asked the Minister for Justice the present number of district justices; and whether it is intended to appoint any additional district justices or increase the existing number of justices during the next 12 months.

The total number of district justices in the State at present is 42, comprising the President of the District Court, 39 district justices and two temporary district justices.

The appointment of additional district justices because of increases in the jurisdiction of the District Court will be decided on as the need arises.

Could the Minister reconcile that reply with the commitment given by his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, that additional district justices would be appointed to enable the District Court to deal with Rent Act applications and the new rent restriction legislation? That assurance was given in the House as part of an explanation why there was no necessity for rents tribunals during the course of the passing of the rent restriction legislation. Could the Minister indicate if additional district justices will be appointed by 31 July by which time the rent legislation should come into operation?

As the need for district justices arises in whatever context they will be appointed, as indeed is the case in relation to all other staffing arrangements for District Courts.

Would the Minister not agree that when district justices and High Court judges are appointed he should consider appointing people who are of a more typical background to the general population and would therefore administer justice more in keeping with the needs of the people rather than some of the nonsense we get at present. I have in mind judgments handed down——

The Deputy cannot make any comments on judges.

Why not?

Would the Minister agree that by reason of the fact that the jurisdiction of the district court has been increased tenfold from what it was, there would be a substantial increase immediately in the volume of business transacted in the district court? Would he agree that the necessity, as he said, of waiting to see whether the need will arise makes no sense? It will be a substantial need, and the time to make the appointments and gear the district court to handle that massive volume of business is now?

I assure the House that the situation will not be allowed to occur where, because of a lack of district justices, the system would break down.

Can the Minister confirm that what he is saying is that there is no planning for the appointment of district justices and that if the courts grind to a halt or if there is a massive increase in the number of cases pending he will then consider appointing additional district justices? Is he telling the House that the commitment given by the Minister for the Environment that there would be an additional justice appointed to deal with the Rents Act applications was not a proper commitment?

The commitment made will be honoured. I assure the Deputy that there is planning in everything my Government do.

The District Court clerks strike was well planned.

I know the Minister will agree——

A question, please, Deputy.

Would the Minister agree that with regard to the appointment of public servants, be they district justices or otherwise, some regard must be had to the continuous demands of the Opposition for controlling and containing public expenditure?

The remaining Questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.