The next item on the Orders of the Day is consideration of draft rules of the Supreme Court and the High Court.
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (PROTECTION) BILL, 1925. - RULES OF COURT.
Before we enter upon this question, I should like the Minister to consider the wisdom or otherwise of proceeding at the present time by this method. I think I am right in saying that the Minister suggested on Friday last that we would take these draft rules into consideration on Thursday and Friday of this week and that at a later stage—perhaps the week following—we might take a formal motion. Having received the rules and attempted to read them, one is struck by the great importance of the procedure. In respect of some of the rules—particularly the District Court rules—we are, in fact, legislating on matters which, I think, have not even been the subject of rules hitherto. I think the shortness of notice and the importance of giving proper consideration to the rules would make it desirable that we should postpone consideration of the question until after the recess. If that is not possible, then we should be given a longer time than has been suggested up to the present for consideration of them. It has not been possible to get the considered opinion of those who are familiar with the practice of the courts, because the draft rules were not in circulation amongst the public. Postage is not a very rapid means of communication, and sufficient time for consideration of these rules in the country has not been allowed.
I have looked up the debate that took place when the Courts of Justice Act was being passed and I find that a certain section was inserted by the Dáil in that Bill regarding the laying upon the Table of rules to be made by the Rule-making Authority. That section stated: "All Rules of Court made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within fourteen days after they are made if the Houses of the Oireachtas be then sitting or, if not, within fourteen days after the commencement of the next session of said Houses, and if a resolution be passed by either House within one month after the rules have been made" certain effects were to follow. There was contemplated in that section, as sent up from the Dáil, a month within which to consider the annulment or rejection of those rules. That section was amended in the Seanad and the Dáil agreed with the Seanad amendment. The section in the Act, therefore, reads: "No Rules of Court made under the Act shall come into operation unless and until they have been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and have been approved by resolution of each House."
Now, there is formal approval required by the Act as it stands, but obviously, in the minds of the Dáil, at any rate, there was contemplated a time for the consideration of those rules. I submit that it is not reasonable to ask us to deal with so very important a matter on such short notice. In the discussion which took place in the Seanad, the Attorney-General, dealing with these rules, explained that "of course the Rules of Court are in the nature of legislation. The rules will be made by the Rule-making Authority and will be laid on the Table of the Seanad as well as on the Table of the Dáil. Each House will have complete authority over them; they become in the nature of what one may call administrative legislation." That was repeated several times, and, of course, it is legislation.
We ought not to be asked to legislate in this fashion without receiving ample notice, because it is not a trivial matter. It is a matter that raises the very gravest issues for the respective prisoner, plaintiff or defendant. In some respects it seems to me these rules are going far beyond what Deputies contemplate as a rule of Court. "Pleading, practice and procedure of the Courts"; that was the phrase used, and the general understanding was that they ought to deal with the machinery of the courts. I find it deals with the imposition, the fixing, of penalties in certain respects, and I submit that such a matter will require a good deal of examination and possible alteration.
resumed the Chair.
The Attorney-General, at that time he was Deputy Kennedy, explained, in regard to the amendment sent down by the Seanad to the Dáil, that "under the new section it would be the duty of the Minister to come in and propound the rules to each House, explain them, and get a positive agreement with them. The Government recommend that that proposal be accepted." And it was accepted, but I submit it was on the understanding that there would be ample opportunity to examine the rules and discuss them and obtain information upon them from the Minister. It is not possible to give proper consideration to or discuss these rules at this stage. I am certain it will not be possible to do it, with informed knowledge, even within a week's time.
The courts have proceeded so far without any new rules. It has been said here that they have been able to carry on acceptably, and I think, as much the lesser of two evils, if they are evils, that the courts should carry on still longer without new rules, rather than that the Dáil should be asked to confirm rules of this kind, that is, legislation, without having a proper examination of the rules, and giving an opportunity for informed opinion to be brought to bear upon them. I plead with the Minister that there is no necessity for passing these rules before the recess. We ought to have ample time, and the public in the country ought to have ample time and opportunity to examine the rules after publication before the House is asked to confirm them.
I desire to add my voice to Deputy Johnson's in asking that this matter be deferred. Before these rules were in my hands, I was of opinion that the matter of the rules being made available for the courts at the earliest possible moment was one of very great urgency. It may still be so, but I endorse what Deputy Johnson has said, that to pass these rules without a thorough examination would be a mistake. It is very hard for the ordinary layman to understand the trend of those rules in the time at our disposal. I think this House, before it passes what Deputy Johnson calls legislation —I believe the House has not the power to change the rules without the concurrence of the Minister or the Committee—should have some opportunity for considering these rules.
To agree to the rules without a knowledge of what we are agreeing to would be wrong. I was anxious to get enlightenment on this subject. A special meeting of a committee appointed by the Chamber of Commerce was held to-day. I was not able to be present, but I understand that when considering these rules they suggested several alterations, and that without a thorough examination of the rules. That being so, I certainly would like to emphasise that this House should not be asked to pass the rules right off. If necessary, the rules could be held over until we re-assemble after the Recess. Our constituents may have something to say in regard to the rules, and it is essential that ample time should be given for any alteration that may be considered necessary. I may say it is the unanimous wish of business men, so far as I know, that the rules should be held up until everybody has had ample time reasonably to examine them.
I also desire to support the Deputies who have spoken in this connection. It is the duty of Deputies to have some idea of these rules and their suitability before they give approval to them. While I recognise that a proper understanding of the rules is a matter largely for legal minds, still there are possibilities that rules considered by certain interests to be unsuitable will be brought to the attention of Deputies if opportunity for consideration is given. In view of the impending adjournment of the Dáil the only reasonable course for the Minister to pursue is to adjourn consideration of these rules until we re-assemble after the recess.
It was quite impossible for Deputies, since the draft rules were issued, to give them the consideration they require. I have not even read some of the rules. I doubt if other Deputies have made any kind of a reasonable study of the rules. While I do not hope to be able to grasp the full significance of the rules placed before us, still I feel it my duty to make the best shot I can at understanding them. The constituents of some Deputies may take objection to certain rules and it is desirable they should have ample time to advise those Deputies so that the objections can be brought to the notice of the Minister. I strongly urge the advisability of postponing consideration of the rules until we re-assemble in November.
There can be no question of the Dáil adjourning before considering the resolution for the approval of these rules. I am not prepared to take responsibility for the degree of inconvenience and dislocation that would result to the legal profession and the general community by a failure to provide rules of court for the Michaelmas Term, and to that end it is necessary that the Dáil and Seanad would consider these rules before adjourning for the summer, so that the necessary forms may be printed and the procedure settled in time to have these rules in operation for the Michaelmas Term.
If there is complaint of insufficient time, then consideration of the rules may be left over until the Dáil re-assembles to consider Bills back from the Seanad; but the rules and the resolution approving the rules must be considered by the Dáil and by the Seanad before the summer adjournment. We must know whether or not they are going to be approved. They are rules emanating from three committees composed of people who certainly have a knowledge of the courts and court procedure. The Dáil, in the Courts of Justice Act, provided that the rules could be made only with the concurrence of such committees. The rules, therefore, must constitute an enforced compromise, and the rules must be passed or rejected as a whole by the Dáil when made by me.
It is something of an advantage that the Dáil has now an opportunity of considering them in draft and not actually made. After Friday, 9th July, the date on which the Court Officers Bill becomes law, the position would be that rules formally made and signed by me would be before the Dáil, and the Dáil would have to accept or reject these rules as a whole. There is a different position just now. A set of rules has been given to me by each of the three committees, the Committee of the High Court and Supreme Court, the Committee of the Circuit Court and the Committee of the District Court. These proposed rules are before the Dáil. If there is exception taken to particular features, there would be time for consultation with all or any of the committees before the rules are actually made by me under the particular section of the Courts of Justice Act, so that there is at any rate that large counter-balance to the inconvenience and the charges of insufficient time for deliberation, that one could discuss and consider the rules now, still leaving time for reference back to the committees by me and a certain amount of consultation on matters on which strong views were held here. But my mind is clear: the Dáil is not entitled to subject the public and the practising profession to the inconvenience that would result from the absence of Rules of Court for the Michaelmas sessions, and if the Dáil will not consider these draft rules this week then they must be asked to consider formally made rules later before the summer adjournment and to accept or reject those as a whole.
I assume from the statement of the Minister that time is still left for suggestions and that the rules are only proposed rules. I just want to refer to the rules.
Before we can discuss the rules we have to decide first whether we are going to take the draft rules into consideration now. When that is decided, if it is decided, then we can consider them. The Minister's suggestion is to take them now.
There is one point I wish to make. I propose to make rules on Friday when the Court Officers Bill becomes law and has been signed by the Governor-General. Thereafter, the position would be that the Dáil and Seanad would have to accept or reject those rules as a whole. Just now there is a different position. The draft rules that have come to me from the Committees are here for discussion and there would be the opportunity for further contact between myself and the Committees on particular points that emerged in the course of the discussions. But, after the rules have been made by the Minister on whom the onus falls, then the only course for either House would be to accept those rules en bloc or reject them.
On point of order. The Act says that "No rules of court made under this Act shall come into operation unless and until they have been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and have been approved by resolution of each such House." The Minister says that these draft rules must be taken en bloc.
A resolution must be passed or not passed.
That is a different point.
What is Deputy Johnson's point?
That though a resolution may be passed, each rule will have to receive separate consideration and separate approval.
No.
The section of the Act says: "No rules of court made under this Act shall come into operation unless and until they have been laid before each House of the Oireachtas." I take it that under that, each rule must have separate approval.
No.
That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle to rule upon. In any case, I assume that it will be possible to make recommendations in respect to each separate rule and that each separate rule will be subject to examination. The Minister told us on Friday last that these would only be brought before the Dáil on Thursday or Friday of this week. This is Tuesday, and I think it is unreasonable to ask us even to consider them in draft in view of the difference in time that has been allowed to us.
Would it suit the Deputy if I moved the adjournment until to-morrow?
I am not going to pretend to take part in any discussion, certainly not before Thursday, because I am not prepared. I have only seen a certain number of these rules, and it seems to me that they are extraordinary propositions to put into a series of rules of a rule-making authority dealing with the procedure of the courts, imposing penalties on prisoners and so on. I think that the whole body of rules will have to be examined critically, because I fear, in view of what one sees in an odd rule, that these rules of court are going to bind us as a legislature to enactments which we would not, if we were giving critical examination to them, approve of.
With regard to Deputy Johnson's point, that each rule must receive separate consideration, each rule can, of course, receive separate consideration, but his real point is that there must be a separate resolution for each rule. I never assumed that that was the case. The point was never put to me. Reading the section in connection with this matter, it never occurred to me that anything was necessary except that the rules should be made and circulated: that a resolution of the House should be passed approving of the rules, and that unless a resolution was passed by the House approving of the rules in general, that the rules could not become operative. I would like to know from the Minister in this connection, assuming that the rules are approved of, what is the procedure for amending them subsequently.
The procedure would be that I would bring before the Dáil proposed amendments or possibly an entirely new set of rules and ask the approval of the Dáil for them. In connection with these rules I would like to say that they must have the word "provisional" writ large over them. They are experimental—very much subject to alteration as well as observation of their working in practice. It will be beyond question necessary to bring before the Dáil and the Seanad for their consideration proposed amendments. These rules are put forward, therefore, very much in a tentative, experimental and provisional way. They are, in no sense, the final Rules of Court, and in no sense do they represent the considered opinion either of the committees or of my own Department as to what the final rules of court ought to be. We are entering on a new system, and people qualified to advise and with a considerable knowledge of legal practice acting on the committees, have put forward these rules for approval. If approved, their operation will have to be watched, and any amendments that are considered desirable will be brought forward as a result of such observations.
The Minister can initiate these amendments. Is that not so?
Yes.
Subject to the Rules Committee?
With the concurrence of the committees. The position on the question of leaving the court without rules for the Michaelmas Session is quite clear, and I do not feel that I am entitled to do that. Neither do I feel that the Dáil or the Seanad is entitled to do it, and if the draft rules will not now be considered, then formally made rules with a resolution of approval, which must be simply passed or rejected, will have to be considered before the Dáil adjourns.
On the question of procedure, I think it will be seen by reference to the Act that it is possible to introduce any new rules at any time or the alteration of a rule, and that those alterations, or any new rules, must receive concurrence. Therefore, I submit that the meaning of the section is that every rule must receive formal approval, and that they do not all stand, one consequential on another. They do not all deal with the machinery of the courts. I will submit and argue to the best of my ability in regard to some of those rules, that they should be the subject of a specific Act which had gone through the regular processes in the Dáil: that they are outside the authority of a resolution of this House and of the powers of the Ministry and of the Rules Committee. I am not speaking now about the High Court rules, because I have not had an opportunity of examining them, but in respect to the District Court rules I have taken a little care in looking through some of them. I believe that the Ministry is asking entirely too much from us when it asks us to pass these rules without the fullest possible consideration.
If it were desired to open a discussion on the rules to-day, I confess that I am more or less at sea with regard to them. With regard to the rules for the High Court or the Supreme Court, as far as I am concerned, while amendments may be suggested, there will not be any radical changes moved in regard to them. Obviously there will be some things which it may be desirable to bring before the Dáil—that is, criticism from the commercial point of view. I would ask for time to have the rules examined in the light of their application to the commercial interests. I do not know whether it would meet with Deputy Johnson's wishes if the Minister were, say, to fix to-day a little ahead so that we might then be in a position to deal with the rules. The Minister, of course, has told us that if the rules are not considered before Friday the Court Officers Bill will have become an Act on that day on being signed by the Governor-General, and then, of course, the time for criticism of those rules will have passed. We will then be simply told either to accept or reject them.
I do not think there is any validity in Deputy Johnson's point that each rule must be considered separately and be the subject of a separate resolution. It seems plain that the Minister, when making rules, must have the concurrence of certain committees. When he has that concurrence he is to make rules, and having made them he is to get the approval of the Dáil under Section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, which says:—
"No Rules of Court made under this Act shall come into operation unless and until they have been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and have been approved by resolution of each such House."
I think that means that a resolution approving of them has to be passed. As to the Deputy's point with regard to amendments of the rules, I take it the Minister can alter the rules by the same process by which he is proposing to make rules now: that is to say, since the Minister is here and is responsible to the House it would be possible, by some procedure, to represent to the Minister in the House that certain things ought to be done. The Minister could then initiate alterations if he thought fit. In other words, any rules that are approved of would be subject to alteration, and such alteration may be initiated by the Minister at the request of the House or as the result of a debate in the House. I do not accept the view that each rule must be considered separately and that there must be a separate resolution for it, nor is it right to say that the House makes the rules. The rules are made by the Rule-making Authorities and approved of by the House.
This is the only opportunity for the Dáil to initiate criticism. Once the rules are passed, the Minister may bring alterations before us, but we can do nothing in the way of bringing forward amendments unless through the Minister.
Quite. The procedure proposed by the Minister is that we should now debate the draft rules; that if any points are made which the Minister considers valid, he shall endeavour to have alterations made by Friday, and that on the day when we meet to consider business from the Seanad we shall take the motion for the approval either of these draft rules or of the draft rules with such amendments as may then have been made with the concurrence of the proper authority. Does the Dáil agree to that?
I put it to the Minister that he should allow us time to examine the rules and compare them with existing rules—existing fees, existing punishments—before signing the rules. He proposed last week that we should have until Thursday for the consideration of the draft and then have another week for the consideration of the rules as signed. We have not had time to examine the rules and make comparisons with the existing practice. Just to give the Deputies an idea. There is on page 18 of the District Court Rules a reference to imprisonment in lieu of fines. The existing practice is to fix a maximum imprisonment of three months. The proposed rules suggest giving power to the District Justice in the case of a fine of £30 and upwards and to impose imprisonment for six months. That is to be done by a rule of court—by the Rule-making Authority. I should have thought that that was essentially a matter for the legislature. We are dealing now not with the practice of the court, but with the liberty of the citizen—an entirely different matter. I question very much whether such a thing as that ought to be done by a rule of court. Then, I find somewhere else power given to the District Justice to pay away certain proportions of fines to the prosecutor or the informer, as the phrase goes. I do not know whether that is the kind of thing that ought to be fixed by a rule of court. Looking through those District Court Rules, they seem to me to extend far beyond what the Dáil had in mind when we spoke about rules of court, dealing with procedure and business arrangements of the administration of justice. When we are dealing with penalties to be imposed for certain offences, that surely is a matter for the legislative authority, not the Rule-making Authority and not the Minister. Consequently, we ought to have some time to consider the rules.
I wonder if the Deputy read Section 36 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924:—
The Minister for Home Affairs may at any time and from time to time after the passing and before or after the commencement of this Act, but with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance in respect of any matter affecting public revenue or expenditure make rules to be styled "Rules of Court" for carrying Part I. of this Act (including the hearing of appeals from the Circuit Court and cases stated by the District Court), and may annul or alter the said rules and make new rules. In particular rules may be made for all or any of the following matters:—
Then there are set out nine headings:—
(i) pleading, practice and procedure generally (including the entering-up of judgement and the granting of summary judgement in appropriate cases) in all civil cases, including revenue cases and proceedings as to the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of the Constitution and proceedings in the nature of a petition of right;
(ii) pleading, practice and procedure generally in all criminal cases before the Central Criminal Court or any court of the High Court Circuit or the Court of Criminal Appeal;
and so on down along. Finally there is (ix):—
The adaptation or modification of any statute that may be requisite for any of the purposes of this Act and all subsidiary matters.
"That may be requisite for any of the purposes of this Act"—that is the administration of the court.
"The adaptation or modification of any statute."
"That may be requisite for any of the purposes of this Act."
Yes. The Deputy speaks about a particular rule amongst the District Court Rules. He says the existing rule provides three months and the new rule provides six months, and goes on to make the case that this is not a matter that should be fixed by a rule at all. He says that, while admitting that an existing rule makes the particular provision and enables the justice to order imprisonment for three months——
I do not know whether that is the result of a rule—that is what we want to examine.
The Deputy spoke of an existing rule. I am really very much open to suggestion. I can see an advantage in being able to discuss rules in draft before they are made. That is not my advantage; it is the Dáil's.
Will the Minister leave them in draft for another week?
No. There is a tinge of irregularity even in discussing draft rules. The Act contemplated that rules would be made, and when made brought before the Dáil and Seanad. The reasons for discussing draft rules are (1) the fact that the rules could not be made until 7 days had elapsed that would enable the Courts of Justice Act to be signed, and (2) the desire, which, I think, is general, for an early adjournment. There was a suggestion made then that the rules as received from the Committees could be discussed by the Dáil, formally made when the Courts of Justice Act was signed, and that the resolution of approval might be taken on the day that the Dáil will re-assemble to consider Bills back from the Seanad. It is for Deputies to weigh one thing against another; to weigh the advantage of having draft rules before them against the disadvantage of the limited time they have had to consider them. If they object to considering draft rules in that limited time, then the alternative seems to me to be to consider made rules later. The rules can be made on Friday, and, I think, will be made on Friday, and the Dáil can re-assemble next week or the week after and consider these rules. But their position then will be, that they have simply to pass or reject the resolution that will be on the paper asking for their approval. That is not quite the position now. I do not want to force a particular course on the Dáil, and the only course that I do feel like forcing on the Dáil is that these rules must not be left over for approval until next November, with three or four months following that for the printing of forms and the preparation of minutiae of one kind or another before they can be put into effective operation in the courts. I want the rules passed before the Oireachtas adjourns for the summer, so that the long vacation may be availed of to make the necessary preparation for their effective functioning in the Michaelmas sittings. I think that it would be unreasonable and unfair to the public and to the profession if the Oireachtas were to insist on adjourning over the summer before considering the rules.
The profession and the courts are of the highest importance, and it is no doubt creditable to the Minister that he wants to give every consideration to them, but I protest against placing the legislature in second place in that respect. I say that this House is entitled to consideration from the Minister at least equal to that given to the legal profession. I say that we are not getting equal consideration when we have those rules put up to us in this manner and are asked to consider them at a time when it is impossible to discuss them fully.
It is not a question of the legal profession, and the Deputy knows it; it is a question of the needs of the public—the needs of the general community. The real point I am making is that however deserving the Dáil and the Seanad are of an adjournment, they are not entitled to adjourn if a genuine public need is there to be catered for and if their powers of approval of Rules of Court for the public convenience remain to be operative. There is one way of doing the thing: to discuss and consider these draft rules. The other way is to wait until the rules are made and more mature consideration given to them, and consider them then. But it has got to be one thing or the other.
Will it be necessary for us to meet again after to-morrow?
The only other business besides those rules is the consideration of amendments from the Seanad. A day cannot be fixed for the meeting for that purpose, as the date on which the Seanad will consider certain Bills cannot be stated with certainty. Therefore, it will be necessary to adjourn until some day next week, or perhaps the week after, to consider business from the Seanad. I think it will be necessary to give some liberty for the fixing of that particular date, but this is the only other business. I think the normal way of doing this business would be to make the rules and submit them for approval.
We would like another day if we were meeting.
We could consider the matter to-morrow.
The suggestion I make by way of a compromise is that the Minister might move the adjournment until to-morrow, and there might then be some time for consideration of the draft rules and for putting forward amendments. I did not quite understand from the Minister whether it would be possible to consider the draft rules and then reserve our final consideration until the rules come up for formal approval when the Dáil re-assembles to consider business from the Seanad.
That is the proposal—no other proposal is possible. There is no use in the Dáil approving of draft rules. A resolution must be passed when the rules have been legally made. Will that suggestion be accepted—to consider the matter to-morrow or to-night?
I said some time ago that I was prepared to move the adjournment until to-morrow, but if we are adjourning until to-morrow, we must be quite clear as to the business to be taken. I would like, before moving the adjournment till to-morrow, if that is the desire, to have an assurance that business would be taken. In other words, that we are going to discuss and consider these draft rules.
I shall protest against even taking the consideration of the draft rules prior to the day it was originally agreed upon, that is Thursday.
The Minister has stressed that he is doing this in the interests of the public and for the convenience of the public. I would just like to put it to the Minister that it is equally in the interests of the public that those rules should not be discussed by the representatives of the public until such time as these representatives have had an opportunity of reading them. If the members of this House were to agree to discuss these rules without having had an opportunity of reading them, they would not be acting in the interests of the public.
Surely I am in the hands of the Dáil in this matter. My only insistence is that the rules cannot be left over until the November session, but as between taking up the consideration of these draft rules to-morrow and moving the adjournment now until such time as it is necessary to call the Dáil together to consider matters back from the Seanad, I do not really mind, because we can then take up the consideration, not of draft rules but of made rules. When the Dáil reassembles to consider matters back from the Seanad, there can be three resolutions down asking approval of the three sets of rules—the High Court and Supreme Court, the District Court and the Circuit Court rules. I think that date is sufficiently far ahead not to leave it in the mouth of any Deputy that he was taken short in the matter, or that he could not give a considered verdict on the rules. I could make the rules on Friday. Then when the Dáil would come back to consider matters back from the Seanad, it could consider the rules. In view of Deputy Johnson's refusal to take up the consideration of draft rules to-morrow, I think, perhaps, that is the best thing to do, to simply leave the whole matter over until the Dáil reassembles to consider Bills that come back from the Seanad with whatever amendments are made there. Then the Dáil would face the task of considering rules of court formally made.
Might I ask the Minister if it would be possible for him to delay the signing of the rules until next week, and to allow us to consider the rules in draft, say, a day before we assemble to receive the Bills back from the Seanad, and let us have the resolutions approving of the rules on the day on which we reassemble? That will give us some time to read the rules. As it is, none of us has had an opportunity of reading them. If the Minister could delay the signing of the rules for a few days it would possibly meet the objection.
The Deputy does not realise that normally the proper position under the Courts of Justice Act is that what would be before the Dáil would be the rules made by me with the concurrence of three committees. The only reason why there is any question of draft rules being before the Dáil is because of the interval before the Court Officers Bill can be signed, and these rules cannot be made until after the Bill is signed, because that deals with officers and offices that will not have statutory existence until the Court Officers Bill is law. What I have in mind is, I think, clear enough, that the Dáil this week would consider draft rules, that the formal resolution approving of made rules would be taken on the day the Dáil re-assembles to deal with amendments from the Seanad. There is objection taken to the draft rules now because they have not been in the Deputy's hands sufficiently long. There is objection even to the taking of them to-morrow. In face of that objection the best proposal that I can make is that we simply now adjourn until whatever date it is necessary to re-assemble for Seanad amendments, and on that date take up the consideration of the rules and the question of passing or not passing the resolution approving them.
Could the Minister say when he actually makes those rules and we adjourn for a week, will the Dáil be capable of putting forward any amendment to those rules then? Or if the Dáil refuses to take these rules as made by the Minister, what will then happen?
There will be no rules.
Mr. DOYLE
The same thing would then apply as if you did not go into the consideration of these rules at all.
The Minister has now offered us an opportunity of meeting to-morrow or of leaving the whole thing over until next week, and then the rules will be made. If I were sure that I would have sufficient matter to discuss the rules by to-morrow, I certainly would put forward a request that the Dáil should meet to-morrow, but I cannot hope to be in any much better position to-morrow than I am in now. Therefore, I see no other course but to agree to the Minister's proposal to bring in the rules as made when the Dáil re-assembles.
The Minister has stated that the normal procedure would be that the rules would be signed by him and submitted to the Dáil for approval. The normal procedure would be to give the Dáil an opportunity for a proper examination of the rules and inasmuch as these are new courts, new institutions, to examine them with great care and compare them with past procedure. When this matter was discussed last week the Minister suggested Thursday and Friday of this week for discussing the draft rules. I made the objection that there was not an opportunity given for communicating with people in different parts of the country who were actually interested and technically competent to deal with such matters. The Minister then said that there would be another week possibly before the Dáil was asked to finally approve them. With that understanding, I said that that gives us an opportunity to discuss and make our points in connection with the rules, and I was prepared to agree. But there has been no opportunity to discuss this matter and to get informed opinion from the country so that these things can be discussed to-morrow. I doubt very much whether even Thursday will allow a sufficient opportunity. I have had two or three communications from legal men in different parts of the country, and, notwithstanding the Minister's belief that it is to convenience and assist in the work of the Courts, in each of these cases these legal men say they can carry on quite well for a longer period, so as to give plenty of time and so that these men in the country would have the rules before them and the Dáil could be advised as to what line they could take in the matter. I think the Minister is taking a line which is not justified, and I, at any rate, will protest and do my best to persuade the Dáil that certain of the rules ought to be altered or refused or the whole of the rules turned down unless the alterations are made on the occasion of the final discussion. I am not going to take any responsibility for discussing the rules in draft until I have had some opportunity of getting the opinions of people who are competent to deal with such matters.
What does the Deputy want? Because really my anxiety is to meet him on everything except one thing, and that is the leaving over of the rules until November. If he wants an adjournment until to-morrow he can have that. If he wants an adjournment until Thursday, he can have that. If he wants this matter left over until the Dáil reassembles to consider such amendments as may be made in the Seanad, that can be done, too. It is largely a question of finding out what the general desire of the Dáil is, and naturally because of Deputy Johnson's position very special consideration will be given to his desire. There is not any anxiety on my part to rush the rules without sufficient consideration, but there is a very definite determination not to leave the courts and the litigants without rules for the Michaelmas Session. Therefore, I say the Dáil and the Seanad, before adjourning for the summer, must consider the Rules of Court which I will make when the Court Officers Bill has been signed. Now, I am open to suggestions as to the date to which we could adjourn.
I made one suggestion which the Minister refused. That was that he should defer the signing of the rules for a week so that the public will have an opportunity of reading these draft rules.
What advantage would it be to defer the signing for a week? When the Dáil comes together again there must be before it the Rules of Court, unless the position were to be that it was to have one meeting in ten days' time to discuss the draft Rules of Court, then, after some suggestions had been made, that it would come back again in a week's time.
Hear, hear.
Certainly.
That seems scarcely sound. If the Court Officers Bill is law, and if rules may be made, then rules should be made by me with the concurrence of these three committees. It was an accidental circumstance that led to any question of draft rules being before the Dáil at all, but once the reason for that is removed, namely, the Court Officers Bill has become law, what should be before the Dáil is the Rules of Court. Now, when will we consider those rules if we have dismissed the idea of considering draft rules?
Give us the one month that was proposed in the original draft submitted by the Minister, or the late Attorney-General.
Will the Deputy have, in addition, to have a meeting of the Dáil to consider the Bills back from the Seanad?
I am prepared to meet from now to November if the Minister wishes.
It is not a question of the Minister wishing. Really it is a question of what we consider our conception as to the rights and the needs of the community. As to the Deputy's tendency to challenge me in the matter of physical stamina, I will just let that go as mere peevishness. I want to know definitely from Deputy Johnson and his Party and the Dáil generally when they would wish to meet to consider the Rules of Court. I posit merely this, that the Dáil should consider the Rules of Court on the dates that would admit of their being in effective operation for the Michaelmas Session.
I propose to the Minister and the House that after the Rules of Court have been made he should give the House at least the time that was proposed in the Bill that went up from the Dáil to the Seanad and which was the mind of the Attorney-General and the Ministry when the Courts of Justice Bill was submitted to the Dáil, that is to say we should have thirty days within which to consider the Rules of Court before finally approving them.
What does the Minister propose with regard to the adjournment?
I move:—
"That the Dáil adjourn until Tuesday, 20th July."
Motion put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.40 p.m. until Tuesday, 20th July.