asked the Minister for Justice if he will introduce legislation to amend the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1953, and rid the courts of the present juries system which is only a relic of our enslavement.

I am advised that the abolition of trial by jury in civil proceedings would not result in an improvement in the administration of justice and, accordingly, I am not prepared to sponsor legislation for such a purpose.

Neither am I prepared to take any action with regard to juries in criminal proceedings, which are a constitutional requirement.

asked the Minister for Justice if he will introduce legislation to amend the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1953, in order to bring litigation within the reach of the ordinary citizen, who is at present debarred from the courts by the heavy costs of litigation.

While I should be glad to see legal costs reduced, I do not intend to introduce legislation which would have the likely effect of imposing further expenses on the taxpayer.

Has the Minister any function in setting out a scale of costs to obtain in the courts, as no person is aware of such a scale or of the commitments in which they are likely to be involved when they enter into litigation?

I have no jurisdiction over costs.

Surely the Minister does not admit that he has no control over what the cost of litigation will be to the ordinary citizen? If so, the courts are merely set up for vested interests and John Citizen has no right to go to them.

The answer I am giving is that if you consult a barrister or a solicitor, he is entitled to charge you a certain figure. You can either accept or reject the figure he makes. If you do not accept it, then you must look for somebody else. What I am suggesting is that I am not prepared to ask the taxpayer to provide free legal assistance for the general public.

Am I to understand from the Minister that if the ordinary man in the town or in the country has a legal case, he may not get anyone to take it and therefore must let it go by the board? If that is the position, the courts are set up for vested interests only. Is the Minister not interested in justice for the ordinary citizen?

I understand that, in certain circumstances, free legal advice can be obtained.

That is so much bunk. There is no such thing as free legal advice. You have to pay for it. The ordinary citizen has no rights unless he is able to put up the money.

My only advice is: do not go to law.

asked the Minister for Justice if he will introduce legislation to amend the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1953, with a view to having all vacancies in the courts filled by the Local Appointments Commission.

Judicial appointments are made by the President, acting on the advice of the Government and cannot constitutionally be made otherwise.

I would suggest to the Minister, whatever the constitutional position is, that it would be much better to have the Local Appointments Commission fulfilling that function than to have secret societies doing it, because I want to inform the Minister that each judge who is appointed on the advice of a secret society owes allegiance to that society.

The Deputy may not——

Remember also that a litigant in a case who is a member of that secret society will get preference from that judge, and that has happened within the last few years.

No. 62.

One moment, Sir. I am only starting.

The Deputy is not asking a question. He is making a statement.

I want to make a few statements.

The Deputy must take another opportunity to make a statement. He may not do so during Question Time.

He may raise it on the Adjournment.

He must take an opportunity to raise it in some other way.

Seeing that I have not received a satisfactory answer, I propose, with your permission, to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I shall consult with the Deputy in the course of the afternoon.

Perhaps it would help if I informed the Deputy that the appointments are made by the President on the advice of the Government.

asked the Minister for Justice if he will introduce legislation to amend the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1953, so that, instead of being required to take an oath, witnesses and litigants would be put on their honour, thus avoiding the crime of perjury.

I am not prepared to promote legislation for the purpose in question as I do not think that the public interest would be served by dispensing with sworn testimony.

In the case of judges, will the Minister have that oath wiped out and get men of honour to act?

asked the Minister for Justice if he will introduce legislation to amend the Courts of Justice Acts so as to abolish the wearing of wigs by judges.

It is not my intention to introduce such legislation.

Would it not be better to remove that wig from those gentlemen and not have them masquerading as learned men?

asked the Minister for Justice if he will introduce legislation to amend the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1953, so that the rights and privileges of litigants and witnesses would be enhanced vis-á-vis judges and counsel.

I think that we should rely upon the courts to see that the rights and privileges of litigants and witnesses are duly safeguarded. I am not satisfied that they require to be enhanced in any way.

Is the Minister aware that judges and counsel address litigants by their surname? How would the Minister like to go into court and be addressed as "Traynor"? I am sure he would take objection and so would I. It is no harm to remind judges that half a crown was paid for putting a Christian name on everybody in this country.