Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1964

Vol. 210 No. 4

Supplementary Estimate, 1964-65. - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1964— Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Its purpose is to increase the salaries of all the members of the judiciary and as those Deputies who are good mathematicians will already have calculated, the new rates set out in section 1 represent percentage increases of 6 per cent for the Chief Justice; 10 per cent for the President of the High Court, Supreme Court judges, High Court judges and the President of the Circuit Court; and 12 per cent for ordinary circuit court judges and all district justices. In all cases, the figures have been rounded to the nearest £5.

The increases proposed will be readily recognised as constituting the ninth-round increase for the judiciary. As the House is aware, the ninth-round represents the emergence of a positive and comprehensive policy in relation to salaries and wages. In accordance with that policy, the Government has already, with the approval of the Dáil, given salary increases of 12 per cent to all the other groups who are paid from the public purse, including a not unsubstantial number of persons with salaries of the same order as those of most of the judiciary.

In these circumstances, it would be manifestly unfair not to extend the benefits of the ninth-round to the judges. There is, however, a good deal more involved than a sense of fair play; I am satisfied that the increases now proposed are unavoidable unless we are, by an act of default, seriously to disrupt the long established relationship in this field.

By way of a brief example, let me take the case of a provincial district justice and a chief superintendent of the Garda Síochána on the maximum of his salary. Down the years the salary of a district justice has always been substantially higher than that of a chief superintendent. The chief superintendent, however, has got his ninth-round since the 1st of February this year, and the present position is that the district justice is, to an appreciable extent, less well-paid than the chief superintendent. The increase now proposed for the district justice will restore their relative positions, though in fact the margin in the district justice's favour will have been narrowed. This pattern indicates not only the necessity for the present proposals but also the reasonable basis which has been adopted.

So far as circuit judges and district justices are concerned, the 12 per cent increase now proposed is a logical development of the action approved by the Dáil in relation to the other public services. In the case of the judges of the superior courts, the present differentials in salary between them and the judges of the lower courts are such that existing relationships would be fundamentally upset if the increases were to stop short at the circuit judges. Having considered all aspects of the matter the Government came to the conclusion that a modified ninth-round would be appropriate for the judges of the superior courts; hence the proposal to give them a 10 per cent increase, with the exception of the Chief Justice for whom the increase proposed is 6 per cent.

The Bill contains reasonable proposals designed to achieve these purposes. The total cost involved will be £18,900 in a full year. I recommend the measure to the House for its favourable consideration on the ground that it proposes something which in present circumstances is unavoidable.

Dr. Browne

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete the word "now" and to add to the end of the motion the words "this day three months".

I want to——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I did not want to interrupt the Deputy but is the motion in the names of Labour Party Deputies being taken with the amendment?

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I wanted to be clear on that.

Dr. Browne

I want to give the reasons for our request to the Minister to defer this proposed salary increase. There is a certain difficulty in regard to the position concerning the judiciary. In the past it has been generally believed—I recall the Minister making this case here—that salary increases for the judiciary are made on grounds which it is very hard to define. For that reason, justification was made for the increases being given to the judiciary independent of increases given to other sections of the community. The Minister made a case and established a point of view in regard to the making of salary increases in a certain category within our society. Later on, he deserted that point of view and on the eighth round, he linked the increases then proposed with the increases which had been generally agreed upon for all other sections of society.

It is quite clear that the Minister intends to pursue that link so we are really in a new position. The Minister's decision being so, we believe that if the judiciary are to be treated in the same way as other people in society, if an attempt is being made to link a man with a salary of £5,000 or £6,000 a year to the man with an average of £7 or £8 a week, many people will find it difficult to justify any such nexus but the Minister seeks to do that here to-night. I do not think anybody will hold that the three months' delay proposed here could impose any hardship on the upper echelons of the judiciary, the £3,000 to £6,500 group, and a fair case could be made for suggesting that in regard to district justices, the three months' delay could not impose any serious hardship.

We should like to see the delay made in order to ensure that if we are bringing the judiciary into line with all other sections of the community in regard to the making of wage and salary increases, there will be a review of the whole system under which the judiciary is appointed and in that way that we shall try to establish in our society for the judiciary conditions and terms which we found desirable and so advantageous in regard to the rest of our society, the great majority of persons in important positions in our society. The position of the judiciary is probably the most important position held by any group in a society. The quality of the man on the bench, whether in the district court or the supreme court is of extreme importance to the welfare of the community because of the implications the quality of the judiciary has in regard to the personal lives and, in many cases, liberty of our citizens. We believe that over the past 20 to 25 years a very good case has been made for ensuring that where professional or indeed other appointments are made, some form of independent commission should be available for the making of such appointments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

May I point out to the Deputy that the manner in which judges are appointed does not arise on the Bill? There is nothing before us except the simple question of remuneration to existing judges.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

There is an amendment to the Bill.

Dr. Browne

There is a motion standing in our name.

Mr. Haughey

That is not being taken.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That motion is not before the House. The only matter before the House is the amendment which has been moved by the Deputy.

Dr. Browne

I was trying to put to the House the reasons why we believe it is desirable to defer consideration of this Bill and its implications for a period of three months. The Minister has made the case here that this is the ninth-round increase for the judiciary. My case is that if we are to treat the judiciary in this way, then we should extend this levelling up and down, whichever way you like to put it, all round. If the judiciary are given substantial salaries, in the first instance, and substantial increases, as this is a substantial increase in regard to certain sections of the judiciary at any rate, then we know that the increases and the salaries are being given to men in whom we can have the highest confidence. In this way we are behaving in a responsible way in dealing with public money. I do not believe the position should be allowed to continue by which the members of the judiciary are appointed to these responsible and very highly paid posts without some scheme whereby a fair assessment of their capabilities can be made. This applies to virtually all other sections in relation to the making of professional appointments in society.

I believe the Minister on other occasions has suggested that the judiciary should be assessed independently and he has now, as I have said, established a new principle that they should be assessed at the same time and in the same way as persons in ordinary employment. We do not believe that, in view of the very undesirable manner in which the majority of the members of the bench have been appointed to their posts, except in exceptional cases, and the tradition since the formation of the State of making judicial appointments on almost inevitably political grounds rather than on grounds of qualification, we are justified in the first instance in paying large salaries, or, when it suits us, linking these people to the ordinary conditions of life within our society and again when it suits us excluding them from the responsibilities and conditions to which other sections of society are subjected.

Most of us accept this as a reality. We have adverted to it on a number of other occasions and we feel that as a significant change has been made here by the Minister, this is a good opportunity for the Government and the House to reconsider the whole question of the making of judicial appointments. Having done that and having re-established the principle that appointments will be made strictly on the merits and the qualifications of the persons presenting themselves to become members of the judiciary, we can then assess the desirable salaries which should be paid.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must point out to Deputy Dr. Browne that he may not advocate any change in the system of appointment of the judiciary. The matter is not relevant to the Bill and does not arise. The only question before the House is the question of remuneration.

Dr. Browne

In the circumstances, I bow to your ruling, Sir. I put that point of view to the Minister in order to see whether he is prepared to consider the position which exists and whether he will bring his proposals back to the Government and put this point of view to them. This is a proposal which is not very urgent. Nobody will suffer hardship of any kind if the proposal is deferred. We are quite satisfied that the time has come when this whole question of the position and the method of appointment of the judiciary should be considered. Having done that, if they merit the payment of salaries of this order in all grades, particularly the higher grades, then let the Dáil decide that. We should make sure that salaries of this size are paid on professional merits alone and not on political qualifications which in so many cases are virtually the sole qualifications which many of these people have when appointed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Mr. Pattison

I second the motion.

Mr. Tully

Would the Leas-Cheann Comhairle say what the motion is?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An amendment has been moved by Dr. Browne to delete the word "now" and to add at the end of the motion "this day three months".

Mr. Tully

That motion was for the purpose of having the whole question opened up and I assume you have refused to allow Deputy Dr. Browne to expand the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has not refused.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I cannot listen to a Ceann Comhairle in front of me and another behind me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled that the amendment does not open up a debate on matters raised by Deputy Dr. Browne. They are not relevant to the Bill, which deals solely with the remuneration of the judiciary.

Mr. Leneghan

Can there be a debate on this?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There can be a debate related to remuneration and nothing else.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The point put by Deputy Tully was that the reasons for the amendment are set out in the motion, and that he and his colleague wanted to argue that for the reasons set out in the motion, the House should support the amendment. That is as I understand it. It is not my point of view but I can appreciate the difficulty in which the mover of the amendment is in not being able to discuss the motion. It does not seem there is anything to recommend the amendment unless perhaps, for the purpose of opening up another discussion.

With regard to the Bill itself, it is certainly an eloquent commentary on the Government's management of the financial and economic affairs of the country that within two years of coming to the House and asking us to increase the salaries of perhaps the most highly paid public servants in the State, they now find it necessary to come back and ask the House to increase those salaries further in order to compensate the judges for the reduction in the real value of their salaries occasioned by Government policy during the past two years.

When the last Bill was being discussed in the House, the Fine Gael Party opposed it. We did so because it was introduced in an atmosphere of a wage freeze for everyone else but a substantial increase in salaries for the judiciary. We made the distinction to which the Minister referred this evening between the lower paid members of the judiciary—the district justices— and the higher paid members, the High Court and Supreme Court judges. These factors do not apply now. The wage freeze and pay pause atmosphere in which the last Bill was introduced, that is, a wage freeze and pay pause for others, does not apply now.

The fact of the matter is, as mentioned by the Minister, though he did not perhaps do it in so many words, that because of the increases in the cost of living which have taken place in the past two years, primarily because of the Fianna Fáil turnover tax, it is now necessary to try to adjust upwards the salaries of those who have suffered a reduction in the real value of their wages and salaries by reason of Fianna Fáil policy.

For those reasons, I do not feel we would be justified in opposing this Bill on this occasion. I do not want in any way to try to circumvent the ruling of the Chair, but with regard to the general question raised by Deputy Dr. Browne, I feel it would be right at this stage to state very briefly that we in Fine Gael believe the situation must be maintained wherein the Government of this country are responsible for the administration of justice in this country and that that being so, the Government must have responsibility, in a responsible and reasonable manner, for the appointment of the judiciary after whatever consultation is necessary—that the Government must be responsible to this House, and through it to the country, for any appointments they make. We believe that is the correct position to maintain and that it should be maintained. I shall not say any more on the subject, but I feel that once the matter has been referred to, it is right to make our views clear on it.

Mr. Leneghan

I shall be very brief. The best excuse for giving the judges and the other members of the judiciary the proposed increases in salaries is the fact that only Deputy Dr. Browne has opposed them in the House. All types of allegations have been made against justices and judges in the country. In all fairness, there is not a single word of truth in these allegations. I have never heard anybody worth his salt get up anywhere and truthfully and fairly say that a justice or judge had been wrong in a decision. It is therefore most unfair that any Deputy should rise to cast reflections on them.

If we do pay them more, what will the extra amount mean? It will mean very little, all told. Surely we should be anxious to put those people in a position in which nobody can say somebody's sister should bring along a turkey or a duck to get them to give a favourable decision? It is time we paid justices and judges properly so that these reflections could not be cast on them. No matter what Deputy Dr. Browne or anybody else says, it is time we put our judiciary beyond that sort of thing, high above suggestions of bribery.

If the Minister were to go even further and give them much greater increases, I would still back him in this very important matter. We all know what is said throughout the country. It is very common to hear: "See this man or that man and so and so can be done". That is not true, as I happen to know. We must get that attitude out of the public mind once and for all. I congratulate the Minister, therefore, for having had the gumption to come in here with this Bill. His proposal is only commonsense and right.

Mr. Tully

I suppose I can speak freely because so far I have not found myself before any of these gentlemen and I hope I never will in the years to come. What I am about to say is exactly what my Party think about this matter. We are not opposed to paying justices and judges fair salaries. What we are opposed to is paying or offering to pay people like them on a basis which up to now was not acceptable to the Government. The Minister is on record as having stated when the last increase in judicial salaries was being voted that he did not feel there should be a connection between rates of wages and the salaries being paid to the judiciary. It was a rather extraordinary thing, and I shall quote it for the Minister on the next Stage if he does not take my word. I have not got the passage with me now—I have mislaid it—but——

Mr. Haughey

I have it here.

Mr. Corish

The Minister contradicted himself several times.

Mr. Haughey

I contradicted the Deputy.

Mr. Corish

It is different when a man contradicts himself.

Mr. Tully

We are now being asked to believe that the Government feel the wages or salaries, call them what you like, of the judiciary should be related to the wage rates which have been negotiated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the employers. Are we to accept that in future all wage increases granted on a national basis will include the rates of salaries which the judiciary will receive? I should like the Minister to state that. I honestly believe a principle is involved here, a very big principle.

The Minister does say that the increases proposed will readily be recognised as constituting the ninth round increase for the judiciary. It could not possibly be the ninth round. I know "the ninth round" has now become a descriptive phrase rather than what it was for the workers, a ninth round. In this case, I think the judiciary have received only a very small number of rounds.

Mr. Haughey

Five.

Mr. Tully

Therefore, this is the fifth round for the judiciary. Will somebody come along to-morrow and say: "We are four rounds behind and we must make them up" or does the Minister intend to put all the four together and make it a decent one?

We are not talking here about a floor of £1. We are not talking about £1 or 30/- a week increase. Though the Minister says here that the Government did not approve for other types of Government employees an increase representing the ninth round, he is as well aware as I am that there are still some sections of Government employees who have not got their ninth round. The Minister can take my word for it that they need it a whole lot worse than the judiciary do.

Mr. Haughey

They are not in my Department.

Mr. Tully

As a member of the Government, I am sure the Minister is anxious to see all the people employed by the Government paid as decent a rate as he is anxious to see paid to the judiciary. If we are to accept that the whole question of the ninth round is to be the accepted thing, is it not extraordinary that it did not occur to the Government that social welfare recipients would also be entitled to something under the ninth round wage increase? Why is it that they are so anxious to see that those who are being paid what we might call reasonably well get the ninth round while those who are getting very little are, in fact, passed over?

Again, while it is not the Minister's Department, might I suggest that a word in the ear of the responsible Minister and his other colleagues in the Government on this matter, if he feels so inclined, might have the desired effect? I am sure the Minister knows that there is a certain amount of unrest in the country at the present time because of something people describe in various ways. It is felt that some of the people sitting on the bench do not seem to be terribly particular about the work they are doing. In fact, on occasions, the sentences which they dole out seem to be given either because of the fact that the justice or the judge has not got the time or the inclination to deal with the matter as justice would suggest or because he just does not know. Now, in either case, I think it is just too bad but I do not think anybody here, no matter where they may come from—whether they may come from Dublin city or from Mayo—can raise their hands in horror and talk about insulting the judiciary and about the wonderful job they are doing and all the money they are entitled to.

We in the Labour Party believe that the people who are responsible for the administration of justice are entitled to be paid an adequate salary but we also believe that they should do the job they are supposed to do. Last week or the week before last the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was asked a question by Deputy Desmond of Cork. The question asked how many postmen employed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are receiving an increase of £1, 18/-, 16/- and under 14/- under the ninth round wage increase. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs gave the figures which showed that nobody at all got the £1 and, as the figure dropped, they got up to thousands of postmen under 14/-. He came across with the pat answer that those people are only part-time. When I asked a supplementary question the Minister followed it up by saying that some of them were working only five or six hours per day, that they were part-time and, therefore, were not entitled to £1, the full benefit of the ninth round wage increase. But this is the only job they have and they are attempting to live on it.

Is it not extraordinary that, here, nobody can suggest that those people about whom we are talking tonight work even five or six hours per day? Nobody has suggested that they should be cut down in their remuneration or in the amount of increase they get because of the fact that they do not work the full 48-hour or 45-hour week. They must get the full benefit despite the fact that they are being offered an increase in wages under this Bill as large as some of those postmen are getting for their full week's work.

The Minister can come back to me and say that there is a big difference between the work the judiciary do and the work of a postman. Both of them are doing very important work, for which a very big amount of trust is required. Both of them, in many cases, must depend on what they get from the State for their work to rear their families. Yet, the distinction is made that one group, because they are at the lower end of the income scale, must be content to get their percentage rate according to the number of hours they work, not according to their weekly salary or wage, while for the other group it is quite all right; they get the ten per cent or the six per cent on what they are receiving over the year.

Would the Minister for Justice whisper in the ear of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and tell him that he has discovered that it is wrong to try to break them down into the number of hours they work?

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Tully will have me acting as Taoiseach, if he keeps on with this.

Mr. Tully

In a few years more, I may possibly find the Minister Taoiseach.

Mr. Corish

We are told he will be promoted very soon.

Mr. Haughey

Nobody has told me.

Mr. Tully

Possibly when the Minister becomes Minister for Finance he might become a little easier with the purse strings than the present man. We should all be delighted to see a man with a generous heart in such a position. The thing I cannot understand is this. We did put in an amendment. Originally, the amendment, when it was being put in, gave the words which are at present down: "To delete the word `now' and to add at the end of the motion the words `this day three months' " but we had, in fact, the following: "That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that in the next three months (a) the system of selection of nominees for appointment to the judiciary shall be examined with a view to ensuring that only the best and most efficient persons are appointed and (b) consideration shall be given to the question of reorganising the jury service."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that the Government refused to give time for the discussion of that particular motion. It may not be debated on this Bill which has no relevancy to the motion just mentioned by the Deputy.

Mr. Tully

I have no intention of debating it. I wanted to make it clear that the amendment which we have in here—which is apparently misunderstood by everybody except the people who are moving it—is not the original proposal which the Labour Party put before the House. It was only because we felt it would be possible to have both discussed at the one time, saving the time of the House in doing so, that this motion was put in this way. I am most surprised that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle refused to allow the mover of the motion to explain what the actual intention was.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not interfere with Deputy Dr. Browne when he moved the amendment. It was only when he went outside the terms of the amendment and the Bill that the Chair intervened.

Mr. Tully

But Deputy Dr. Browne was trying to explain why the motion was put down in a certain way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dr. Browne was trying to explain the system of appointment of the judiciary and the Chair pointed out that the matter did not arise.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Tully might not be aware that the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair when I asked the question at the beginning of the debate as to whether the motion was being taken with the amendment and the chair said "No."

Mr. Tully

Everybody is being very helpful tonight. It is almost a quarter past ten. I was under the impression that the amendment, which was moved by Dr. Browne, could be explained to the House because, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the House will appreciate, the proposal "To delete `now' and add `this day three months' " would require explanation. I was under the impression that the motion would be entitled to explain why this is so.

I should also explain that the Labour Party were not aware that the motion would come up—although ordered—for discussion to-night and, in fact, the people who were to move and second the motion were not present. One is out of the country on Government business and the other is ill, and we thought we could be facilitated by the Government in this case. We quite appreciate that because of what happened earlier, it was not possible to have the matter deferred but we were under the impression that it could be deferred, and therefore would not come before the House at all.

When Deputy Dr. Browne, whose name is the third on the motion, did agree to move it, it was with the intention of explaining what actually was in the minds of those who put down the original motion and why the amendment was worded in a particular way. Because of the fact that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle felt—I suppose, rightly, because he is the person to interpret what is right or wrong here— that this could not be done, I am sure the House appreciates the extreme difficulty in which the Labour Party have been put as a result of the refusal to allow the terms to be explained.

It has been proved that it was misinterpreted by the speech made by at least one of those Deputies who spoke after Deputy Dr. Browne. It is quite obvious that this was taken as a direct attempt to make a charge against the judiciary, an attempt to prevent them being properly paid and all the other things that go with it. Nothing was farther from our minds but we felt, and still feel, that when the Minister said in his opening remarks that the increase proposed would be readily recognised as constituting the ninth round increase for the judiciary, it would require as much explanation to the general public as the amendment required to this House.

There are very many people in the country who will not recognise this as the ninth round of wage increases and very many people—and one cannot blame them—only too anxious to point out that since the social welfare beneficiaries got 2/6 last year, the judges have got quite a sizeable increase.

Debate adjourned.