As a member of this House who is in close contact with the working of the courts, I feel that this Bill contains many admirable parts, with very few parts that are not so admirable. When I read this Bill it struck me that its title should be, not the Courts of Justice Bill, 1947, but "The Department of Justice (Relief from Worry) Bill, 1947". This Bill, apparently, was introduced to relieve the Minister for Justice and the Department of a number of worries which have been afflicting him for a considerable time. He has, no doubt, received representations from the judges and the justices as to the inadequacy of their salaries. He has received, perhaps, complaints about the working of the Circuit Court, and he has received representations from the justices about the unsatisfactory position of their pensions, so that the Bill has been introduced in order to enable the Minister to sleep soundly in his bed without having any nightmares to worry him.
Now, as regards the major portion of this Bill, it must command support and approval as regards the salaries of the judges and justices, having regard to their present-day cost of living and to the status which they are required to maintain. The increase in salary which they will receive under this Bill will be barely adequate to enable them to maintain their position as that position ought to be maintained. Therefore, that portion of the Bill must command unanimous support. Of course, some members of the House may say that that portion of the Bill which increases the salaries of the judges and justices does not go far enough. I quite agree that the district justices should get suitable remuneration for the work they do. I think, no matter what we may say here, that the policy of the Government has either been decided already or will scarcely be affected by our representations. Of course, the Bill seems to be the considered decision of the Government as to the amount of the increase which ought to be granted to the judges and the justices, and I do not think that any representations from us will affect that position.
Now, I would much prefer if this Bill had been limited to the salaries of judges and justices and to the pensions of district justices, and that the other provisions, dealing with the President of the Circuit Court and relating to the Circuit Court had been embodied in a Bill to be called, and rightly called, a Courts of Justice Bill. The introduction into this Bill of the provision dealing with the President of the Circuit Court means that a certain amount of controversy has been raised on an occasion when no controversy should have been raised. In my opinion, while there was considerable urgency for an increase in the salaries of judges and justices, there was no urgency whatever for the introduction into this Bill of a provision dealing with the President of the Circuit Court, because this provision not only provides for the appointment of a President of the Circuit Court but it raises other issues, issues as between the courts of this country—as between the status of the High Court and the status of the courts of local and limited jurisdiction which, I respectfully submit, should have been well considered before being introduced into legislation.
I have been reading lately in the Dáil Reports and in the Press that the Minister for Health is about to form what is known as a consultative council: that is a council of doctors to advise him on questions relating to the Health Bill now before the Dáil. We have seen the beneficial effects of what I may call co-operation between the medical profession and the Minister in hastening into legislation what might otherwise be an unpopular measure, and what was certainly an unpopular measure among certain people when it was introduced last year. We have also seen that the Minister for Agriculture has spoken about a consultative council of agriculturists. I know that, if the Minister for Agriculture introduced a provision relating to agriculture without consulting the agricultural interests, there would immediately be an outcry. Now, the provision in this Bill, dealing with the Circuit Court concerns the members of the legal profession, of persons who make their living in working in the courts and by the courts. I say that anybody who is able to make his living at any profession knows something about it. You may be pitchforked into a job although you have very little qualifications for it, but if you are going to earn your living by the sweat of your brow in open competition against the best brains in the country, then you must know something about your profession before you will succeed and make a good living at it.
I think it would be a very good thing if, before the introduction of the next Courts of Justice Bill, the Minister for Justice were to consult informally the President of the Incorporated Law Society and the Chairman of the Bar Council as to the measure he was about to introduce. Then he would be in a position to know the views of the work-a-day legal profession instead of having to depend upon civil servants, judges and other salaried people who are out of touch with the realities and practices in the profession. Therefore, I say that if the Minister for Justice had consulted the President of the Incorporated Law Society and the Chairman of the Bar Council before he introduced into this Bill the provision relating to the President of the Circuit Court that he probably would not have introduced it at all. That may be, perhaps, a paradox.
I have no great objection to the appointment of a President of the Circuit Court, that is qua President of the Circuit Court, but I have a very strong objection to the making of the President to the Circuit Court anex officio judge of the High Court. There is no necessity whatever for that provision in the Bill. As Senator O'Donovan has said: “Look at Section 10 of the Bill.” An outsider might be amazed, so to speak, at the very drastic powers given to the President of the Circuit Court. That is quite true. As I read that section, I began to wonder whether or not the President of the Circuit Court was not required to be a kind of judicial sergeant-major—that is to order the other circuit judges about. But that is a matter for the circuit judges, and I am sure the Minister ascertained the views of these judges before introducing these provisions. I am sure he has had representations from them, and, if they are satisfied with the powers given to the President of the Circuit Court, no outsiders—not even practising members of the profession —can have any grievance; but when the President of the Circuit Court, whose powers are set out in Section 10, is dealt with in Section 9, he is appointed as something more than President of the Circuit Court. He is appointed what is called an additional judge of the High Court. In other words, the President of the Circuit Court is to be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He is to be “My Lord” in the High Court and “Your Honour” in the Circuit Court. There are no rules of court at present which can deal with his position.
It has been suggested that a precedent for this appointment is the position of the President of the High Court who is ex officio a member of the Supreme Court. That is not a correct analogy at all. The President of the High Court, in status, takes precedence of the ordinary members of the Supreme Court. He comes next to the Chief Justice who occupies the position of the former Lord Chancellor and occupies the position of Lord Chief Justice in the old days, and in all the Judicature Acts, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the head of the King's Bench Division and the Chancery Division, were ex officio members of the Court of Appeal, but that created no difficulty whatever because they were all members of the superior courts of justice. Under the rules of 1905, the Supreme Court consisted of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, just as our High Court and Supreme Court are regarded as one, because the Supreme Court under the Constitution is an appellate court from the decisions of the High Court.
Certain question of law may be submitted to the Supreme Court from the Circuit Court, as provided in the Bill, but the function of the Supreme Court is to hear appeals from the High Court, so that, therefore, the High Court and Supreme Court are in one water tight compartment. The Circuit Court is in another. It is a court of low and limited jurisdiction. It can function only in a certain limited area and deal with cases of only a limited amount and limited value where land is concerned. Therefore, the introduction of this provision will cause a certain amount of difficulty and confusion. So far as I know, the only two reasons given for it are to give the President of the Circuit Court a certain status— it is like making a regimental sergeant-major an honorary first lieutenant— and because there is the precedent of the President of the High Court being ex officio a member of the Supreme Court.
This provision, in my submission, has not the support of any branch of the legal profession. In the other House, the members of the Bar and solicitors' profession asked the Minister not to proceed with this provision, but apparently his mind has been made up and I can only regret it, because, if he had consulted the members of the legal profession who are earning their living at their profession and working in the courts every day, he would have sensed their views on the matter. The Bar Council passed a resolution disapproving of it but that resolution was too late. The Bill had been printed and the Minister had committed himself and it was, therefore, a pure waste of time. The great advantage of prior consultation and conference between the Minister and the two heads of both branches of the legal profession would have removed a difficulty which ought never to have arisen. However, I do not think we can do anything about it, but it is something which should be a warning for the future, that the Minister should not rely solely upon his advisers in the service or his advisers on the Bench. They have what I may call merely a limited horizon and they are a limited number of individuals, but the professions as a whole contain some hundreds of practitioners who are fully aware of the implications of such a provision as this.
I can only say that I regret its introduction, as I feel that, in the actual working out of the provision, there may be a certain amount of confusion. Once the President of the Circuit Court sits in the High Court as a High Court judge, he will be very reluctant to go back and sit in the Circuit Court. We have always condemned what I may call temporary judicial appointments. They are sometimes necessary in the case of justices, and we have had temporary district justices who sit on the bench for a while and then go back to the Bar. That has never been tried in the case of the High Court.
We have had temporary circuit judges, but no temporary High Court judges, and this appointment is in the nature of the appointment of a temporary High Court judge. Instead of going back to the Bar, the man goes back to the Circuit Court and I think it is inopportune to bring forward such a provision as this without some warning to and some prior consultation with the profession. Personally, I have no strong feelings in the matter. I am merely voicing the views of the profession to which I belong, and I can only hope that, in future, when the new Courts of Justice Bill will be introduced, there will be that prior consultation between the Minister and the legal profession.
There are other provisions in the Bill which I welcome and particularly Section 16, which deals with a case stated by the Circuit judge. I do not think the Minister mentioned that, but reading the speech he made in the Dáil, that is the only section which might strictly belong to a Courts of Justice Bill as distinct from a "Department of Justice (Relief from Worry) Bill."
Personally, I welcome that paragraph. Under Section 22 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, a circuit judge was entitled to state a case by consent, but a decision of the Supreme Court practically made it useless. I am glad the Minister has introduced this section now, enabling the circuit judge to refer a question of law to the Supreme Court. Later on, perhaps on the Committee Stage, one might consider the reference of "questions" of law instead of "a question", as there may be more than one question to be referred.
I am a great believer in making the Supreme Court work, in other words, getting important questions of law which arise in the Circuit Court and even in the District Court decided authoritatively by the highest authority. Any legislation which enables a question of law arising in an inferior court to be decided in the High Court is always advantageous to the profession and to the litigants. I am glad this section makes provision for a case stated by a circuit judge to replace the case stated provided for by Section 22 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, which to a certain extent is now obsolete.
I strongly support the increase in salaries which has been granted and if the Minister could induce the Minister for Finance to agree to greater increases I would be very glad. I feel that the status and prestige of our judges and justices require that they should be free from financial worry. Many people who live in the country may be shocked at the high salaries that judges are paid, but that is due to a very superficial view of the whole matter. The farmers who never pay income-tax, who get food and so on practically for nothing, do not appreciate the high cost of living which prevails in Dublin, especially where judges with large salaries are concerned. I would like to know how many farmers receive begging letters and if they keep waste paper baskets for them. I believe that no one would think of sending begging letters to the ordinary farmer, but judges and those in judicial positions are fair game for these appeals on behalf of charity. Therefore, their salaries are barely adequate and I only wish they were greater. I wish the Bill well and trust that it is not too late for the Minister to reconsider the position of the President of the Circuit Court as embodied in the Bill.