Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1968

Vol. 64 No. 11

Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1967—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill may be stated very briefly. It is to provide that a judge of the Supreme Court, Judge W. O'B. Fitzgerald, who was appointed to the Bench in October, 1966, will qualify for full pension, that is, one-half of salary, when he reaches the retiring age in 1978, notwithstanding that he will have only eleven years service on retiring age, as against the standard fifteen years' service required for full pension.

I wish to emphasise that the new provision applies only to the Supreme Court and only to one judge of that Court. The question of extending the new provision to the other serving judges of the Supreme Court does not arise, because their ages and lengths of service on the Bench are such that it would confer no benefit on them.

In view of the very special importance of the Supreme Court in our judicial system, it will, I feel sure, be widely accepted that the Government, in considering appointments to that Court, should have open to it the widest possible field of selection. It follows that a minor obstacle in the way of a particular appointment should be capable of being removed, so as to put outstanding Senior Counsel, as in this instance with no previous service on the Bench, in a position to accept an offer of appointment made to him by the Government. In the present instance, acceptance of appointment as Supreme Court judge involved the person concerned in a very substantial reduction in income, and the Government did not hesitate to accept the view that steps should be taken to enable him to qualify for full pension on reaching retiring age after eleven years' service instead of the usual fifteen years.

This proposed measure arises from the Government's consideration of an individual case in the Supreme Court. As I have mentioned already, the other Supreme Court judges are not involved.

The House will have little difficulty in accepting this Bill because of the reasons advanced by the Minister. It is right and proper that persons of maturity as well as of great skill and experience should be available, especially in the Supreme Court. As the Government found themselves in the position of wanting to appoint somebody who would not qualify for full pension, they acted very prudently in offering the appointment upon the basis that legislation like this would be enacted. In the last resort, from the point of view of the individual citizen and taxpayer, what is important in a country such as ours is that the High Court and the Supreme Court Bench should be peopled by judges of the highest possible calibre. It is a small price to pay for getting people of that calibre to provide that, when their normal way of life is interrupted with a tempting invitation to accept a nomination to the High Court or the Supreme Court, they should be in a position to do so without undue loss of income.

The position for many lawyers is that even after the age of 72, which is the retiring age for judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court, they can continue in their own way to earn quite a good livelihood. Once a man goes on the Bench and reaches the age of 72 he does not earn and he cannot go back to practice. I suppose that he could, there is no law against it, but the convention is the other way. Therefore, it means that in cases such as here the earning life of a judge is shortened, and I think it is right and proper that due account should be taken of that. I am glad to be in a position to support the Bill most wholeheartedly.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill considered in Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I have heard the Minister for Justice from time to time asking the House to accept certain amendments on the basis that his amendment and his drafting was clean drafting and perfectly clearcut. I do not think the Minister would for a moment suggest that subsection (2) is clean drafting, with this rigmarole "The Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1962, the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1964, the Courts Act, 1964, and this Act shall be construed together as one Act and may be cited together as the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Acts, 1961 to 1967".

Very clean, excellent.

I think this is the greatest form of gibberish, and the sooner we get away from this business of brackets and simply saying the Courts Acts, 1961 to 1967 and leaving it at that the better. There is no necessity, and never was, to refer to it as the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act.

Now we have bulked them all in one.

It reminds me of the wasp's nest that was found in the attic of my house this morning. It was a pile upon pile of wax.

All the verbiage is finished now.

I would not wish the Minister to believe what he says he does believe. I would hope that he does not.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
Barr
Roinn