asked the Minister for Justice if he will state (a) the total increase proposed for each category of judge under the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 (Section 46) Order, 1973 a draft of which has been laid before Dáil Éireann and (b) their total salaries on 1st July 1973 if the said Order is not disallowed by Dáil Éireann.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Judges Salaries.
35.
, Cavan) (for the Minister for Justice): The answer is in the form of a statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
|
(a) Proposed Increase |
(b) Proposed Salary from 1/7/93 |
|
|
Chief Justice |
£1,015 |
£10,375 |
|
Justice of the Supreme Court |
925 |
9,115 |
|
President of the High Court |
925 |
9,115 |
|
Judge of the High Court |
830 |
7,850 |
|
President of the Circuit Court |
830 |
7,850 |
|
Judge of the Circuit Court |
730 |
6,580 |
|
President of the District Court |
685 |
5,950 |
|
District Justice |
615 |
5,005 |
Can the Minister say if the increases given under this proposed order are in compliance with the recommendations of the Employer/ Labour Conference?
Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick
(Cavan): I believe so.
Are these proposed increases in addition to the increases that were given in 1971 to this particular category?
(Cavan): The increases being given now arise out of the Devlin Report which was referred by the Government of which the Deputy was a member to the Employer/Labour Conference.
There were increases also in 1970-71.
(Cavan): The present increases are the result of the Employer/Labour Conference's recommendations.
In view of the fact that the increases for the judiciary comply with the recommendations of the Employer/Labour Conference can the Minister say whether we are to take it that it is the Government's view that members of the judiciary are not better fed or better shod than recipients of social welfare payments?
(Cavan): That would appear to be a separate question.
It is a slippery one.
(Cavan): It seems to arise out of a bee which the Deputy has in his bonnet in regard to allowances payable to Members of the Oireachtas, a problem which the Deputy, as Minister for Finance, had every opportunity of dealing with before handing over office.
The Chair would prefer if argument did not enter into this matter.
Is the Minister aware that his colleague, the Minister for Finance, made a similar statement to his, that this statement was corrected and that the Minister acknowledged the validity of the correction and then repeated that falsehood in reply to the debate on the budget?
(Cavan): I am fully aware that the Deputy, as Minister for Finance, had the Devlin Report before him for a very considerable length of time, that he did nothing about it but passed it to somebody else, got the report back, did nothing about it but that since going into Opposition, he wishes to become the whiteheaded boy with his own backbenchers.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, has the Chair allowed this question to be circulated?
The question was the subject of a tabular statement which will be circulated with the Official Report. It is rather unusual to have supplementaries arising in those circumstances.
But it is not without precedent. I can appreciate Deputy Coogan's concern. Can we take it from the Minister's last reply that it is the view of the Coalition Government that the Devlin recommendations should have been implemented irrespective of the terms of the national agreement? If that is not his view, what is the meaning of what he has just said?
This must be the end of this matter: the Minister to make a final comment.
(Cavan): The Deputy may take it that when this matter was passed over by him to the present Government it was dealt with by the present Government.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister answer the question?
He should answer the question he was asked.
The Chair is calling Question No. 36.
Deputy Colley got a nice £10,000 job.
(Interruptions.)