Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 1968

Vol. 235 No. 9

Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Moran)

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

This Bill represents the result of a careful reassessment by Government of what should in current circumstances be the level of remuneration of the various branches of the judiciary. It proposes to increase, with effect from 1st April this year, the salary of the Chief Justice from £6,360 to £8,000; that of judges of the Supreme Court from £4,950 to £7,000; that of judges of the High Court from £4,400 to £6,000; that of judges of the Circuit Court from £3,640 to £5,000; that of the President of the District Court from £3,190 to £4,500; and that of Metropolitan and provincial District Justices from £2,690 and £2,520, respectively, to a new flat rate of £3,750.

The Bill also contains a provision empowering the Government to increase judicial salaries in future by orders which will be open to the disapproval of Dáil Éireann.

On the main point, that of salaries, it has been clear for some time that a fundamental reassessment of judicial pay was necessary for a number of reasons. The most important point, perhaps, is that the present salaries fall considerably short of those required to enable the various members of the judiciary to maintain the status and independence which should attach to the important positions they hold in our society. Further, it will be generally accepted that the Government, in selecting persons for appointment as judges, should be able to call on the services of the most suitable legal practitioners, and, also, that persons so selected should be able to accept appointment without serious financial sacrifice. The Government have been aware for some years that the present level of judicial salaries is an obstacle when suitable appointees come to consider accepting an offer of judicial appointment.

In the matter of status and salary levels, the judiciary are to a large extent sui generis, and no accurate comparison can be drawn between judges and persons employed in other sectors of public employment. The present inadequacy of judges' salaries arises from a tendency over the last 20 years to equate them with other groups; even on that basis, it is quite clear that the judges have been given too little and too seldom, with the result that they have lost a considerable amount of ground. The present measure is intended to bring the salaries of judges up to acceptable level, and also has regard to the fact that the last increase was granted in 1964.

So far as Circuit Judges and District Justices are concerned, I should like to emphasise at this juncture that the Government, in reaching their decision as to the amount of the proposed increase, have taken into account the contemplated increase in the jurisdiction of these two courts. Legislative proposals on that subject are at an advanced stage of preparation in my Department. The new salaries set out in the Bill must, therefore, be regarded as covering any increase in jurisdiction that may be conferred on these courts.

I may also draw attention to the fact that the salary proposed for District Justices involves the abolition of what I may refer to as provincial differentiation. Up to now, the Dublin metropolitan justices and the Cork city justice have been paid more than their provincial colleagues; the present differential is £170. Forty years ago, the arrangement whereby persons in public employment working in the provinces were paid less than their colleagues in the large cities, was fairly common both in this country and elsewhere. Over the years, this adverse differentiation has been gradually reduced or abolished in other spheres, so that it can now be said to be virtually non-existent. The Government have accepted that there is no merit in retaining differentiation. The proposal that all District Justices should have a common salary has the support of the District Justices Association, which is representative of all the justices.

While on the subject of the District Court, I may also mention that the Government have approved the making of arrangements for a general close-down of sittings during the month of August. Adequate provision will, of course, be made, by way of "vacation" sittings in each district, to cater for criminal cases and especially custody cases. The close-down during August will not operate until 1969.

The closing-down of the District Court for a month during the vacation period will facilitate the public generally and also improve the efficiency of that court. The general pattern over the years has been that few cases are listed during August, and that applications for adjournments are frequent on the grounds that one or both of the parties, or their legal representatives, or witnesses, are absent on holiday. The professional bodies concerned are in favour of the August close-down. The close-down will also facilitate the taking of annual leave by District Justices, and at the same time ensure the holding of scheduled sittings throughout the year.

I now turn to the second provision in the Bill. This provides that any future increases in judicial salaries may be granted by Government Order, instead of by Act of the Oireachtas as heretofore. It will, however, be necessary for the Government to lay before the Dáil a draft of any such order, and if the Dáil disapproves of the draft Order within 21 sitting days, the order shall not be made. In this way, though the procedure is being changed, parliamentary control by the House over any increases in judicial salaries is being preserved.

I think that most Deputies will welcome this change. The Deputies who have been in the House for any substantial period cannot but have noticed, even in the case of an uncomplicated Bill, the substantial interval which for one reason or another elapses between the time the Bill is introduced in the Dáil and the time it is finally passed. Deputies with experience of Government will recall the various formalities and delays which inevitably occur between the formulation of legislative proposals and the introduction of a Bill in the Dáil. There is no reason why judicial salaries should not be dealt with by Government order, subject to Dáil control as I have indicated, and this is what we propose for the future.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am not opposing any part of this measure. Whether it is popular or unpopular to say it, it must be recognised that the judiciary in this country must be paid adequately, that they have a status to maintain and that the maintenance of their status and, particularly, of their independence, is essential and that members of the judiciary must be put into a position where they are adequately paid by the State.

So far as the present Bill is concerned, I am not at all happy about the additional provision that has been inserted, which the Minister apparently expected would be greeted with open arms by Deputies, that is, the provision that in future increases in judicial salaries should be made by ministerial order and will only be discussed in the House if someone puts down a resolution to annul the order. I think that that, in effect, is what this particular section means. To my way of thinking, in any event, although a certain amount of unpopularity has to be faced by Members of the House here when they decide to adjust salaries in the income bracket of the people concerned in this Bill, nevertheless, it is better that we should face that situation, that we should discuss openly here in the House the reasons for the increases when increases are granted. I do not relish the idea that in future this will be done merely by Government order.

I am sure that the Minister is right in assuming, as he does in his statement here, that that provision will be welcomed by Deputies. He is correct when he refers to the delays that for one reason or another may take place between the time of the introduction of a Bill and the time a Bill is finally passed. On the other hand, that situation, if it were likely to create any hardship, can very easily be adjusted by making the increase, if necessary, retrospective either to the date of the introduction of the Bill or at least to the date of the passing of the Second Reading.

On balance, the Minister is right to do away with the differentiation between what you might call metropolitan and country district justices. I can only talk in a particular way of the court of which I have personal knowledge. The work done in the Dublin metropolitan district is certainly very onerous. It is continuous work. They are sitting virtually all the year around. Had the Minister decided to maintain the differentiation, I would not have been inclined to dispute with him about it because I know from experience the amount of work required to be done in the Dublin metropolitan district. I would have thought that that was in itself a justification for some differential, but by and large I think it is better that there should not be a salary differential between the holders of offices of equal status.

The Minister mentioned that the District Justices Association approved of the abolition of the differentiation. It was worth while for the Minister to make the point that the increases now being recommended have been taken into account in connection with any increase in jurisdiction of the lower courts. I do not intend to branch out into a discussion of the desirability or otherwise of increasing the jurisdiction. But it is simply a fact which the Minister has mentioned and which is worth noting—that if there is to be a distinction in the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts, the increases now proposed are intended to cover that.

I do not know whether this is the appropriate occasion or not but at some stage the Minister might consider the possibility of reviewing the position of some of the members of the Bench who have since retired on pensions which nowadays one must regard as inadequate. Whether it is going to be possible at any stage to do something about increasing those pensions to a satisfactory level is something the Minister might turn his mind to.

Mr. James Tully

The Labour Party are not opposing these increases. We feel that to get the best people to do the job it is necessary to pay them adequately. It does appear to us that with the present system of appointment and with the salaries being paid at present, the best people for the jobs are not available, are not willing to accept them or not being asked to accept them. If the improvement made in the salary scales now does attract a better type—I am not criticising the present incumbents—if it does encourage the top men to accept, then it would be well justified.

There are a couple of matters I would like to comment on. One of them is in regard to the age at which many District Justices are appointed. Deputy O'Higgins referred to the man who is retiring and because his period of office was relatively short, does not get an adequate pension. He gets the worst of both worlds. Perhaps this increase in salary will encourage younger men to take up the job. Somebody said it was a lonely job. It must be. These people are asked to take responsibility and decisions which none of us in this House would be anxious to take. They have to be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. They have to live up to a standard which their present salary does not enable them to do. It is just too bad if we have the situation where a District Justice has before him for some offence or other a trader to whom he owes a substantial sum of money for the simple reason that the justice's salary is not sufficient. They should receive adequate remuneration so that they will be independent and able to give independent decisions.

I had the experience some years ago of having my car broken into outside my office. A suit taken from the cleaners was on the back seat and this was the object of the attack. The person who did it was subsequently arrested by the Guards and taken to court. With a member of the staff of my office, I went to give evidence. Believe it or not, both the girl who was giving evidence and I were made to feel as if we were the people before the Bench and not the gentleman in the dock. In fact, that District Justice said it was I and people like me who were responsible for crime in Dublin. I was a Member of this House and he had the audacity to say that. Quite obviously, the man should never have been on the Bench if that was his general attitude to crime. If this increase in salary ensures that these people do not find their way there and that people who are fully competent and able to do the job properly are sent there, the Government are doing a good job in making this proposition.

All round me there are lawyers— with apologies to Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins—but, speaking as a layman, I want to say that at present so far as civil law is concerned, even most serious cases may take years before reaching the courts. The question of production comes in here. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he either make arrangements whereby the judges will have more sittings or longer hours or that more judges be appointed. It is simply ridiculous that a constituent of mine can say to me: "I am owed £7,500 and I am two years trying to get the people who owe it to me into court. In the meantime I have been declared bankrupt by somebody else for the sum of £250." That situation is ludicrous. I would suggest to the Minister that he attempt to have cases dealt with more expeditiously, particularly civil cases. If that is the experience of other people—and I have met one or two with similar complaints —something must be done about it. I would ask the Minister to look into it and see if there is some way he can remedy it.

I am not happy with the system of appointment. I do not think it should be a grace and favour appointment. I do not know how it should be done but so long as we have a situation in which it can be said that there is no point in going to court because the man who will be trying you is a bitter political opponent, it is not right. I have no evidence that such a situation has affected the judgment in a case but the fact that it could be said that it could affect the judgment is wrong, no matter what Government are in power. That situation should not continue and there should be some other system of appointment rather than by the Government in power.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The introduction of this Bill at present seems to be an admission that the salaries now paid to members of the judiciary at all levels are inadequate and have been inadequate, according to the Minister, for a considerable time. The Minister gives as the reason for the inadequacy the fact that these salaries were coupled to other groups. I accept that salaries have been inadequate for a considerable time.

That brings me to the point I want to make. It follows that certain members of the judiciary, particularly members of the District Court bench and the Circuit Court bench who have retired, have retired on, and are being paid inadequate pensions. In this Bill we are providing a substantial sum to remunerate serving members of the judiciary and I do not complain about that, but we should do the decent thing and be just to those who have served in the judiciary through the years on inadequate salaries and now exist on very inadequate pensions.

I go further than my colleague, Deputy O'Higgins, who asked the Minister to turn his mind to this matter at some future time. It will be done too late then because these men are advanced in years and time is important. We very often tend to do the right thing here by the serving official. I hope it is not because he is a force to be reckoned with, having an organisation behind him which can press his claim. At the same time, we are far too prone to forget those who have given good service and have retired. Therefore, I strongly appeal to the Minister as a matter of urgency, now that he has recognised in this Bill that members of the judiciary have been badly treated in the past and have retired on inadequate pensions and will not benefit from the Bill, to do justice by them and to do it at once.

I take certain pleasure in noting that the Minister has abolished the difference between the metropolitan and provincial District Justices because, as a Member of the Seanad when the last proposal for an increase came before the House, I advocated strongly that the differentiation should be abolished and the then Minister for Justice, who is now Minister for Finance, would not accept my proposals and put up a strong case against them. The record will show that I went out of my way to demonstrate that the provincial justices really had a more onerous task to perform than metropolitan justices because the metropolitan justices usually have the same type of case day in, day out, whereas the provincial justice may be dealing with an involved smuggling prosecution today and a case of company law or some other involved legal point tomorrow. I am glad that has been recognised and that the differentiation has been abolished.

I welcome the announcement that it is proposed to increase the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts. Some years ago the jurisdiction of the District Court was increased from £10 in tort to £50 and from £15 in contract to £50. We all know that meant nothing because of the change in the value of money. I think it would provide for less expensive administration of justice if the jurisdiction of both courts were increased.

I sincerely hope the present Minister for Justice will be able to persuade his Cabinet colleagues, including the Minister for Finance, that retired members of the judiciary have a grievance that cannot be dealt with in years to come but must be dealt with now if justice is to be done.

Mr. Moran

I am grateful to the House for the manner in which they have received this Bill. It is, of course, quite correct for Members to refer to the loss of purchasing power of the salaries enjoyed by these men. I notice that in 1924 the first Chief Justice had £4,000 a year and the President of the High Court had £3,000. High Court Judges had £2,500; Circuit Court judges had £1,700; Principal Justices had £1,200 and others £1,000. If one relates these salaries, having regard to the difference in the purchasing power of money, to present day salaries, it will be seen that the amounts are far less than they were then and there was no corresponding increase over the years. It is true that for many years particularly due to the difficulty of getting legislation for this class of public servant through the House, the judiciary have been trailing behind other sections of the community.

This Bill represents not so much an increase to a particular class but rather a re-assessment of the whole position in accordance with present day standards. It is unnecessary for me to point out to the legal men present the unreality, in this day and age, of a salary of £2,500 for a District Justice who must have ten years experience before he is appointed, when Dublin firms are advertising for young boys still wet behind the ears, newly having received their parchments, and offering them £1,500 to £2,000. Of course, as Deputy Tully rightly points out, it would not be right that these men, due to financial stringency, should be in debt to people appearing before them in their courts. I regard the District Courts as the most important courts in our land, because they are the poor man's courts, the courts that are used in the main by most of our people throughout the country.

As far as the proverbial law's delays are concerned, the proposed increases in jurisdiction, which will be substantial—I do not want to go into them now—in both the District and Circuit Courts will greatly ease any of the law's delays. I do not accept, incidentally, that we still have the position of "Jarandyce and Jarandyce" as far as the law's delays are concerned. It may well be that in many cases it is due to the cases not being ready by the parties themselves or by their legal advisers rather than to the overcrowding of our courts. At all events, one of the matters being considered by the Committee concerned is the expedition of Court work.

For comparison purposes, I should like to put on record two sets of figures. It should not be forgotten that the men in this salary bracket are subject to very substantial tax liabilities. The rough-and-ready figures I have here in respect of the judiciary indicate that the Chief Justice would be paying over £3,000 a year in taxes; the Supreme Court judge, approximately £2,500 in tax; a High Court judge, approximately £2,000; a Circuit Court judge, approximately £1,500; and the President of the District Court or a District Justice, about £1,000 in tax. I mention these figures lest some members of the public might be under the same illusion as they are in regard to Deputies' allowances, that they are free of income tax. These gentlemen are not free of income tax or surtax and are liable to the full rigours of the law as administered by the officials of the Minister for Finance in that regard.

The most realistic comparison that could be made would be with the courts in Northern Ireland. The figure being paid to the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland is £9,375; to the Puisne judges of the High Court, £8,125; to the County Court judges, £4,400—and I might point out that his jurisdiction is far less than that of our Circuit Court judges—and the Resident Magistrate of Belfast is in receipt of £4,225. Therefore, it will be seen that in all these comparable offices in Northern Ireland they enjoy substantially higher salaries than the members of our judiciary.

While Deputy O'Higgins is not too happy about the changes that are being made by way of dealing with this matter in the future by order, I think it is the more sensible way. Part of the reason why all this business has to be re-assessed now is the cumbersome machinery involved in introducing special legislation, and the fact that these people could not be dealt with when status or other increases were being given to other sections of the community. In Britain, for instance, they do it by order, but in a different way. The Government tables a motion in the House approving the order to increase judicial salaries; [Deputy O'Higgins may be in error on this]. What will happen under the new procedure is that the Government will table to give whatever they have decided upon. That draft order will be laid before the House for 21 sitting days, and during the 21 days, any Member of the House may put down a motion to annul it; he may put down a motion to annul is merely for the purpose of discussion and withdraw his motion, or if he is not satisfied with the explanation offered, he can express himself accordingly. After the expiration of that time, the Government can make an order giving effect to the increases. In my view, a more efficient way of dealing with this matter. For obvious reasons, there never will be a suitable time for the introduction of legislation increasing judges' salaries. There is always the excuse in respect of people in that category that the time is not opportune because of various difficulties and so on. However, the fact that they are our most important public servants should not be lost sight of. It is unfair that, for instance, the higher civil servants should be given an increase while the judges should have to wait until what the Government of the day regard as a suitable time.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Would the Minister consider the possibility of doing it by means of a resolution to be passed by the House?

Mr. Moran

This procedure is taken from other legislation. It is, I understand, the usual form, to lay the resolution before the House, to give the House an opportunity, if they object to the proposal, of having it discussed. It leaves it still in the control of Parliament and I think this is the best way of doing it. Again dealing with a point made by Deputy O'Higgins, I do not think it is satisfactory to stick to the old legislative procedure which involves hanging on for a year or two, or possibly more. The House and the public would very strongly object to dealing with a matter retrospectively by giving large lump sums——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister has power to make it retrospective when he is doing it by order.

Mr. Moran

There is power to do it by order, which is necessary in order to keep the matter flexible. I cannot visualise a situation where it would come to be retrospective, because I have explained the delays that everybody knows are inevitably involved in bringing legislation before the House Under the new procedure, there is no reason why there should be a long delay when the Government of the day feel that, increases having been given to other sectors, the judiciary should get an increase.

Mr. James Tully

Is it not correct that a motion to annul must be taken in Private Members' Time? There was some difficulty here when this matter was raised before. If it must be taken in Private Members' Time, with only an hour and a half available in the week, it could run for a considerable period.

Mr. Moran

In a case of this kind, Government time could be made available.

Mr. James Tully

That is good.

Mr. Moran

The question of retired justices and judges has been mentioned by a number of Deputies. I understand that any increases given to the other pension classes have been given to them. I will have a look into the points raised by the Deputy in this connection. I am not very familiar with the details of the men who are retired. I will take the opportunity of looking up what the position actually is.

Deputy Tully has said that a judge's job is a lonely one. I think a judge's job always is. I would agree with the Deputy that it is reprehensible if witnesses who come to give evidence in criminal cases are subjected to any indignity in any court. I can only say I hope his complaint is an isolated one.

Outside the desirability, which Deputy Tully recognises, of the abolition of the differential between metropolitan and other judges, there is another good reason for the abolition of this differential. Formerly because of this differential, if a justice in the metropolitan area wanted to transfer to the country, he could not do so without a loss of salary. This will make the position more flexible. It will lead to more efficiency and make the whole organisation easier to run. Any Dublin District Justice who for one reason or another wishes to move out of Dublin can now do so for the first time without any financial loss.

Deputy Fitzpatrick also agrees that the present salaries are inadequate, and he referred to what he regards as the inadequate pensions for retired judges. I have already said I hope to look into that matter. Again, I am grateful to the House for the sensible and expeditious way in which they accepted the provisions of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.