion rightly opposed to the idea of back-dating such an increase, when there is no justification in the cost of living for giving it, and when the only argument the Minister can make in favour of it is that the eighth round increase has been given to the other sections of the community and that the judges are entitled to the same treatment. I admit that the case made for the eighth round increase to other sections of the community was a genuine one, and I also agree with the decision to backdate the increases.
Except for the poor farm workers.
But no such case has been made by the Minister to justify the back-dating of increases to the judiciary. When his predecessor was in office he said that the best possible manner of dealing with proposals to increase the salaries of the judiciary was through a Select Committee of this House. He went so far as to say that it was only on rare occasions this House had been asked to deal with the question of the salaries and emoluments of the judiciary. The reason he gave was that such increases were given only at certain times and that, accordingly, there is no justification for frequent discussions here on the issues involved. He also said there was no question whatsoever of basing increased allowances for the judiciary on the cost of living.
That was accepted by the House. On a number of occasions also the present Taoiseach spoke to the same effect during debates here on Estimates. If the Minister wants the references I can give them to him but I do not think that will be necessary since he must be fully aware of those statements. What was good enough for the Minister's predecessor and the Taoiseach in recent years does not apparently satisfy the present Minister for Justice. This attitude leaves a feeling of uncertainty in the public mind—a feeling that if for some unknown reason the Minister wants to give increases to the judiciary he can do so on the basis of arguments which contradict completely those made two or three years ago by a Taoiseach from the Minister's own Party and by the former Minister for Justice.
There are two legs to this thing. One is the arguments put forward by a previous Fianna Fáil Government that the question of increases to the judiciary and the back-dating of such allowances should not be based on reference to the cost of living—that the question of the cost of living did not, as such, come into the picture. That case has been made here by Fianna Fáil Ministers on a number of occasions in the past few years. The idea was that if you based a proposal to give an increase in salary to the judiciary on the cost of living you would provoke long discussions in the House, the result being that the judiciary would be subjected to a good deal of public attention which might not, in the opinion of some people, be desirable. I say something because I do not agree with that contention.
If those arguments were put forward by certain members of the Government on previous occasions, why not now? Is this a new brush in the Department of Justice? Is this new Minister for Justice prepared to throw overboard all the arrangements and arguments put forward by the elder statesmen in his Party? Has he got the full backing of the elder statesmen in the Fianna Fáil Party?
The full backing.
We know now he has got Deputy Burke behind him but the Minister will need more than weight to convince the public that this particular increase should be back-dated to 1st November. I do not think there is anything else I want to say until I have heard what the Minister will suggest to justify back-dating this increase.
Let me, first of all, deal with the suggestion that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee of the House. I want to point out that when the last Select Committee to deal with this question of the salaries of the judiciary was set up the Labour Party refused to participate. Secondly, I would point out that the fact that a Select Committee was appointed did not preclude a debate taking place in the House. In fact, the salaries proposed by that Committee were debated in the House in just the same way as these particular proposals are being debated. Deputy McQuillan suggests that if we had a Select Committee of the House to deal with this matter——
Of course, I ruled him out.
Ruled what out?
I ruled out Deputy McQuillan's amendment.
Yes, but you allowed Deputy McQuillan to discuss the matter at length.
But I ruled his amendment out.
I hope therefore that you will allow me liberty to reply to the points made by Deputy McQuillan in that respect. His argument for a Select Committee does not stand up. Apart from that altogether, the Select Committee was set up in 1953 and it carried out a fundamental re-appraisal of the salaries of the judiciary in relation to the community as a whole. A re-examination of the position in that light had not been made since 1924 but that sort of fundamental re-appraisal of the salaries of the judiciary in relation to the community as a whole is not a process that need be carried out any more frequently than in periods of 30 to 40 years. The Committee then established levels and it is a simple matter in this Bill and for this House at this stage to grant proportionate increases on the basis laid down in 1953 for a long period.
Proportionate to what?
To the levels laid down in 1953.
To what were they tied?
The 1953 Select Committee made a re-appraisal of the salaries of the judiciary in relation to the community as a whole and established the levels on which the salaries should be based. Consequently, in view of that Select Committee's fundamental re-appraisal, it becomes necessary for this House to grant increases in proportion to that level only from time to time. That is what we are doing here. I would appeal for fair play for the judiciary and I do not think that any Deputy can suggest that the amount of money involved—£21,000 is the total amount involved here—can be said to be unfair, having regard to the £950,000 in increases for civil servants which went through this House without a single voice being raised against it. I might add that these increases were retrospective to 1st November.
I want to compare like with like— it is dishonest not to do so. I want Deputies to compare the judiciary with the corresponding section in the community, namely, the higher levels of the Civil Service. Ninety per cent. of the judiciary have salaries less than those of the higher echelons of the Civil Service.
The higher or the highest?
Are we discussing No. 2 or No. 3?
No. 2.
I am replying to the argument put forward by Deputy McQuillan. Deputy McQuillan and Deputy McGilligan compared the retrospective element in this proposal to the provision for old age pensioners. I am dealing with that aspect of it.
I have not heard the Minister mention the old age pensioners yet.
I shall make my own speech in my own way without any assistance from Deputy McGilligan.
So far, the Minister has not mentioned them.
I shall come to them.
I am waiting to hear it.
Order!
I am still waiting for Deputy McGilligan to come into this House with certain proofs as he promised to do.
That matter will be solved in the near future. The two principal Parties will be together inside the next two years.
I have nothing to do with that.
The simple proposal in the Bill, which I am recommending to the House, is that the judiciary be kept in line with the other sections of the community. The principal section of the community to whom we have to have regard in this matter is the Civil Service. Originally, judicial salaries were fixed in relation to the higher levels of the Civil Service and, generally speaking, that relationship has been kept down the years with those salaries.
The eighth round of salary increases granted to the Civil Service was made retrospective to 1st November. It is for that reason, and for that reason only, I am proposing here that these increases in judicial salaries be made similarly retrospective. I do not see why we should not treat the judiciary the same as we treat the Civil Service. This House decided solemnly that civil servants were entitled to the eighth round salary increases and that they should be retrospective to 1st November. This House accepted that. Why should it cavil—unless it be, as I suspect, for purely political motives —at providing a mere £21,000 to treat the judiciary in a similar fair fashion?
One gets used to this sort of insolence on the part of the Minister. It was essential, he told us in his Second Reading speech, for all good men and true to go into the lobby with him. We were told it was dishonest not to join in that vote. Now we are told that fair play demands making these awards to the judiciary retrospective to November. I interrupted him to say that he had listened to the comparison that Deputy McQuillan and I had made with regard to the social pensioners but we never heard a word from the Minister about that.
The Deputy was very good to the old age pensioners.
It is also to be remembered that on the occasion of a Civil Service award about 1954, the then Minister refused to make it retrospective, although we told him the money was there at hand and although we were able to provide it afterwards when we came back in 1954 without dislodging a penny piece of the arrangements of the Exchequer. Retrospection is not always granted. The point Deputy McQuillan made was that when it comes to necessitous people, you do not make any retrospection.
Why did the Deputy not make that argument on the occasion of the Civil Service increase?
We gave it to them retrospectively.
Why did the Deputy not compare the civil servants with the old age pensioners?
I always approved of giving it retrospectively to people who had made their claims on a cost of living basis. This was not fought on a cost of living basis.
Neither was the eighth round.
It was fought on a standard of living basis. It was freely admitted by the civil servants' representatives that it was a status increase.
It was not fought on a cost of living basis. This is not a cost of living payment. Do not pretend it is.
Neither was the eighth round.
There is no talk about all good and honest men going in behind the Fianna Fáil Party to support this wider group of people. The more it is used, the more I am pleased, because it ranks very low in quite an area of this city. I gave the money to the old age pensioners in 1948 after the Fianna Fáil Government refused it. I gave them in one go as much as they are getting now. At that time the cost of living figure was coming down.
What about the "bob" you took off them?
Let us go on to this here.
I am very anxious to hear about it.
I wish the Deputy would go off to Benediction somewhere. One and sixpence of the civil servants' half a crown was supposed to relate to the cost of living and a shilling is the pensioners' share of the cost of living. They are to get that from August. With regard to the other pensioners, the Service pensioners, it was announced it would take a certain sum of money to pay them what is their due. The Minister for Finance said he could not afford it. He said he would give them half, but he is only giving them half of that half this year. It is not to be given until 1st October. They are the two examples I want to put before the House in this matter. But we have a judge who is getting £4,000 a year to be raised by £1,150 on the 1959 status. We are going to give him half a year of that into his hands. Why? Is it because the price of his tobacco and liquor has gone up in the meantime? Why should he get it? If this were a case made on the cost of living, I could see the point in making it retrospective, but not indeed to the point to which it is being moved now. There has been no hardship, as there was in all these other cases. This is just a gratuity.
There is one point I have made twice and it has not yet been answered. A retired Supreme Court judge is deemed to have got his salary increased from 1st November by £665 on the basis of a two-thirds pension. It means that he is going to benefit by over £400 per annum in his pension rate. What is the case for that? I have asked that twice and I shall ask it until I get some answer.
The Minister has insisted here in his speech and by way of interruption that this is a status increase.
No. I said the eighth round for the civil servants was mainly a status increase.
The Minister said in his Second Reading speech and said now that this was a status increase. Is that not right?
To keep them in line with the Civil Service.
How does one make a status retrospective? Why should it be made retrospective?
I did not say it was a status increase.
Of course, the Minister did.
It is simply to keep the judiciary in line with the higher levels of the Civil Service.
The Minister talked about their status when he replied to the Second Reading debate. The Minister said he was not trying to justify the increase on a cost of living basis or any other thing.
He said it today.
He said that they should have a status and should be paid in accordance with that status. I ask the Minister how he can make status retrospective. It merely means that this one gentleman will get a bonus of £300. If the Minister wants to give him a status, could not he be satisfied with giving him the status right now and forget about the back money?
The Minister talks about the applications made by the trade union organisations and the increases granted and says the Labour Party does not disagree with retrospection in such cases. He forgets that these applications may have been made two, three or six months before the date of retrospection. I do not know that he has a similar case in respect of the judiciary. The argument of course in respect of the old age pensioners is that the increase could not be granted immediately. I have heard bandied across this House remarks as to what Fine Gael did in regard to the old age pensioners and claims that the Fianna Fáil Party restored the shilling. It is true that they restored the shilling but the older members of the Fianna Fáil Party—may be the Minister does not know—should remember——
As a matter of fact, it is not true that they restored the shilling.
—— that they did not argue then that they would have to wait four or five months to do it. They sent out a telegram to each old age pensioner in the country notifying him that his old age pension voucher should now read "ten shillings" instead of "nine shillings". So it is a phoney argument to say it is not possible to give old age pensioners an increase until a period of four or five months has elapsed.
Did the Deputy not accept that argument when he was Minister for Social Welfare?
Yes. I am comparing this with the attitude of the Minister for Justice who now says that he wants to give judges an increase retrospective to a date five months back.
The Deputy is on a very shaky wicket when he is talking about old age pensioners. He did not give them very much when he was in Government.
During his period the Deputy gave as much as any Fianna Fáil Minister gave in any single Budget.
The Deputy is on a very shaky wicket.
What we gave was not side by side with any proposal to look after gentlemen with £3,000 or £4,000 a year. We believed in first things first.
It was very little that the old age pensioners got from you in six years.
Deputy Tully should let Deputy Corish make his own case.
The Minister has an assistant and he is not doing too badly; he is giving the Minister a lot of help.
I should like to talk about retrospection in connection with another section of the community. I do not know whether the Fianna Fáil Party have much sympathy with this section either. The increase given to farm labourers—6/- per week—is not retrospective. This is not Deputy Tully's argument either. They got 6/-per week and they did not even get it from the date the decision was made. They will not get it until 4th June. It is a phoney argument for the Minister to say that the increase to the judiciary is only £21,000.
Compare like with like.
I will compare nothing with nothing. The Minister says this is a mere £21,000. That is a stupid sort of argument from one who is as anxious as the Minister is.
It is the correct figure all the same.
One might as well say that the Minister should get an increase of £20,000 because it is a mere £20,000 or that any single individual should have an increase of £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 or £30,000 because it is only that amount of money and that that sort of money would not enable you to do anything for the old age pensioners.
I think the old age pensioners, the farm labourers and the under-paid people are entitled to complain about the increases now proposed for certain gentlemen in the judiciary. The Minister in his speech on Second Reading said it was difficult to explain these increases. Of course it is. Deputy Colley described this as leadership and statesmanship, as a justification for what the Minister did. He may try to pawn it off as leadership and statesmanship but, in my opinion, it is an injustice to other sections of the community. I do not say that £21,000 or £30,000 can be distributed amongst old age pensioners or farm labourers or any other deserving section of the community but it is a slap in the face, an insult, to them to see that while they can be given only 2/6d. a week, the Government want to give the Chief Justice an increase of £665 and to make it retrospective to 1st November. That is not leadership or statesmanship. It is an insult to the people.
Why did the Deputy not say that about the increase to the top civil servants?
I will tell you.
Because they have votes; that is why.
Whether we like it or not—and the Minister does like it— it does not seem that civil servants have been influenced, particularly in the city of Dublin, as far as the Labour Party is concerned. The Minister would be much more interested in this section than we in the Labour Party would be.
All I am asking the Deputy is to be consistent.
I am being consistent. The Government of which I was a member from 1948 to 1951 gave arbitration and conciliation to the Civil Service.
But no money.
They did get money. Nobody is particularly interested in the stupid interruptions of that Deputy who does not know whether he is Independent Opposition or Independent Government.
He is trying to get the Fianna Fáil nomination for West and North Mayo. We all know that. That is what he is trying to get.
It is in the British House of Commons you should be.
Castlebar is another place the Deputy ought to be—or is it Ballinasloe? Ballinasloe—I was not quite sure which.
That is why there was no objection to the increases to the civil servants, because it was done by a system of conciliation and arbitration. That has not been the position in the case of the Chief Justice or the President of the High Court.
It cannot be.
I did not suggest that it could be. It is the "leadership and statesmanship" of the Minister that has decided that they should get these increases.
There is no constitutional objection to it.
There is.
Where?
A judge's salary cannot be reduced during his term of office.
Nobody is talking about that.
Arbitration connotes the possibility of reduction.
And the Government would not accept it.
The Minister says there is a sum of £21,000 involved. That is the weakest possible line of argument to justify the increase.
It makes me suspicious when all this heat is generated over one £21,000 and not a word about £950,000. It makes me suspicious.
The Minister is entitled to his suspicious and anything else he has in that regard but that does not take away from the fact that if he comes in here and talks about principles, he must give arguments based on the principles he is supposed to be discussing. The principle, as far as I see it is: why should there be retrospective payment for this special section of the community when it is not made available to the weaker and less influential section? The same argument can apply to the higher civil servants, if the Minister wants it that way. I have heard the Minister state here— and I should like to be sure that I was hearing correctly—that the increase to the civil servants was a status increase. Am I correct? That is something that should be brought to the attention of the civil servants.
They will not deny it.
That is the first time I have heard the case made by a Minister that on this occasion, irrespective of the cost of living, their case for an increase was not based on the cost of living but was purely one of status.
Of course.
That is something civil servants should examine and rebut, if necessary. I do not believe for a moment that the civil servants of the higher categories, or whatever categories you wish to discuss, put forward their case for an increase in their salaries and allowances purely on a status basis. If we have reached the stage that a huge burden of taxation is to be put on the ordinary taxpayer purely because one section of the community want a status increase, it is time the Government came down to realities. This country cannot afford increases to any section of the community on a status basis.
That is what the eighth round was.
That is nonsense. The eighth round, according to my interpretation of it, resulted when sections of the community decided that those who were well off in the industrial and other spheres had made sufficient profit to justify trade unions and other organised groups demanding a bigger slice of the cake. That was not a status increase. It was the result of extra work, skill and effort put in by the workers and they were entitled to a bigger reward, seeing that the profits made by the manufacturers and industrialists had gone up. That was a justifiable demand, but can anybody suggest it was a status increase? Now we have the case put forward that the judges, just because certain sections of the community got increases ranging from 5/- a week in the case of roadworkers to 25/- or 28/- in the case of industrial workers, are entitled to a status increase over the past two years of more than £1,200. No case has been made for it.
The Minister has suggested that he is going purely on the basis of what took place in the case of the higher civil servants with whom he compares the judiciary. That comparison is not fully justifiable when we consider the amount of work carried out by the higher civil servants and their responsibilities with the amount of work done by the judiciary. Judges sit only at certain times, frequently only two, or perhaps three days a week.
May I remind the Deputy that we are dealing with retrospection and this will probably arise again on No. 3? I do not want duplication of arguments.
It can be related to retrospection but I cannot go against the suggestion that it might be more appropriate on another amendment. The Minister has said that when we did not criticise the fact that retrospective payment was made to some higher civil servants, we should not criticise retrospection in this Bill but he did not answer when I asked him why he has failed to make a case for putting forward the date of the miserable increase to the old age pensioners and social welfare beneficiaries and backdating the allowance to the judiciary. His only argument was to compare like with like.
Surely the Minister will not suggest that the old age pensioners' allowance is as status increase. The Minister admits the increase for the judges is a status increase and says that must be backdated but in the case of the allowance to the old age pensioners, which is a genuine one because some of them are on the verge of starvation, they are told that if they can live until August, they will get an increase based on the cost of living. We have the extraordinary position in which the status increase is backdated six months while the genuine cost of living allowance, essential to many of these old people, is brought forward to next August. Can any Parliament justify that?
It is now clearly stated by the Minister that this question of retrospective payment is a status payment. Deputy Corish very rightly asked could that not take effect from the date of the passing of the Bill. Would that not satisfy the Minister's anxiety, since it is simply a status increase that is required? If one pursues that argument, one finds that the justification for backdating the increase in the judges' salaries is a form of compensation for the loss of status since 1st November. It appears they have suffered a serious loss of status and to compensate them, they must get back payments.
I do not think the Minister would agree with the argument I put forward but it arises directly from the case he made himself. I think before a decision is made on this matter, the Minister should tell the House the justification that enabled him to get the authority of the Government to suggest that a status payment to the judiciary should be backdated to 1st November, while the cost of living payment essential to the very existence of old age pensioners should not be brought into operation until August. Was that point discussed by the Cabinet before a decision was made to bring in this Bill? I presume it was a Cabinet decision.
It is essential that the public should be told that the Government's view is that a status payment is of such importance that it must be backdated but that where a genuine need exists to meet a cost of living increase, the Government cannot make funds available for that in the case of the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans, the unemployed and so on and can make the increase available only by bringing forward the date to August.
I should like to clear up one point. There seems to be some doubt as to whether the Minister described the increase as a status increase. In the Official Report for March 28th this year at column 769 during my contribution to the Second Reading debate, I made the point that the judges would not get very much of this increase as it would be absorbed in income tax and the Minister said: "That is right—at least half of it will go back to the Exchequer." I commented:
Then in fact we are being asked to vote not so much an increase in salaries as what has become known in America as a status symbol.
Mr. Haughey: Very largely.
That, I think, solves this particular problem. Very largely, this increase is a status symbol and as Deputy Corish said, I am intrigued to know how you make a status symbol retrospective. An attempt is being made here to do so. The question of retrospection in this case is not so much the amount involved; the fact is that those people are getting what amounts to over a half year's pay and the case is being made that they must have an increase because an increase has already been given to the civil servants. I assume the Minister is referring to State employees of all types and, if so, I should like to remind him that the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture have quite a number of State employees some of whom have been described from time to time, when it suited the Government, as civil servants and they were asked to sign documents to the effect that they would not take part in political activities. They have not yet succeeded in getting an offer of an increase. The trade unions concerned have not succeeded in getting the two Government Departments concerned to make even an offer of an increase without any question of retrospection.
There is glib talk about everybody else having got the eighth round, how the State had looked after their own people and this House did not object to the money being made available. We should bear in mind that there are people on a very low rate of pay who have got nothing at all, who are getting less than half the amount that is being given weekly to the Chief Justice as an increase. The majority of the farm workers, over 30,000 of them, have been awarded by the Government-sponsored Agricultural Wages Board an increase of 6/- a week and it does not take effect until 4th June. In regard to retrospection, the Government should be consistent. We have heard a lot of talk about consistency. Let us see that everybody gets it and then perhaps there will not be the same objection to people who already have too much getting something more.
I do not want to raise the issue of old age pensions but these people are being offered half-a-crown, if they live until August. If it is possible to make this increase retrospective, I see no reason why it should not have been possible to make the amount which it is proposed to pay to the old age pensioners and similar classes retrospective, even if it means having to give them a lump sum payment in August, because I am sure the money could be found.
I wish to refer to two points again. The proposal is to make this extra payment retrospective to 1st November. I compare that treatment with the treatment given to what are called service pensioners. Speaking here as reported at column 1582, volume 194, of the Official Report of 10th April, 1962, the Minister for Finance said:
I have had an estimate made of the cost of raising service pensions to take account of post-war movements in the cost of living, with special provision for persons who retired earlier to bring them into line with their post-war colleagues, and I find that the cost would be approximately £1,300,000.
This has been discussed on the basis of paying people good money instead of in depreciated coinage. The Minister continued:
The Exchequer position precludes acceptance of a commitment of this order for service pension increases.
This is a denial of a rise based upon the cost of living.
I propose, however, to set aside £450,000 this year to cover increases for the various classes I have mentioned as from 1st August next. The full-year cost will be £675,000, which is half the cost of bringing pensions into line with the present cost of living.
I sum up by saying the service pensioners are being dealt with purely from a cost of living point of view. There is an admission that it would cost £1,300,000 to bring them up to the figure the cost of living would require. The Minister says he could not afford it. He proposes to give them half of that in a full-year but this year he proposes to give them only a quarter of what will be required. They are to be paid from 1st August next. That is the situation with regard to one class of persons, people who have served the State and who have retired. That proposal in respect of these people is made when the country is supposed to be brimming with prosperity.
The other point I want to make is in regard to retrospection for civil servants. Civil servants are now governed by arbitration and conciliation proceedings. As a system that was denied by Fianna Fáil for many a long year. It was introduced in 1948 and the system has worked since. Generally speaking, as far as Governments other than Fianna Fáil Governments were concerned, there was acceptance of the view that whenever an award was given, it should be antedated to round about the time the claim was made, because when the award was given as from the date the claim was made, the case was justified. There were only two occasions when there was any question of not paying retrospectively. One was in 1953 when an award having been given and an arbitration board having said it should be retrospective, the Government of that day refused to give it. We gave it in 1954. More recently, after 1957, the present Minister for Finance said at one time he did not care what award the arbitration board brought in, he was not bound to honour it. He was forced to honour it in the end.
I wish to support the arguments made by previous Deputies against the making of this award at this time. One thing the Minister does not seem to be aware of is that most people believe, and I think with justification, that the members of the judiciary are being well paid. This increase was greatly resented by the majority of the public, but that the award should be made retrospective to November last was the last straw because it seemed to them this was a case of unjustified favouritism on the part of the Government and on the part of the Minister towards a very highly privileged minority in our society.
The difficulty most of us are in is that we do not really know the case for the increase and the justification for the increase proposed because we cannot take seriously the case which has been made by the Minister. The suggestion that this was a belated rounding off of the eighth round was exposed for the completely illogical argument it is by Deputy McQuillan who pointed out that the Taoiseach on a number of occasions made it clear that he does not wish any increases of the judiciary to be related to those of the ordinary workers as a result of trade union or other pressure.
This justification has been made in the past year that there should not necessarily be any relation between the rises given to any other section of society and those given to the members of the judiciary. That would seem to dispose of the suggestion that there would be any need to relate the retroactive part of the proposal to the payment made to civil servants. The Taoiseach, the Government and the Minister cannot have it both ways. Either they want to give these people these large periodic increases unrelated to increases given to any other section of society or they do not. What appears to be a development now in our wages policy from the Government's point of view is to give these people jam on both sides. They have the increase given in the ordinary way and then they have these large bulk sums given to them to cover the interim period.
The suggestion has been made here by the Minister, in justification for this increase, that it is a necessary status symbol. That is the most bizarre argument he has used in regard to this matter. He has used other extraordinary arguments, but that is the most bizarre of all. It shows an attitude of mind. It shows an extraordinary attitude of appalling immaturity on the part of the Minister. It shows an attitude of an appallingly materialistic outlook. There is nothing Christian in it. It shows the type of materialist society it is sought to compel us to establish here. It is an appalling perversion of the Christian values we had come to accept in our society.
Surely the correct status symbol in any society is the way in which one treats the least amongst us, the most underprivileged. Surely the Minister should think about what he gives his old age pensioners and how much he makes available for the under privileged in the way of education and health services. These are the things upon which we should, I believe, assess the standards in any society. We should assess a society on the way in which it treats its underprivileged in that society, the way it cares for them, the way it looks after them, to ensure that they do not go hungry and that they get the ordinary opportunities they should get in a well-organised society. When we achieve that situation, we can be happy about the status our society occupies in the world. To say that a money award is made because it will improve the status of an individual in a society is a very sad comment on the values of that society. As an argument for an increase in wages, it shows a political childishness beyond imagination. Imagine a trade union leader going over to the Labour Court and saying to that Body: "A very important matter is involved here. This is a question of the status of the people we represent."
They do that all the time. That is the basis of all the claims.
No. It is a monetary award for work.
The Minister has not been in the Labour Court recently, has he?
The whole question of differentials is the biggest thing in trade union circles.
No. It is a differential for skill.
Differential is status.
It is not. The increase is for skill.
And only for skill.
The Minister may try to wriggle out of it. The status symbol the Minister talks about is a kind of badge of office that one wears in one's lapel to show that one is superior. The general attitude of the Minister carries that implication in it: I am superior because I have more money. We were taught in our schools that great wealth is very unimportant, indeed positively undesirable.
The Deputy is completely misrepresenting what I said.
As far as superiority is concerned, I was taught that is is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven.
The Minister is trying to ensure the judges will not get into heaven.
Surely the Minister learned the Christian ethics about which he tells us so often here.
All this is based on a misinterpretation of what I said to Deputy Tully.
But the Minister said something more after that.
Order. Deputy Dr. Browne.
The Minister suggested it is a natural tendency of people to be envious of those highly paid.
Of course he did.
The Minister is living in outer space as far as the ordinary men and women in this country are concerned. They are not envious merely because a person is more highly paid than they are. They are envious because the person is highly paid for work for which he does not deserve to be so highly paid.
That is a subtle difference.
It is very difficult for a man with a family, earning £9 or £10 a week——
£6.
——with half a dozen children—£6 Deputy Tully says—to survive in a society like this which denies his children the right to education, the right to a proper health service, the right to any kind of comfort in their old age. These people, quite understandably, resent this proposition to confer these considerable salary scales on others. I think they are completely justified in their resentment. It is quite wrong for the Minister to come in here and say that there is no connection whatsoever between the 30/- odd per week to the old age pensioner and the salary of a judge. In hard cash, there is admittedly no connection because one is so outrageously small and the other so incomparably great. It is one of the most disturbing factors in the Minister's case, that he should be content to elevate one tiny section of our society to a position in which they get these tremendous salaries. The status symbol is, as I say, one of the most extraordinary arguments ever advanced in this House.
It is not an argument, and I did not advance it.
It is not an argument. I quite agree with the Minister.
And I did not advance it.
It is the argument of the most petty, childish, immature mind that I have ever listened to——
And it is not mine.
——particularly in a society such as our which is supposed to appreciate the finer spiritual values, as they have often been miscalled. Another argument made by the Minister for the payment of these salaries —it is the final insult—is that they should be retrospective to 1st November last to ensure the integrity of the judiciary. He said at Column 774 of Volume 194 of the Official Report:
I should like Deputies and people generally to be realistic about this. We value our judiciary, their independence and integrity. Let us make up our minds that, if we want to keep them that way, we must pay them.
Would the Minister now like to retract that extraordinary argument? Does he really believe it is a valid argument to suggest that people should be paid on these terms? Did the judiciary make any representations? That is something we do not know. I asked a question here, seeking information, and I was treated in the most contemptuous way by the Minister at the idea that I should ask had the judges made any representations about their conditions. Did they find they could not get by on the £2,000, £3,000 and £4,000 per year ? Were they having difficulties in educating their children? Was the cost of living bearing too heavily on them? Did they find it difficult to keep a loaf on the table?
These are all rational arguments that would appeal to me in assessing the means of a group of individuals getting salary increases. These are the rational arguments we insist on bringing to the Labour Court whenever trade unions have to make a case justifying an increase in wages and salaries. These have not been made in regard to the judges, though they apparently said they must have this increase, and not only have it but have it retrospective to 1st November last. This is a gratuitous bonus the Minister is bequeathing to these people. For what reason? Surely it is not suggested they have come to him and said: "Unless we get this salary increase No. 1, and unless we get it retrospective to 1st November last, we cannot be certain we will be able to go on administering justice here at the same level of integrity and honesty upon which we have administered it up to the present." They have made their case.
Surely the Minister does not seriously believe the courts are so completely fluid in their approach to justice and the value they put on justice that they are prepared to give so much justice for so much salary and so much more justice for so much more of it? Is that the way justice operates in this country? Does the Minister believe that the higher they are paid the more just they become? Have they made that case? Have they made any representations in public resenting this suggestion that they would be a little less independent and would display a little less integrity if the Minister did not pay them these remarkable increases in salary? I am surprised they have not done so. It is a most — I hope — unwarranted slur on their characters to say that they can be bought like any of the judges of the old days. Surely they are above this kind of thing?
Therefore, I cannot attach any seriousness to the Minister's argument that if we want them to administer justice honourably and honestly, we must pay them these salaries. I do not honestly believe that, with all their faults, they would be less objective——
I would point out that we are supposed to be discussing the retrospective position.
Amendment No. 2 deals specifically with the date on which the increase is to come into effect.
It seems to me that both are related in so far as it is a lump sum that they will get, anyway. If we are talking about the total sum they are getting, I presume it could be taken up on later amendments.
Yes, it could be taken up later. At the moment, Amendment No. 2 is very specific.
We are discussing giving them a bulk sum which is related to 1st November last. My disagreement with giving them that sum is what I am trying to discuss. There seems to be no great pressure by anybody on the Minister to give this money retrospective to 1st November last. No arguments were made on the cost of living, on pressure of private debate, on domestic worries of any kind, or on the ordinary case that is normally put forward for anybody who is asking for an increase. I dismiss completely the idiotic status symbol argument. I also dismiss the extraordinary argument based on the assumption that our judges can be bought and that they can be made more honest if they are given these increases.
There is no argument except that these people happen to be a privileged minority within our society in whom the Minister is now very much more concerned and interested than in the vast majority of our people, whether they are old age pensioners, the ordinary working man, the agricultural labourer, the industrial worker, whatever he may be, who is finding life very hard indeed with the increasing rises in the cost of living with which he cannot continue to keep up and for whom these increases have made life particularly hard. At a time like that, the Minister comes along to plead for people, who he admits here are already highly-paid. As he says himself, he is not refuting or denying our case that these people are very well paid. He has admitted that case here himself. They are highly-paid people. He concedes that completely. Therefore, it is very wrong to add to the sense of frustration of the body of people in our society who are already finding life very hard indeed—who are feeling the pinch as the cost of living continues to rise and as attempts to get compensation for those rises are frustrated—by coming along at such a time and saying that the State can afford to pay these great salaries to this small minority.
Does the Minister not see that he is adding to the already considerable undercurrent of hostility to the disparity between the two standards which exist in our society—a minority who are pretty well off and the vast mass of the people——
I would point out of the Deputy that the amount of the salaries is not before the House but Amendment No. 2 which deals with the date on which the increase is to take effect.
It is all involved.
The principle of retrospective payment is an extremely important one in trade union circles. It enables the workers' representatives to negotiate more than simply wage or salary increases. They can go into great detail regarding conditions of employment and other matters. They can spend time in doing this in detail because they know that once this principle of retrospection applies, the men they represent will not be out of pocket as a result. Likewise, in this Bill. If the principle of retrospection were not included in the provisions of this Bill, then Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan could easily hold up this Bill on Committee Stage for months. Already, as a result of the heavy business going through this House, the Bill has been delayed quite some time. On the very same principles as apply to everybody else— not because this Bill has been held up in any way at all—there should be absolutely no reason why the principle of retrospection should not apply to the judiciary the same as everybody else.
"Everybody else": it does not apply to other State employees.
I am still basing this whole proposal on the simple proposition of fair play for all sections. Deputy Dr. Browne has given me a homily in Christianity and other matters based on something I did not say. Deputy Dr. Browne is quite expert at attributing arguments to people and then pouring scorn on them. I want to point out, in regard to the quotation to which Deputy Tully referred, that my remark—"Very largely"—on that occasion was related to the fact that by far the greater proportion of these increases would go back to the Exchequer. Apparently, as the debate happened, it reads a little differently but I think Deputy Tully himself will recall that that is the net issue we were talking about at the time.
Column 777—"I admit he is, but that is largely a status symbol increase."
The quotation to which Deputy Tully referred is at column 779. In regard to that particular matter, my argument with Deputy Tully was directed exclusively to the fact that a great proportion of these increases would go back to the Exchequer. I do not for one minute advance this argument on any basis of status symbols. Deputy Corish is a trade union leader and an ex-Minister who should be au fait with these matters. Deputy McGilligan is an ex-Minister for Finance—a pretty disastrous one, we will agree, but neverthe less an ex-Minister for Finance. It amazes me that they do not know that the higher echelons of the Civil Service have not got arbitration and conciliation. This simple fact is unknown to these two ex-Ministers. Both of them tried to indicate to me here that the higher echelons of the Civil Service have arbitration and conciliation and, to that extent, that there is a difference between the judiciary and the higher echelons of the Civil Service. The simple fact is that there is not. The judiciary have not conciliation and arbitration and neither have the higher civil servants. My simple proposition here is based on the fact that we must compare like with like. There is no use in Deputies trying to argue that we should not have a well paid judiciary. In every country in the world, the judiciary are highly paid. They are paid salaries higher than any other section of the community. That is a fact—it is there. It is one of the elements in our society. I am endeavouring to preserve the status quo.
As a result of various developments in 1961, certain sections of the community, with whom the salaries of the judiciary are traditionally related, received increases. I, as the Minister responsible to this House for these institutions, deemed it my duty to procure, for this particular section for which I am responsible, corresponding increases. The Government have agreed with me in that and there is no use in trying to involve in this question all sorts of emotional arguments about old age pensioners and the social welfare classes generally. They are just not relevant. The duty of looking after the social welfare classes is a responsibility firmly placed on all Deputies and I think this House covers them reasonably satisfactorily.
Nonsense.
The Government of which I am a member do their best within their resources to look after the social welfare classes but that is a completely separate issue which should be discussed on its merits at the appropriate time. In this House, individual Deputies can discuss and decide whether or not the provision which has been made for the social welfare classes is adequate, having regard to all the circumstances. That is a separate matter and we are dealing here with an entirely different situation.
I have proposed that these increases for the judiciary should be made retrospective simply because the increases given to the higher civil servants were made retrospective to this date. It is based simply, as Deputy Lemass said, on the principle of retrospection which is now well established and it is generally accepted that it is a valuable factor in negotiations of this sort.
I think Deputy Lemass should know something in relation to retrospection within the trade union movement, that is, that the date of the retrospection is related to the date of the application, and there is no evidence that there was any application from the judiciary. The first mention of a proposal to increase the salaries of the judiciary was made, so far as I remember, long after November. Whether or not representations had been made to the Minister I do not know.
I do not think we can get away from the original argument the Minister used when he indicated that the increases in respect of most of these people were simply a status symbol. At column 779, volume 194, of the Official Report the Minister said:
The point was made again and again that the Chief Justice is getting an increase in salary of £665. I admit he is, but that is largely a status symbol increase.
There is no qualification there at all, and reading further I cannot see that the Minister qualified that statement. He blankly said:
I admit he is, but that is largely a status symbol increase.
I do not know whether the Minister was serious when he went further and said:
Do we not all know that a man's work or value is judged by what he earns? It is a human and natural thing and it is something which is very common here—to look down on a man who does not earn as much as you do. I think that applies at all levels of our society.
May I point out that the amendment deals with the question of retrospection and the date on which the increase takes effect, not the amount of the salary?
The Minister tried to wriggle out of the status symbol point.
I appreciate what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has said and I think we may all have erred in that respect. We have been given a certain amount of latitude by the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. If we are to stop right here and now and talk about retrospection only, I am agreeable, but I raised the point before and Deputies were allowed to talk about the salary increase and not deal exclusively with the question of retrospection. Now that it has been mentioned, I think we are all entitled to talk about the actual amount which will be paid to these people back to 1st November, if the Bill is passed. I do not know whether I should continue to talk about the actual increases or whether I should merely talk about the retrospection, have a decision on that, and then go on to amendments Nos. 3 to 16.
I point out that, in your absence, Sir, there was a great deal of comment about how far it was possible to make status retrospective?
That was my original argument. I think the Minister has given evidence that he regards this increase as a status symbol increase, especially in the last quotation I gave and which I now propose to repeat:
Do we not all know that a man's work or value is judged by what he earns?
No one could take exception to that, but I take exception to the next remark:
It is a human and natural thing and it is something which is very common here—to look down on a man who does not earn as much as you do.
I do not think the Minister meant that —at least, I hope he did not mean it. I do not think it is a human and natural thing and something which is very common to look down on a man who does not earn as much as you do. The Minister has, and I am sure every Deputy has, more respect for the agricultural worker than for many of the professional classes. It seems, therefore, that we are giving this increase, or we propose to give this increase, to the members of the judiciary either in order that they may look down on the lower paid people or that the lower paid people may look up to them.
The Minister went on to say he thought that applied at all levels of our society. He said:
It applies among tradesmen, labourers, professional classes— particularly professional classes.
Quote the next sentence.
He said:
It is there and we must face up to it. For that reason, we cannot let the judiciary slip behind the other classes with whom they are normally comparable and with whom they started out exactly comparable when they began in 1924. A question of the prestige, honour and traditional integrity and respect of the judiciary is involved in this.
I interpret that to mean that the increases being given to the judiciary are being given to them so that their prestige, honour, and traditional integrity will be maintained. Is that the Minister's case? I take it that it is from what he said. It seems to me that we are giving status retrospection so that people may be able to look up retrospectively to the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court, back to last November. If the Minister wants to give that status, if that is his argument, would it not be sufficient to give it now rather than to do as he suggests and give the Chief Justice something over £300 for the period from November to May or June or whenever the Bill is passed.
Would the Deputy like to see the principle of retrospection done away with?
No.
The Government have consistently refused to give retrospection to their lower paid employees.
The Minister says it is silly to talk about the old age pensioners and people in the social welfare classes and says that this Government have done their best for them in existing circumstances. That is not correct. It is entirely false. Somebody on the other side interrupted me when I was speaking before and asked me what did we do when we were in office. I would say that the old age pensioners in 1954-55 were better off than they are to-day.
I hope we are not going to have a discussion on old age pensions.
Will the Deputy from Sligo-Leitrim tell me what the price of food was in 1954-55?
Perhaps on another occasion, but not now.
The Minister has said that these people have been given as much as the Government can afford to give them. Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party should remember that they are taking much more by way of taxation from the people now than they were then. Will the Minister remember that the old age pensioners are getting less now than they were 20 or 30 years ago of the proportion of tax revenue?
If Deputy Corish persists with that line of argument, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
I am entitled to reply to arguments and interruptions made by the Minister.
Deputy Corish may not argue that matter on the question of retrospective payments.
There is no retrospection for old age pensioners.
It is ridiculous for the Minister to infer that we are doing as much for the old age pensioners when we consider the status he has in mind for the judiciary. The old age pensioners are justified in their anger at this proposal by the Minister to increase a salary by £655 per annum in one case.
Less tax. It only costs £21,000.
It is no argument to say that it only costs £21,000. It is the example.
It does not even cost £21,000.
I do not care what it costs. Then why does the Minister not give them £10,000 a year increase and take it back from them, if he wants merely to give them a status symbol? Everybody recognises that these people should be of a certain status but we are not prepared to say that they should look down on other people or that other people should look up to them.
We should look up to them.
Of course we should, but on the bench only. We should not have them lording it around the country with £6,000 or £7,000 a year. That is not our idea of society. The Chief Justice has got an increase of £1,150 since 1955. That surely must compensate him for any increase on the cost of living or for any loss of status.
How much did the Secretaries of Departments get?
There is nobody in the Civil Service getting £6,000 a year.
The Minister has talked about those in receipt of big salaries in the Civil Service but how many are in receipt of £6,000 a year or even of £4,500 a year?
Is there anybody in the Civil Service in receipt of £4,500 a year?
Are you going to discriminate against the judges because they did not make an application?
I certainly cannot see any reason for retrospective payments to them. It is ridiculous for the Minister to try to abandon or deny the arguments which he made on the Second Reading when he said that the reason for these increases was to give them a status.
The Minister has now abandoned the arguments, which fortunately we have on the records, relating to the need for giving these people status.
Spare me these homilies.
The Minister is on the Committee Stage and he will have to listen.
Not to homilies on Christianity.
Did the Minister not start the debate on the Second Reading with a lecture to Deputies?
With an appeal which has not been adhered to. The call of politics was too strong.
When the Minister was speaking on the Second Stage, he said in Column 773:
When this State was set up people had a better sense of responsibility than they have today.
That means that he regards this House as completely irresponsible. The Minister suggested that these people had a greater sense of responsibility than we have now. These people did everything they could to destroy the State which was then being set up. I think that it is a misreading of history which the Minister should not take part in. Many of the old men of those days that I know are tending to see history in a completely different way, in a way that is erroneous.
I do not see how this arises on the Deputy's amendment.
The Minister has now abandoned, or attempted to abandon, the argument about the status symbol, this new phrase which has come into our western society and he has also abandoned the suggestion that there was a need to keep these people from being corrupted by paying them proper salaries. He is now only concerned with fair play for these people who are in danger of being mistreated in our society, unless the gallant little Galahad comes out on his white charger and stands up for them. Anyone who tries to make a high member of the judiciary into a poor little Alice seeking protection is certainly spreading fairy tales.
The Minister says he wants to see that these people get fair play. We all want to see fair play but the fair play we want is different from the fair play the Minister wants. The Minister believes in the phrase: "We will treat them all equally but we will treat some more equally than others." We want equal fair play for everybody. When we go looking for fair play for people, we do not go looking for fair play for the wealthiest, the most powerful and the most privileged section of the community. We look for fair play for the people who have nothing.
The judges are my particular responsibility.
We are sent to Dáil Éireann to care for the social welfare group generally. We are merely showing the Minister that in making this decision in regard to the judiciary— who may be his responsibility—he is making an unbalanced decision.
As an Independent Deputy, the Deputy should be more jealous of the rights and position of the judiciary than I.
If the Minister thinks he will get away with that kind of——
You should be more concerned with the status and position of the judiciary than I.
Is that a threat?
No; I am making a statement.
The Minister is arguing that there is a case for these people and that he wants to see fair play. We are merely extending this argument——
To a Budget argument.
We are asking is it fair to give these people a substantial increase at a time when old people not merely did not get a substantial increase but are not getting their increase retrospectively and have to wait for it until later in the year? Is that the Minister's only argument? We have eliminated the other arguments put forward by the Minister. He suggested that it was related to the eighth round of wage increases but he did not repeat that suggestion at all. Deputy Lemass says that if you deny the principle of retrospection, then you deny the principle for the ordinary worker going to the Labour Court and so on. The answer surely is that as the Minister always said here there is no comparison between the judiciary and the old age pensioners, and he has repeated it in his speech here, and also that there was no case for relating increases to the judiciary and increases granted in the ordinary course of wage increases, the fifth, sixth or seventh increases. Clearly he is anxious to keep the judiciary isolated from any comparison with anybody else. I think the only case he is making now is in relation to the higher civil servants. If he is going to make that case it has now been reduced. The only case he has now made is one in regard to fair play. We think that in a discussion on fair play, there cannot be a discussion of what he calls fair play to the judiciary without pointing out the fact that, in our view, fair play was denied to vast segments of the rest of our society and we think that is the main case which we can advance against the proposals here.
The Minister also said that in every other country the judiciary is very highly paid. I presume he is not talking about backward societies but the average European society. That is true—they are highly paid—but again this is a dangerous argument for the Minister to use because we think of Britain or Denmark or the Scandinavian countries which are able to look after their old people properly and see that they live in reasonable comfort, and look after their young people to see that they get a proper education.
The Deputy is getting away from his own amendment. The amendment specifically deals with the date on which certain increases are to come into force.
My difficulty is that the Minister makes these arguments and I have to reply to them.
There is no need for the Deputy to answer them. There is nothing before the House but the Deputy's amendment to which he should relate his remarks.
We are trying to point out that the Minister's arguments are invalid and weak arguments and when he says——
The Chair is not concerned with what the Minister says. The Chair is concerned only with order and debate and the Deputy is getting away from his own amendment.
On a point of order, I want to clarify this. If the Minister in the course of a discussion on a Committee Stage intervenes to rebut an argument made by the mover of an amendment, the mover or any other Deputy is allowed to answer to the best of his ability, the case made by the Minister. Is that not the whole kernel of any discussion?
I am not concerned with that. I am concerned at the moment only with the amendment by Deputy Dr. Browne.
But we are in Committee.
I agree.
My simple case is that the Minister has abandoned a number of the strong points—or points which he thought were strong—which he took up on an earlier discussion and has now fallen back on his last dialectic position which we say is just as weak and we want to see if he can desert it also.
Perhaps on another amendment, but not on this one.
He has made this case that in other countries they have this position, but our case——
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
The Government do not adopt this argument when they look at other sections in our society and see if they are given better education or health services, and so it seems to me that this is not a particularly good argument either. In spite of the fact that he had to desert the original status symbol argument he comes back to the argument when he says we should look up to the judges. I do not understand——
How does this arise on retrospection, Sir?
Ask the Minister——
I was asking the Chair.
The Chair is not concerned with the Minister's remarks. The Chair is concerned only with order and debate and the Deputy is not relating his argument to the amendment.
I am trying to substantiate the case I am making to show that the case the Minister advances is invalid.
Surely the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is not a puppet of Deputy Booth's?
The Chair is not a puppet of anybody.
I should not like to think that the Chair was influenced by an intervention.
I am not concerned with the intervention of any Deputy.
Probably we will carry on the discussion more fully on other amendments but it seems to me that the Minister's argument is invalid. I do not understand why the Minister should introduce these irrelevancies into the debate.
I did not introduce them.
The Minister said that we should look after the judiciary. I do not see why we should look after the judiciary which, to my mind, is over-paid and is to be grossly over-paid by the Minister. I do not think any of these arguments are valid or arguments that should be seriously entertained by the House as justification for giving these extravagant salaries.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No; I want to put just one point. It is in regard to a question of arbitration and the judges. In the course of the debate Deputy Corish, when speaking against the proposals——
I want to go on record as pointing out that there is only one Fine Gael Deputy present.
There are a lot of your boys there.
The whole National Progressive Democrat Party—100 per cent. of them.
I am glad to get the argument that I am worth more than whatever is in front of me. During the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, when Deputy Corish argued against the whole proposal, the Minister said that the whole cost of the increases would not exceed £21,000 as against the £600,000 for the Civil Service.
Deputy Corish made his point and there is no need for Deputy McGilligan to try to make it for him again.
The Minister can make no rebutting argument, except to say that under the Constitution the judiciary cannot have arbitration or conciliation. That is an untruth.
It is perfectly true.
He said the Constitution laid down that the judiciary cannot have arbitration and conciliation.
I am not prepared to accept Deputy McGilligan as a standard of truth.
The courts decided in my favour as against what the Minister could put up against me and it is hard for him to take it.
The Deputy uttered an untruth in the House about me and he has not got the honour to apologise or to withdraw it.
I suppose that should be retrospective, the same as the judges' salary increases.
It was an untruth but it is typical of the Deputy.
Of course, there is arbitration and conciliation for the civil servants and nobody should know that better than I. After all, I gave it to them.
Surely the Deputy is not on the amendment?
I was hoping Deputy McGilligan would eventually come to the amendment.
I am answering arguments put forward here.
It is a repeat of a Second Reading speech.
Does the Deputy not like that? Pity he is not in the Chair.
I do not think it is in order for Deputy Booth to criticise the Chair in that way.
I am glad to see the Deputy perturbed in this manner.
I should like to join with Deputy McQuillan in criticising Deputy Booth's intervention. I understand it has been argued that there are civil servants not affected by arbitration and conciliation. I know about it. Did not I give the arbitration? The people not affected by arbitration are those who sit on the official side at negotiations, not on the staff side. What is the result of it all? What has been the significance over the years? When there is arbitration for civil servants, higher civil servants get the benefits of the awards as well. That has happened on all occasions except twice—once in 1953 when the Government said they would not make the award retrospective and on another occasion since when the present Minister for Finance said he did not care what award the Civil Service got because he would not honour it. He was made to honour it.
I was very interested in the intervention of Deputy Noel Lemass a few minutes ago on the question of retrospective payments. I thought he was very reasonable in his approach. In trade union circles there is this power of retrospection in cases where there is a delay in dealing with the claim. This is so that there will be no injustice and no hardships suffered by the members of the unions involved through delays or difficulties in negotiations. It means that prolonged negotiations will not hurt the workers or their families because they will not prejudice the back-dating of the award. That is a safeguard and one which every member of this House would wish to see retained, but I think Deputy Lemass went wrong after that when he tried to compare the position of the judiciary with that of the trade unions in so far as retrospective payment is concerned.
The argument he made was that it is possible an injustice might be done to members of the union, that hardship might be imposed on them and their families, if the award were not back-dated to, perhaps, the date when the application for it was made or a good deal earlier than the date of the finding or the end of the negotiations. Is it suggested that hardship is likely to be imposed on members of the judiciary or their families if the payment of these increases is not made retrospective? Is that not the case Deputy Noel Lemass made?
The case I was making was that the Deputy may hold up this Bill as long as he likes.
If the Deputy is speaking in this House for the purpose of trying to hoodwink the public as to the reasons why retrospective payments should be made in this case that is a horse of a different colour. If he had listened here he would have heard the Minister make it clear that the idea of retrospective payments to the judiciary was part of the status symbol idea. This status symbol is a new development in this country. The first time I heard the phrase used in this House was by the present Minister for Justice.
He never related it to retrospection.
Of course, he did. He maintained that the higher civil servants received the recent award with a status increase and that it was back-dated.
He never said it.
He did. Read it in the debate.
The case made by the Minister was "compare like with like" and the Minister suggested the retrospective payment was made to the higher echelons of the Civil Service and that on that basis the same should apply to the members of the judiciary. Let us examine the position of the status symbol as far as the retrospective payment question for the judges is concerned. We will see then that it is only since the present Minister came in that we have had this comparison between the higher civil servants and the judiciary.
It was made in 1924
Times have changed since 1924. They were little gods then, riding roughshod over the people.
It was the basis on which their salaries were computed.
The status symbol is a new approach as far as the judiciary are concerned because there have been three increases since 1924. This is the eighth round given to members of trade unions and other organised groups. It is only the fourth for the members of the judiciary. We had no tie-in with the fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh rounds as far as the judiciary were concerned. It is only when we come to the eighth round that we have the present Minister, all of a sudden, tying in the judges' status position with the eighth round increase to higher civil servants. That is a departure from the position taken up by his Leader and by the former Minister for Justice in this House. Speaking on the Courts of Justice Bill, 1959, at column 538 of the Official Report for 29th October, 1959, the former Minister for Justice said:
As Deputies are aware, judges' salaries are fixed on a long term basis and are not revised, to cover changes in the cost of living, with the same frequency as occurs in the case of persons engaged in other branches of the public service or in outside employment generally.
That should be clear to anybody. There is no comparison with other branches of the public service or outside employment generally. Yet here we have the question of retrospective payment for the judges on the grounds that the civil servants have got it back to November, that the civil servants have got a status increase because of the eighth round increase given to organised workers. The Minister can hop from foot to foot according to the particular spot he is in by putting forward different arguments to suit himself, but he cannot get away from the argument put forward by his predecessor that you could not compare the Civil Service with the judiciary. Yet he comes in here and states that you must compare like with like. He bases all that on the status symbol.
It would appear there is a new policy emerging from the Fianna Fáil Party as a result of statements made recently by the present Minister and young colleagues of his. If it is the throwing overboard of what I would describe as the elderly statesmen, let us be clear it is genuine.
Do not stir up trouble now.
I am not suggesting that the Minister is not entitled to change his mind.
You might get me into trouble.
I suggest it is a big change from the statement made by an individual formerly here, whose status symbol is pretty high now, that no man is worth more than £1,000 per year.
You mean his financial status symbol.
The outlook of the Government at present is to forget all that. Now we must have the status symbol. If it is not going to be with big cars, let us make it with money. Let us have a difference between the various sections of the public by paying the judges an increase purely on a status basis. A lot of people like to talk about the Americans and their status symbols. I understand the big tycoons of industry there have huge cars and their wives have two or three small cars for shopping. That is a status symbol.
Deputy McQuillan has his own status symbol.
Some of the people going to the races bring their field glasses and some other people have racehorses. These are status symbols.
Do not draw me out on yours.
As long as you do not kill any lambs on the job. The trouble with these status symbols is that you can go too far with them, especially when public money is being sought in this House to bolster up a retrospective status symbol for the judiciary. While we are doing that we have people in this city and in rural Ireland whose present allowance is not sufficient to keep them in food over the week. They have to depend on aid from charitable organisations to keep them going. I want an answer from the Minister, and, indeed, from the backbenchers of the Fianna Fáil Party who must have given the Minister authority to bring in this measure. I am not blaming the Minister personally for it. He must have got the support of Deputy Booth, Deputy Burke and all the rural and city Deputies.
I wish to thank the Deputy for mentioning my name.
He is nearly as good as the Evening Mail for Deputy Burke now.
He should say three "Our Fathers" for Deputy McQuillan.
I have no doubt he would say a Litany for me. All these Deputies must be behind the Minister in putting forward this measure on a status basis that we should back-pay the judges to the 1st November.
We authorised him to do that.
I am glad Deputy Booth is speaking now for all the other Deputies I mentioned.
We all instructed him to do it.
I want to ask something of the other Deputies. I am not interested in Deputy Booth's end of it because he is far removed from the classes to which the Minister referred, the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans, the persons who are disabled —although I must say the Deputy is not too fit looking at the moment. However, he certainly does not have to depend on the Department of Social Welfare to enable him to carry on. I sympathise with him personally on his mishap.
The Deputy is doing very well on the old age pension over there.
The Deputies to whom I have referred have a responsibility for which they are answerable to the public. Do they believe that a back payment to the judges of from £250 to £400 is justified at a time when the Government cannot afford to give a penny increase to the old age pensioners until next August? As a rural Deputy, I cannot understand the mentality of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers if they can justify in their own consciences the type of approach that would leave the old age pensioners, the widows and the disabled waiting until next August for a miserable increase and, at the same time, would have the audacity to walk in here and say the Chief Justice is in a bad way because his status symbol has been hard hit over the past six months and we will back-date——
(Interruptions.)
You can laugh, but he is right in what he says. It is the first example of retrospective status we have ever heard of.
I cannot help laughing myself when I think of the Deputy to whom we look as one of the leading lights in the Common Market and yet, when he goes over there, he is one of the first casualties himself. I hope it is not an omen for industrial Ireland. In so far as the Minister is concerned, we have one thing clear at the moment, that there is a new departure in regard to this question of allowances to the judiciary. In future discussions in this House when reference is made to other sections of the community, comparisons can be made of what the Minister called "like with like". I do not think any member of his own Party will deny that that is a new departure. From 1924 to date, it has been argued, whenever the matter came up in this House, that the judiciary could not be compared with any other group in the State; could not be compared with the higher civil servants, could not be compared with organised workers. There was no question or intention that the judiciary would have to make a case as civil servants or other groups in our society would have to do. There was no question at any time that they would have to make an application for an increase or for retrospective payment if other sections of the community got them. Now that is all changed. If the debate on the amendment did nothing else, it has extracted from the Minister the statement that whenever——
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
We have extracted from the Minister in the course of the discussion this morning that in future comparison will be made between the higher civil servants and the judiciary whenever the question of an increase in allowances is under consideration for the civil servants.
This is the eighth round of increases and it is the first time that we have had the case made on the basis that because of the eighth round increase given to other sections, we must give it to the judiciary and must back-date it.
The Deputy has said all that before.
Deputy Booth has the remedy. He can get up and get out.
No; he will ring the bell.
If he does not, I will.
He is harmless. I think the Minister at this stage should reconsider the position. If he does, there will be no further discussion. I am sure the House will appreciate the fact that he was dealing with other matters very recently and when pressure was brought to bear from the right angles and from the proper sources the Minister saw the light and did not pursue what could have been a very serious matter.
This question of retrospective payment is a precedent in so far as the judiciary is concerned. The idea behind the retrospective payment is that it is purely a status symbol and purely for loss of status since November. It is not the amount of money involved that I am arguing about; it is the principle.
If it is the loss of status between 1st November last and the date of the passing of this Bill that is being discussed, why not go back further? Why not go back to the previous increases that the judges got? They got one in 1924, in 1947, in 1953 and again in 1959. Where did the question of retrospective payment come in in regard to those increases? When they got the increase in 1953 was not the Minister of that day entitled to say, "You have suffered loss of status back to 1947"? The next increase was in 1959. In that case why should they not have gone back to 1954?
Both were made retrospective. The 1953 increase was made retrospective for a period of six months. How can the Deputy say this is the first time it has been done?
The 1953 increase came after a pause of seven years.
It was retrospective for a period of six months.
There was a pause for seven years. It was stated by the Minister that no increases would be given on the normal increases taking place in the cost of living and there were eight different rounds of increases.
The Deputy is changing his ground. He said this was the first time the principle of retrospection was introduced in regard to judges' salaries. Does he withdraw?
No, I do not. It is the first time there has been retrospection in regard to judges' salaries as a result of a comparison made with the salaries of higher civil servants. Is not that a fact, that it is the first time retrospective payment is being made as a result of comparison with the higher civil servants?
That is not what the Deputy said. He said it was the first time this new principle of retrospection was introduced with regard to judges' salaries. I am pointing out that factually that is not correct. I have done so twice.
Perhaps the Minister has not been listening very carefully.
I have listened carefully.
I have been on the point that since 1924 there have been only four increases; that in connection with these four increases there was no question of retrospective payment on the same basis as applied to the payments to the higher civil servants in the eighth round increase. In 1954 there was no tying in of the judiciary with the higher civil servants. If I can put it that way, I hope I can make it clear. In 1947 there was no tying in with the higher civil servants when a decision was being made on the salaries of the judiciary. In 1959—which is not too far back for the Minister to check—there was no comparison made by his predecessor with the emoluments of the higher civil servants.
They were directly related in 1959.
The Minister's predecessor has stated that judges' salaries are fixed on a long-term basis. What does the Minister consider to be a long-term basis? Is the period of time from 1st January, 1959, to 1st November, 1961, a long period?
It is the retrospection we are arguing about, or should be arguing about.
The retrospection goes back to 1st November, 1961, as the Deputy would know if only he would read the Bill. We want to find out from the Minister is he now departing from the lines pursued by his predecessor, namely, that only over a long period are adjustments made?
We have heard that ad nauseam.
Will the Deputy go outside and think over his future in the Common Market?
No; I am trying to help you—trying to get the needle unstuck from the groove.
That is an unjustified criticism of the Chair.
Do not let us stick the needle in the Deputy. I know the Chair is perfectly capable of keeping order without the assistance of Deputy Booth in his present condition.
I do not know what that means.
The Deputy will take the worst possible meaning out of it.
I think I ought to resent it—I am not quite sure.
I do not think Deputy Booth has reached that stage yet. To get back——
Do not go back to where you were before.
To get back to the point in connection with the comparison between higher civil servants and the judiciary, the case has been made that the payment for which money is now being sought in this measure is necessary to prevent a feeling of uneasiness among the judiciary, a feeling that they have been slighted, that their place in society has been lowered since last November.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
It would appear that the only case made for the retrospective payment is that since 1st November up to the present, the judges have been put in an inferior position and some other groups in the State's society are in a position to look down on them, to quote the Minister's words about people who are in well-paid higher positions being in a better position to look down on others who are not as well off. We are now getting a class segregation mentality. Deputy Corish said he did not believe the Minister meant that when he uttered those words but they are there in writing, and I do not think a man in the Minister's position would make statements to that effect without weighing his words carefully.
I feel there is a change. This is a new approach. It differs from what men thought formerly in his Party— that the poorest in the State were as important as those in the highest positions, apart altogether from cherishing all members of the community equally. It is not suggested that is possible financially but in so far as the opportunities for their advancement and welfare are concerned that principle should operate. I think it was never envisaged that the day would come in Leinster House when we would have a prolonged discussion here on the necessity for the back-payment of judges, on the ground that their status had been lowered over the past six months, in which period other groups had got the benefit of the eighth round of salary and wage increases, that they had lost caste with the public. This comes after the statement was made two years ago that members of the judiciary would not get increases on the basis of an increase in the cost of living.
That has been said at least a half-dozen times. There is a good deal of repetition.
I presume the Ceann Comhairle is referring to some other Deputy.
Repetition does not mean repetition by one Deputy alone.
I was not present for all of the debate and I would not know what other Deputies have said, but I just want——
The Deputy said it himself.
That is a matter for the Chair to decide.
And the Chair has decided.
He has not.
The Chair will do its own business.
Hear, hear.
Deputy McQuillan may proceed.
I accept the Chair's decision on the matter. All I want to do is to ask the Minister is it, in his opinion just, in a small community like ours, to spend taxpayers' money on what can be described as a status symbol at a time when we cannot, in this very month, give an increase of even 1/- to the social assistance groups?
The Chair has decided that has been said at least a dozen times. Deputy Dr. Browne.
Deputy Dr. Browne has only just spoken. Is this to go on all day?
The Minister can bring in a law to stop this kind of thing.
It is a good job the Deputy is not on the Bench.
If the Minister makes a reasonable approach to this matter, he must see that there is a very compelling argument here for accepting this amendment, the case being largely the fact that he has produced a number of arguments that are mostly conflicting as to why this increase should be given and made retrospective.
I have not said anything since the Deputy last spoke.
The Minister should clarify what is to be the position in respect of the judiciary when we consider their remuneration. What standards are we to adopt? Are we to accept his thesis that we must give these people what he would suggest as a satisfactory financial status symbol? If he thinks that is so, who is to arbitrate or decide on this? Our difficulty is that he has apparently departed from the principle laid down by the Taoiseach that these people should be considered independently of other sections, organised labour sections. The Minister now wishes us to relate these people, in our assessment of what salaries they should get, to organised labour groups. If that is so is is a very important departure from past policy. I hope the Minister will reassure the House that in the next few months we shall not be presented with another Bill for the comfort of the members of the judiciary based on the old assessment——
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy but what we are discussing now is retrospection and salary increases. Other amendments will arise later on and what the Deputy is endeavouring to discuss now would be more relevant to them. If we are to discuss it now and discuss it again on a later amendment, we shall have increased duplication.
In relation to retrospection, a case has been made by the Minister that it is justifiable on the grounds of fair play, that the retrospection should be related to the Civil Service award, the eighth round wage award, and that for that reason it is justified. However, arising out of that proposition by the Minister, we should be given the case for the whole procedure in relation to making this award retrospective which operated in relation to civil servants or to the other people getting the eighth round award.
This is simply a question of whether the increase is to be backdated or not.
We believe that, because we have shown these people have already been given large awards independently of the ordinary awards made in the courts by arbitration or made as a result of trade union representation before the Labour Court, this award is not merited retrospectively. If the Minister is determined to press this through the House, he should justify his case for retrospection in the same way as it had to be justified in the case of those with whom he is now trying to compare the judiciary.
This is an important departure. The Minister is completely at liberty to make that departure if he wants to, to create this precedent—which we hope will be followed; we should like an assurance that it will be followed in future—but we should like to know from the Minister if he intends, in regard to retrospection and payment of salary increases, to tie in these people with other wage and salary groups in the State and, if that is to be done, whether they will be asked to conform to similar conditions in relation to arbitration. If they are to get the benefits of any advances made as a result of trade union activity or as a result of arbitration machinery in the Civil Service, what price will they pay for these benefits and will they have to follow the procedure usually followed in order to justify retrospective payment?
If the Minister is to justify this retrospective payment to the judiciary by relating them to other groups, he must treat them in the same way in the examination of their case. In that regard, of course, there is absolutely no comparison so far between the examination of the case of, say, civil servants before the arbitration board or the trade union worker before the Labour Court, and the examination in this case. Everybody here is prepared to give what the Minister calls fair play to these people as long as we know it is fair play. As far as we can see, the figures which are granted here do not appear to bear any relationship to any figures arrived at through a rational assessment. If the Minister intends to make this radical change in regard to his decisions as to the payments which will be made to these people from time to time, there must be some rational assessment of the payments which he thinks are justified. Alternatively, if he thinks his case could be made stronger, I do not see why he cannot consider the establishment of some more generally acceptable form of arbitration machinery for them so that we would get a more objective assessment of their needs and so that we would be in a position to say that this retrospection which we intend to grant them is justified on the case put forward.
When I asked the Minister a question as to what case had been put forward, he was very annoyed that he should be asked at all. All right— that is in the past. The Minister is now apparently breaking new ground. Does he now propose that these people should be related to the industrial group or the Civil Service group and that they will follow the same procedure in the case they put forward, that it will be based on certain rational grounds and that these grounds will be made available for assessment by the Dáil or a Dáil committee, that there will be some form of arbitration machinery established, such as that for the Civil Service or some sort of court like the Labour Court?
I ruled out an amendment in respect of that. The Deputy may not deal with it in this fashion.
I shall not pursue that. Surely the Minister sees, in fairness to the judiciary, that the case he has made does not bear any serious analysis, that he has deserted practically all the arguments he has made; he is not making them any more. He comes up with this old schoolboy cricket phrase: "Let us have fair play all round." That is not a rational argument for an adult parliament as the basis for granting salary increases.
It is a reasonable proposal, all the same.
There must be better arguments than "let us have fair play". If he is to have this extraordinary generalisation of good will towards the judiciary, then, in the interests of the judiciary—because some day we might be over there and our interpretation of fair play for the judiciary might not be and is unlikely to be anything like as generous as the Minister's assessment of fair play——
That is not a real danger.
You never know. Strange things happen. The Minister is there and that is strange enough.
It was inevitable.
A Messianic complex the man has.
He lost 85,000 first preference votes for his Party.
I sincerely believe that the old system had a certain amount to recommend it but it was not good in so far as matters were left to the arbitrary decision of the Minister. Probably the Minister is right that there should be a departure from that system but he has not proposed a better one. The argument about "fair play" is not a valid one between adults and it could not possibly be advanced in any kind of court arbitration or tribunal. If a trade union leader went to the Labour Court suggesting: "We want this and we want it retrospectively because we want fair play", he would be thrown out of court. As the Minister knows, the statements made by the civil servants or by the organised workers for increases are the most detailed and meticulous things. There is a most painstaking investigation into the case, in the first instance.
And there is fair play.
There is, and I am suggesting a similar fair play should be exercised in respect of these people.
There is fair play for anybody who wants to enter into wage negotiations and go to the Labour Court.
We know there are unfortunate people who cannot get into the Labour Court and who, therefore, do not get fair play. Civil servants——
They have arbitration.
The Civic Guards.
They have arbitration, which we honour.
We will see if the arbitration in their case will be retrospective when it comes.
Most of these arguments are retrospective, too.
The old cliché is that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. We really do not know if the Minister is giving them enough. It is conceivable he may be underestimating the needs of these people. I do not think he is, but some people may believe he is. The judges may consider he is underestimating their quality, calibre, integrity, and so on. If the Minister intends to justify these salary increases——
The Deputy is on salary increases now, not retrospection.
Yes.
That can be discussed later. There are several amendments on which that will fall more relevantly for discussion.
This retrospective payment is the final straw that breaks the camel's back. If the Minister insists on this retrospection, because of its application in other groups, then he should, in fairness to the House, give factual justification for his decision. He has now departed from all the arguments he advanced up to the present; he has departed from every one of his earlier arguments — the status symbol, the maintenance of integrity, the relationship to other groups, the eighth round increase. As far as I know, he has even departed from the eighth round increase argument he advanced earlier. We are now left with this empty, essentially meaningless phrase that we must give these people fair play; because some other group in our society has got a certain increase, we must give the judiciary an increase. If the Minister is going to take his stand on that final vague argument, then he must, I think, justify it in the same meticulous way as it had to be justified in the case of some civil servants—not all of them have got increases—and trade union groups who had to go before the Labour Court to justify their claims for increases on foot of the increase in the cost of living, the increase in travelling expenses, the difficulties in providing schooling for their children, the need for legitimate entertainment, the need for a certain "share of the cake", whatever that may mean. All these arguments could have been advanced by the Minister in regard to the judiciary in justification of his case for an increase.
It seems to us that, at a time when there is so much disturbance in relation to salaries and wages generally, when the Government are possibly considering the desirability of restricting the rights of individuals to withdraw their labour——
I have repeatedly asked the Deputy not to repeat himself. I have repeatedly asked him to confine himself to the retrospection embodied in this amendment. He is not doing either. He is travelling over the whole scope of the Bill. I have pointed out to him that the matter he is discussing can very relevantly be discussed on the succeeding amendments. He is not taking any notice of what I tell him. Surely, we do not want a repetition of all this on the succeeding amendments? That will not be to the advantage of either the House or the Deputies. Deputies should confine themselves on this amendment solely to the question as to whether or not the projected increase should be made retrospective.
Sir, in view of the fact, that the Government have found themselves unable to make retrospective payment in relation to a very much more needy section in our society, the so-called social welfare groups, as some insist on calling them, surely it is manifestly unfair to grant retrospection to this particular group? Even though the sum involved is relatively small, it demonstrates the reckless disregard for public opinion and the general standards we should have in our society. It creates the belief—I think it is a justifiable belief—in the minds of our people that the Government are interested in, or concerned solely with, bettering the better-off, making the rich richer and not really concerned with trying to prevent avoidable hardship on the general masses.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Leneghan, Joseph R.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Con.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donough.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Michael.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Dan.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Kenny, Henry.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McQuillan, John.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Keeffe, James.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and McQuillan.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 3:
In lines 12 and 13, to delete "following subsections for subsections (1), (2) and (3)" and substitute "provisions below in respect of the remuneration of certain judges and justices for the corresponding provisions in the section".
Amendments Nos. 3 to 15 are all of the same pattern. They can all be discussed together and if separate decisions are required, they can be taken.
Everything except Amendments No. 16 can be discussed on Amendment No. 3.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 hang on Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 16 is out of order.
We shall discuss Amendments Nos. 3 to 15, inclusive.
There was an understanding that there would not be repetition in relation to anything already discussed on Amendments No. 2.
That was very strictly limited to retrospection.
I remember the contrary, I regret to say.
An effort was made to confine it to retrospection.
But it did not succeed. If Amendment No. 3 falls, all these fall; they may not be moved.
Amendment No. 16 is out of order.
Who ruled Amendment No. 16 out of order?
I did.
I object, first of all, to the big differentation which is now proposed to be made between the salary of the Chief Justice and the other members of the High Court, between the President of the Circuit Court and the other members of the Circuit Court, and between the President of the District Court and the other members of the District Court, including the highest paid member of the District Court.
Generally speaking. I am aiming at having the existing differential between the Chief Justice and the members of the Supreme Court, including the President of the High Court, the differential between the President of the Circuit Court and the other members of the Circuit Court, and the differential between the President of the District Court and the other members of the District Court, kept as they are at present.
I want to take, first of all, the point that the Chief Justice is to be paid the sum of £6,000 a year and the President of the High Court and the ordinary judges of the Supreme Court are to be paid the sum of £4,500 a year. We are now making a differential of £1,500 as between the Chief Justice and the next highest paid judge. In the hierarchy of the judiciary, that would be the President of the High Court. I have already said that, in America, the President of the Federal Supreme Court gets only 500 dollars more than his colleagues. There is a tremendous difference between that and the differential we propose to make as between the Chief Justice and the judges of the Supreme Court, including the President of the High Court.
I want to advert to those proposed salaries. It is proposed to pay the Chief Justice the sum of £6,000 a year. In that connection, it must always be remembered that it is on the salary paid on the date on which a judge retires that his pension is calculated. Under the present dispensation, judges must retire at 72 years of age, and they get on the date of their retirement two-thirds of the emoluments they are receiving on the date of their retirement.
By giving the Chief Justice £6,000 a year, we mean that when he comes to retire, his pension will be £4,000 a year. As I have said, I had certain calculations made and I was told that that pension is equivalent to a lump sum of £30,000. People are inclined to talk in terms of salary only, but salary cannot be discussed apart from pension rights. It may be said that there are people at the Bar earning big sums of money but very few would be able to set aside—I doubt if anyone could—enough from their incomes at the Bar to secure for themselves at the age of 72 a pension of £4,000 for the rest of their lives.
I was told, as I say, that that is the equivalent of a lump sum of £30,000. We can easily calculate what would be the sum which an ordinary five per cent. rate of interest would give a pension of £4,000 a year. That is not the whole story because we must think of the sum of money on which that five per cent, return would be given. The person might die and leave that capital sum behind. Therefore, one must think in terms of the annuity which would be purchasable to bring in a pension of £4,000 when he is retiring at 72 years of age.
I approached various people on this matter and I was told that when these calculations are being made, there has to be a certain guarantee with regard to living for a certain period. What we are now doing is giving to a person a sum of money of £6,000 a year which he will enjoy until he retires and when he retires it will be the same as if we gave him a present of £30,000 which he could invest in buying annuities which would be sufficient to bring him in £4,000 a year for the rest of his life.
It must also be noted that the person need not go on until he is 72 years in order to get a pension. Under the present legislation, he is entitled to get the full pension of two-thirds of his rate of pay at the age of 65 years, if he has 15 years' service. Of course, if one thinks in terms of a person becoming Chief Justice at a very early age, one realises that he could retire at 65 years and secure £4,000 a year for the rest of his life and the £30,000 which I have mentioned would go up correspondingly because his pension would represent a very much bigger sum.
That is the situation we are asked to sanction by this proposed legislation. I again want to stress that in America, with 180,000,000 of a population, where the Federal Supreme Court has to hear appeals not merely from foreign States, diplomats and public servants, but also has to hear appeals from 50 States, the President of that Federal Supreme Court receives only 500 dollars more than his colleagues, that is, less than £150. That is the distinction they decided to make there in connection with their courts.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present ; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
The salaries proposed in the Bill are £6,000 a year for the Chief Justice, £4,500 a year for the President of the High Court and the ordinary judges of the Supreme Court and £4,000 a year for the ordinary judges of the High Court. I mention these figures because in introducing the legislation, the Minister said he hoped that this matter would be approached with a sense of fair play and an appreciation of the facts. At column 695, volume 194 of the Official Report, he said:
Let me point out that, of the 57 judicial persons concerned with this Bill, 52 have salaries which do not exceed those paid to the holders of the highest posts in the Civil Service.
He then spoke of the holders of the highest posts who had secured, or would shortly secure, the benefits of the eighth round increases. At a later stage, the Minister referred to the heads of the Civil Service. The comparison is, not as he said to-day, with the higher posts in the Civil Service. I know of no civil servant who is in receipt of £6,000 a year. I also have failed to find any civil servant in receipt of £4,500 a year.
You are wrong again.
Who is in receipt of £4,500 a year?
I am not going to instruct the Deputy. I am just telling you that you are wrong again.
One is always suspicious of the Minister when he says that anyone is wrong because he is so frequently wrong himself. The top level of the Civil Service used to be the Secretary of the Department of Finance, the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and the Chairman of the Board of Works. If they have £4,500 a year, it is very recently that they got it. They are not included in the Books of Estimates at that figure.
Go and do your homework.
I do not know whether the new percentage increase gives these people more than £4,500, but if it does, they are people who came into the Civil Service through competitive examination. They are in the Civil Service for many years and they have got increments from time to time as well as the benefit of certain increases. We are now asking that the judges be brought to the level of the heads of these four Departments. There is nobody in the Civil Service who has £6,000 a year.
Wrong again.
If there is, I should like to know who it is.
There is a person paid out of State funds.
Out of State funds —that is another matter. Civil Servants come into the service through a competitive examination. They go up along the line year by year and arrive at the highest point they can get to after many years in the service and after being selected on a competitive basis, not on a political basis. I am told that the greater part of these proposed increases will be returned to the Exchequer. That applies to everybody with a high salary and why the argument should be made with regard to the judges I do not know.
One presumes that, like ordinary human beings, the judges indulge in tobacco and in drink from time to time, so that apart from income tax and surtax, these people, following on the recent increases, will pay more for this type of entertainment. It is not an argument that the proposed increases will be of no value to them. I have not known anybody who has refused to take an increase in salary because he is going to have to pay a heavy levy on it. People are concerned with the size of the pay packet they take home and the size of the pay packet the judges take home is very substantial. If they have to pay something more because of these increases, they will be the last to complain. They will not refuse the increases.
I want to point out in this connection that in this House we speak very much of the judiciary and the respect that has to be paid to the courts. In 1939, we passed an emergency resolution at the outbreak of the war. That resolution enables the reigning Government to set aside the Constitution by producing legislation which is expressed to be for certain purposes. Then nothing in the Constitution can be invoked against the legislation itself or against any act done under it. We have kept that emergency measure alive since 1939. In addition, there is an Act called the Offences Against the State Act and, when this was passed in 1939, there was brought into this House a resolution which enabled the Special Criminal Court to be put into operation. That resolution had to say that the ordinary courts were inadequate for the preservation of peace and order and the administration of justice. That resolution was brought in in September or October of 1939 and it has never been revoked.
We now have the position in which a national emergency has lasted since 1939, but, apart from that, we have passed a resolution stating that our courts are inadequate for the preservation of peace and order and the administration of justice. And that is on the Statute Book since 1939 and it is the people whom you described as inadequate that you now propose to remunerate at a very high rate.
The argument that was mainly stressed was that these salaries were required in order to get the best people for the bench. At one time it looked as if three or four people were approached to take judicial appointments and refused because they were making more as practitioners. That weeded itself out to mean that apparently one person was approached about a judicial appointment and refused to take it on income grounds. The Minister added that there were three or four others who were making more than they could get on the bench.
More lies.
Taking income as the test, there are known to the present Government three or four people who, on income grounds, are the people who should have been approached but they were not approached. Of the people who were the best people according to the test of income one might have been approached and refused and three others were not approached. It is just make-believe to pretend——
What do you know about it?
I know that it has not been stated that they were approached.
You were never approached, anyway.
I was; I refused a judgeship. I was offered one in my own day but I never ambitioned it, although it was not on income grounds.
That is not the popular impression.
There are a lot of improper impressions abroad about all sorts of people, including the Minister. I would not accept the judgeship because it is not the work that I would like to do but it was not income that made me turn it down.
The Deputy will not tell any more lies about me.
There were many people who should have been given judicial appointments and who have not been given them.
I understand the word "lies" should not be used with reference to any Deputy. Twice within the past ten minutes, the Minister has suggested that Deputy McGilligan was telling lies.
If the word "lies" is used, it is usually withdrawn.
There is nothing disorderly in saying that the Deputy will not tell any more lies about me.
If the Minister has used the word "lies", surely he ought withdraw it?
The Chair has decided that there was nothing improper in the remark as it was heard by the Chair.
Then we can take it that the word "lies" can be used in relation to a statement made by a Deputy?
The Deputy would be wrong to take that.
But it is all right for a Minister to make that statement. I heard it twice. I accept that a precedent is being set.
There is no precedent being set; it is not establishing a practice.
It is customary that the word is withdrawn unconditionally. Is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle making a new rule in relation to the word "lies"?
That is not correct. It depends on the context.
Was the remark made that I should not tell any more lies?
Yes.
I did not hear it. I would not care about it but it is just that there are rules imposed on certain people and not on others. If the Minister said: "Do not tell any more lies"——
The Chair did not hear the Minister mention the word "more".
The Chair apparently did hear him say "do not tell any lies"?
Then there is an insinuation that I was telling lies.
It is not my duty to defend Deputy McGilligan—he is far better able to do it than I am— but on the matter of rights of individuals, if the word "lies" is used about any Deputy, the position up to the moment was that the Deputy who made the charge was asked to withdraw.
That is quite true but the Minister made no charge against Deputy McGilligan.
He accused him of telling lies.
I do not know what is happening.
If the Minister had implied that Deputy McGilligan was telling lies, the Chair would have asked for a withdrawal.
Did he not imply that? Did he not? He will not even answer.
Is the Deputy asking me? I made a simple request to Deputy McGilligan, which, in view of his past performance in this House, I think I was entitled to make——
I can argue about this.
——not to tell lies about me.
The words the Minister used were "do not tell any more lies about me." I think the Minister will accept that.
The Chair did not hear the Minister mention the word "more".
I am further away from the Minister than the Chair and I heard him.
If you wish to know my personal view, read my letter to the Irish Times in which I did not put a tooth in what I meant.
Under the rules of procedure in this House, is it in order for a Minister or a Deputy to accuse another member of telling lies?
It would not be in order for a Deputy or a Minister to do so, and the Chair has always demanded a withdrawal of such statements. In this case, as the Chair understands it, the Minister did not say that Deputy McGilligan was telling lies, but referred to a statement made by outsiders and only repeated by Deputy McGilligan.
I do not want a testimonial from the Minister but I do not want to be blackguarded by him.
Nor me by you.
I have said that it is complete make-believe to say that the salaries are being increased in order to maintain, and to attract to the Bench, the best people. The best people are not attracted to or asked to go on the Bench. On the last occasion, I said that in my experience I could only think of one person now on the Bench who at the time of his appointment could be regarded as the leader of the profession. There was one. There were many others who would not pretend to be amongst the leaders of the profession and it is just make-believe to seek to have an argument here on the basis that the salaries are put up to attract the best men.
The fact of the matter is that there are three or four people amongst the best men earning these salaries who were not approached to go on the Bench and it is completed nonsense to have this piece of legislation discussed within the framework of a certain association in which the best people are always asked to go on the Bench. It is just not the case and anybody who has been in the profession for any length of time will agree with me in what I am saying.
The arguments used on the last occasion were ludicrous. I take them as being summed up in an editorial which appeared in the Irish Times afterwards in which it said that it was difficult to make a case against the adequate remuneration of the members of the judiciary as the word “adequate” has to be related to the salary, to the men, and to the experience and the character, type and everything else, all the qualities that go to the making of a judge. The editorial wound up by saying that judges must be paid well enough to attract the best talent to the Bench. It also said that it was absurd to plan remuneration for the best people and then offer the positions to second-rate men in the profession.
That is what is happening. We are also told that it is necessary to place judges above any inclination to subject themselves to financial difficulties. That gets back to the argument which I described as a humiliating argument. It was described here to-day in other terms. At column 778 of Volume 194, No. 5, of the Official Reports, the Minister tried to wriggle out of what he had previously said when he stated that:
The original basis of judges' salaries was designed on that conception: that judges should be paid so well and so generously that they would be free from any element of corruption. We should still have regard to the maintenance of that principle, but I do not think it is as important to-day as it was originally. I am not advancing it as the reason for these increases.
The Minister's main supporter, outside anybody who spoke from his own Party, was Deputy Sherwin. His whole case was made on the basis that we had to put the judges beyond the reach of temptation. The Minister in his reply spoke about the wise words of Deputy Sherwin who "has an unerring instinct in these matters, knows we are right." He said he had no idea of what Deputy Sherwin was going to do until he started on his sound, commonsense speech in the House. He tied his ally to him and his ally said that you had to keep judges free from corruption.
The Minister himself at a later stage said that the question of the prestige, honour and traditional integrity and respect of the judiciary is involved in this. The whole background was that unless judges were paid at a particular level, they would be bound to be subject to temptation and to bribery and corruption. The editorial of the Irish Times probably put it more nicely when it said that you had to place these people beyond any temptation to subject themselves to outside influence. That was a polite way of putting them beyond the reach of corruption. I regard that as a most humiliating argument and if the judges were asked would they take an increase on that basis and no other basis, to put them beyond the reach of temptation, I doubt if they would lose their self-respect and take their salaries on the basis of such an explanation being given to them.
However, if one has to consider that, then one has to think of descending terms. What is the point below which High Court judges may not be lowered without subjecting them to temptation or bribery or financial trouble? What is the minimum at which we must be prepared to keep a circuit court judge to keep him beyond the range of corruption? What variety of standards should there be for district justices or is this idea of integrity to be related to the possibility of temptation, because, if so, the Supreme Court judge, who is practically isolated from the community, is not in very much danger of an approach being made to him of a corrupt type.
The High Court judges are less isolated than their superiors of the Supreme Court and the circuit court judges, who travel so much throughout the country, and the district justices, are dealing very much more with the public than any of the superior court judges, so that from the point of view of this argument about integrity, one surely must think of raising their salaries to lift them beyond the reach of temptation. But coming down still lower, down to the level of the young Garda who is dealing with the public every hour of the day, surely the point of his salary must also be considered from the point of view of approachability if this argument is well founded? I, of course, regard the argument as contemptible. The third element brought in by the Irish Times editorial —“he must be assured of the highest respect of the community”—has also been echoed here.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
During the interval, I was able to look up a quotation from the Official Report, column 774 of volume 194, where the Minister spoke about our being realistic about the judges, their independence and their integrity, that we should make up our minds to pay them properly. That is a funny analogy, surely, between pay and integrity. The Irish Times said we had to assure these people of the highest respect of the community. That is actually echoed by the Minister as reported at column 780 of volume 194 of the Official Report:
It is a human and natural thing and it is something which is very common here—to look down on a man who does not earn as much as you do. I think that applies to all levels of our society. It applies among tradesmen, labourers, professional classes—particularly professional classes. It is there and we must face up to it. For that reason, we cannot let the judiciary slip behind the other classes with whom they are normally comparable and with whom they started out exactly comparable when they began in 1924. A question of the prestige, honour and traditional integrity and respect of the judiciary is involved in this.
So we have to pay men, whether they are worthy of their jobs or not, in order to assure them of the respect of the community and to assure the community of their integrity. It is an argument which is insulting in relation to integrity and which is still very difficult to understand from the point of view of respect of the community. Cannot one understand a witness or a juryman in a case hearing all about the fine pay the judge was getting and being impressed by his performance? Is that man going to say: "He is not much good in appearance but after all he is being paid £4,000 a year and he must be a great chap?" If there is any other argument that founds on that I should like to hear it explained because the idea of saying that people, whether they can do the work or not, deserve to have their salaries raised for the reasons given by the Minister so far, is contemptible. There will be people who will say: "If that person can earn such a salary in such a post what could I earn".
This is not calculated to inculcate respect and I am afraid that the repercussions will go on the other side—that people will get more and more annoyed when they see big salaries paid to people for whom they had not the least respect. We are told these salaries should be paid for posts which involve extremely onerous tasks. There is no doubt a judicial post is a very important one and that judges do help to make and shape society, but the question comes back to the Irish Times editorial reference to “adequate”. Is it adequate for the post or adequate for the people who occupy the post?
If we could be assured that regularly the best men would be appointed to the posts we could accept this argument of the Minister but anybody who has any appreciation of the profession and knows the way the appointment of judges goes, he will not pay any attention to the type of argument used here on the Second Reading debate on this matter. I object further to the extra salary being paid to the President of the Circuit Court which puts him on a level with an ordinary High Court judge. I want to know why. Is it because the President of the Circuit Court has to deal with a lot of administrative work? That was never a good argument but it is hopeless this year when it is known that the person appointed as President of the Circuit Court was able to do whatever administrative work he had to do from Cyprus where he spent 15 months.
Can it be said, therefore, that he has very much in the way of hard administrative work to do when he can do it from such a long distance as Cyprus? I have endeavoured to see, from time to time, from the pages of Iris Oifigiúil what evidence there was of heavy administrative work in this post and last week there turned up one comment in Irish Oifigiúil where the President of the Circuit Court had to appoint certain places as places for the holding of certain courts. If anybody thinks that is heavy administrative work demanding an extra salary——
Is it in order for the Deputy to attack a member of the judiciary in this manner?
If I may not criticise a judge being paid extra for extra work that he does not do, then this House has no function. He is, in fact, being paid for extra work which is not there to be done and anyway which he did not do. He presided as a judge in Cyprus for a good year, if not 15 months, never coming back, and purported to do his administrative work in connection with the circuit court from that far-off area. If there is extra administrative work entailed in this post, I have no objection. I have no objection to the President of the High Court getting extra salary as the second member of the hierarchy of judges.
Finally, there is the person known as President of the District Court who has been put on a salary of £2,850. There is the Principal Justice of the Metropolitan District Court whose salary is to be raised from £2,200 to £2,500. The President of the District Court, therefore, gets £600 more than the Principal Metropolitan Justice. The President of the District Court is an appointment against which I argued during the debates on the appropriate Bill when it was recognised that the post was being made for a particular purpose—that it was a prefabricated post, the only reason for it being a protest against two particular justices in the district court.
So far as the appointment is concerned—I am not concerned with the individual but the appointment—a certain amount of friction is known to exist in the district court. However, I have left that out of my calculations for these amendments in regard to the ordinary justices of the district courts. I have tried to bring down the point that this appointment should never have been made. I feel that, even with that incumbrance, there is a very good case to be made for a new view of the whole district court. I have said over and over again in debates on judicial salaries that the district court, as far as I know it, represents justice to the main bulk of our population. Very few people go to the Supreme Court. Actually, only insurance companies and very large commercial concerns can afford to go to the High Court. There is a bigger approach by the people to the circuit court, and the circuit court in Dublin and Cork is very much in touch with the populations of those areas. But it is the district court that means law and order for he people of this country.
The district justices have a variety of work to do. They are quite hardpressed. They certainly have to work quicker, because of the magnitude of the work passing through those courts, than most of the judges of the higher courts. They have a good case that their salaries ought to be raised, not because of any idea of integrity and of having respect for people, but simply because it would be adequate for the work they have to do. They are grossly underpaid. The case was made here time and time again, when we were faced with block increases in salaries, that the district court be picked out as people deserving of better treatment. They should be picked out again as people deserving of better treatment.
I should like to speak on the discrimination displayed in all our legislation as between the district justices in Dublin and Cork and the district justices in the countryside. The district justice in the countryside, I am sure, has not any easier circumstances than his colleagues in Dublin and Cork. Maybe there is something to be said for giving something extra to a couple of justices in the metropolitan area here, but certainly there is no case to be made for giving an extra salary to the President of the District Court or for making that appointment.
Clearly, the Minister has not given the matter any serious or intelligent thought. The arguments he brought in here for an increase to the higher groups do not bear examination. While we are in disagreement with the proposal to give these great increases to the judges in the higher courts, we think that the district justices, for many reasons, merit the increases proposed. Our difficulty in regard to this, as in regard to the other proposals, is that we do not know whether they are, in fact, the most equitable increases which should be paid. The wisest thing to do in regard to the making of payment of this kind is to accept the general principle now followed in regard to most employees in the State and provide some form of arbitration or investigational court in which a case can be made and justified.
I believe this present system, whereby we think of a number, halve it or double it, as the case may be, is likely to lead to injustice and extravagance —injustice in the sense that one might pay a person rather less than he has a right to. I cannot decide at this stage whether the awards made to the district justices are equitable. I do know, as an ordinary member of the public who has been in the district courts on a few occasions to give evidence on behalf of people, that, on the whole, it is a most impressive court. The men who preside over those courts seem to me to have very great demands made on them, in so far as they appear to have a fairly broad knowledge of the law and, more often than not, they have not available to them the assistance the judges in the higher courts have from barristers and so on.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
They are the only courts before which the mass of the people can afford to bring their grievances. On the whole, they are administered with very considerable humanity. They maintain a very high standard of justice. The district justices are very hardworking and they get through a tremendous amount of work in a day. They have to have a tremendous amount of patience, tolerance and understanding. On the whole, it seems to me that their behaviour in the courts is as high as you could expect from anybody.
If we have to look up to anybody —I do not see why we should—I suppose the people as a whole have a reasonable respect for their district courts. The odd thing is that they are able, so far as we know, to retain their integrity on this much lower level of salaries than that which are said to be needed in order to maintain a level of integrity in the higher courts. The whole argument of the Minister is so confused and so contradictory that it is very difficult to know, as the debate proceeds, really on what he is basing his proposals.
He made one remarkable statement here about the need to give these increases to the higher groups. He went on the thesis that, first, they must have them because of the status symbol. They must have them because they must retain their position in society. They must have them because it is the eighth round increase in wages. They must have them because the Civil Service have them. Then they must have them because, apparently, according to the Minister for Justice, in this country we tend to look down on people who do not get a lot of money. That seems to me to be an extraordinary attitude of mind for an individual to show as far as society is concerned. At column 780, Volume 194, No. 5, of the Official Report, the Minister said:
It is a human and natural thing and it is something which is very common here—to look down on a man who does not earn as much as you do. I think that applies at all levels of our society.
I wonder does the Minister seriously believe that that is so? Does he go around in our society questioning individuals as to how much money they are earning and then, irrespective of their intellectual capacity, of whether they are in mental hospitals, or whether they are dipsomaniacs or whatever they may be, is that person immediately placed in his estimation at the top of the scale in our society?
I did not say I approved of it.
It is an extraordinary argument for the Minister to have used.
I think it is a fact all the same.
I put this to the Minister: If he looks back through history I suppose the really great acts of creation and great treasures which live to us from history were created by people who in many cases had no money at all. Are these nonentities in our society?
I do not quarrel with that.
I submit that if the Minister had been a contemporary of Beethoven he would have thought he was a complete nonentity because he was bankrupt.
I specifically said I did not approve of that point of view but it is common in this country and the Deputy cannot deny that it is common.
I do not agree at all. Last night, on his absurd proposals that he did not even show the courtesy of bringing to the House but which he had to throw out as a result of pressure outside the House, quite wrongly—they were thrown out quite rightly but wrongly outside the House —the Minister has shown that he is completely out of touch with the ordinary people. I do not think they have this attitude of mind. The vast bulk of the people have not. There is a minority, a snob minority, that do take that stupid approach but the vast bulk of the people do not.
The Deputy admits it exists to some extent, does he?
To a very limited extent, in a minority of the people.
We agree, so.
No, no, we do not agree. The Minister says that it is very common. I say it is very unvery common. We do not agree at all. The Minister will have to re-read his speeches. He said a number of very silly things.
It is only a difference of degree.
A very important difference. I do not think it is true. This is not just one statement completely out of its context. It is in the context of a speech in which the Minister kept mentioning the status symbol, the need for people to be paid in order to maintain their prestige, their standing in society, their standard of integrity. The whole attitude is an attitude, I submit, of a diseased mind as far as normal society is concerned. These standards simply do not exist, I believe, in the majority of cases. It is a completely perverted view of a normal society to take that attitude of mind. Take a Franciscan, a Carmelite or a Carthusian. They do not have any money at all. What about their status in our society? Do we look down on them? Do the vast bulk of the people look down on them?
What about the bus driver?
He is not concerned about status.
He is concerned about differential.
Differential is a different matter.
Give him as much as the judges are given and he will be quite happy.
Was there not a strike in England in which footmen and butlers were involved?
Differential for work done and responsibility carried.
That is what status is.
Our only argument is in regard to the degree of payment for the degree of responsibility.
We all agree that there should be differential.
We do not disagree that they should be paid a reasonably good salary but we think the proposals being put forward are too big.
That is all right.
The Minister's replies are very intolerant of any criticism.
Deputy Browne.
Our difficulty is that the Minister keeps on wobbling from side to side like a drunken man. He puts forward an argument and then tries to mitigate that argument if he possibly can, verbally. Then he finds he cannot and switches over to some other completely different argument. In his statement here on Second Reading not only did he say that it is something which is very common but he went on to say that it applies in all levels of our society.
So it does.
The Minister believes it is a universal attitude. I do not believe it is. The Minister may think he is right. I do not believe he is right. I suggest that if he did use this method of assessment in deciding that whatever proposals he makes were justly merited, he is completely wrong; that, in fact, the contrary is true; that in setting these people up at this very high salary level he went completely against the general feeling of the mass of the people; that they disapprove and that they do not look up to these people at all because they have a certain salary. So, certainly on that argument, the Minister was completely unjustified.
As I say, it is part of the whole appallingly crude system of assessment of the salary needs of these people that a silly argument like that should have been put forward without any real sound basis and then, on examination, it is an argument which does not stand up to any analysis at all.
The Minister tries to confuse the issue even more. Even in his own speech he tried to have it every way just as he tried to create the impression that he did not believe that these people deserve a bulk increase irrespective of what was going on all round them. He then tried to tie it with the trade union increases—the eighth round. Then he was confused on that and then he got confused on this other question that if we want the best we must be prepared to pay for the best. Then there was the question of an independent judiciary, free from corruption. In relation to the first argument, that if we want the best we must be prepared to pay for it, I say all right. Then the Minister makes no attempt to try to get the best.
I do not think anybody over 21 in our society has any illusions at all about the judiciary or the general approach to the making of a judge. I do not think anybody really believes that there is in society here any real equitable system of appointment. One does know and the Minister does know —and he is merely following the precedent set down for him by his predecessor—that the matter is decided on a political basis and it is not a question of the best person practising at the Bar being appointed. I do not think anybody will deny that. I do not think the Minister will deny it.
It has been the procedure over the years to make appointments from the political Party in power. For better or worse that has been the practice and it happens to be the custom but I think it is silly to say that by giving the salaries we are looking for the best judges. We are not. We are seeking to pay the highest salaries we can to the people we pick from our political Party in order to sit on the Bench. If the Minister is genuine in this suggestion that he wants the best judges, if his argument is that he is paying these salaries so that he can get the best judges to sit on the Bench and that there could not be a higher or a more laudable reason, it seems to me he should pursue the policy we have adopted in regard to practically every other branch or profession in the State and set up some sort of tribunal. I do not care what type of tribunal it is so long as it is reasonably detached from and above the Government, a completely independent tribunal. If he really wants the best judges let him set up a representative tribunal, pay the judges good salaries, whatever is decided by the independent tribunal keeping all these considerations in mind and then make appointments from the best candidates that present themselves.
It is absurd, wrong and misleading for the Minister to say that by making the proposals which we are discussing here we shall get the best judges on the Bench. We have not set up the machinery which we know quite well is necessary for the making of any appointment whether an engineer, an architect, a medical man or a civil servant or a local authority official. It cannot be done and could not be done otherwise, and in other spheres we have long since abandoned the method used to raise people to the judiciary. It is high time it was abandoned also in relation to the judiciary. In the circumstances I suggest, there would be some justification for the Minister coming forward and saying: "This is the recommendation of an independent tribunal composed of all political groups and it is the view that this independent body should make appointments and in order to make the best appointments in those circumstances they think these are the salaries to be paid." I think the Minister must concede that would be a fair proposition to put before us. It would certainly be acceptable to me if based on the recommendations of an independent body representative of all groups set up to examine and make recommendations on the matter. I do not think if that were done he would get this opposition. I should not be prepared certainly to put up the opposition——
That was done in 1953.
It is now ten years since 1953. I think a good case was made for doing that at that time and in those circumstances and I think a good case is now being made by me for a repetition of that decision. The Minister takes the view that since the Labour Court considered the award made, say, to employees of the bus companies or of biscuit factories or to confectioners in 1954 or 1955, why not make it stand in 1964 or 1965? They made decisions then; they created differentials; they established equitable rates and there is no need to reconsider the decision at all. We must accept the decision of ten years ago and relate it to today and that is the correct figure. I do not think that is so. Conditions have changed very much——
That is why we are giving an increase.
Yes, we are giving an increase, but you could give an increase of sixpence and you could give an increase of £6,000. What we are concerned about is the equity of the particular increase being given. In fact, I do not feel competent to say what is the correct salary to pay to a judge of any court. What I believe is that, broadly speaking, the district justices merit something around the sum being given to them now. Where the higher increases are being made I feel they are extravagant.
Those differentials were settled in 1953.
In 1959 you gave £485 and now you are giving——
I am maintaining the differentials that were established in 1953 by the Committee which Deputy Dr. Browne favours.
If the Minister is so certain he is correct there is no reason why he should not save himself a great deal of trouble and contention and possibly misrepresentation by saying: "I shall not have anything to do with it. I should be accused of political prejudice, of favouring these people against old age pensioners and all the arguments would be made that have been made here." I believe these arguments have been made legitimately and that the Minister could rid himself of all this by saying: "This is outside my competence. I believe an independent tribunal should consider the matter and this would save me from finding myself in this position."
It did not obviate it in 1953.
I do not care. I am repeating my case. There is no reason why you should abolish the Labour Court or the Civil Service arbitration machinery because they made a recommendation ten years ago. Nobody would seriously make that suggestion——
There was still discussion in the House after the 1953 Report. The Labour Party refused to act on the Committee in 1953.
We had a very good reason for it.
You wanted to come in here and make a political issue of it.
Why should we talk about the salaries of the judges?
I am not denying your right to do what you did.
We did not believe we should do the dirty work for the Government if they did not want——
You wanted to feel free to make political capital of it here in the Dáil.
That is the worn-out defence of all Fianna Fáil Ministers.
At least Fine Gael acted on the Committee.
We are glad to hear that you appreciate Fine Gael. Something good may come out of it yet.
The Minister is behaving in a very jesuitical way when he accuses us of making a political issue of it. In the first place, I am simply telling the Minister he could have removed it from the political arena——
How could I?
I am telling the Minister he could have done that by setting up some independent body——
That proposal was ruled out of order on amendment No. 1.
But not for discussion. It is a separate one. The second point I am making is that the Minister had the choice I have mentioned on this occasion, and he did not take it at the time, to avoid this becoming a matter of controversy——
It would become that in any event no matter what tribunal was set up.
No, the Minister is wrong. One of the pleasant experiences I had as Minister for Health was that I had no function whatever in the making of medical appointments. That is a good thing from the Minister's point of view. It saves him from much political misrepresentation. He can avoid it if he has not responsibility in the way the Minister is responsible here for judicial appointments and for the present question before us of deciding what he believes to be an equitable increase in the remuneration being paid to judges.
The Minister has been particularly confused in the arguments that he put forward here in regard to the matter of maintaining the independence and integrity of the judges. He said at Column 774 of the Official Report of 28th March, 1962:
We value our judiciary, their independence and integrity. Let us make up our minds that, if we want to keep them that way, we must pay them.
Then he went on to say:
Old age pensions have nothing whatever to do with judges' salaries. There is no connection whatever between them. I want to make that crystal clear.
At a later stage, while suggesting that there is no connection between the payment of high salaries and the retaining of their integrity and independence, he said at column 778:-
...their salaries were set at such a level as to make them completely independent and free from any possibility of corruption... we should still have regard to the maintenance of that principle....
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.