In the absence of the Minister for Justice I move the Second Reading of the Adaptation of Enactments Bill, 1931. The existing Adaptation of Enactments Act enables statutes of the post-Union Parliaments to be adapted. At the time that Act was passed no provision was taken to enable the enactments and statutes of the pre-Union Irish Parliament to be adapted. Now it is proposed to take powers so that these enactments and statutes may be made fully applicable to Saorstát Eireann.
Orders of the Day. - Adaptation of Enactments Bill, 1931—Second Stage.
Has the Minister got any particular Acts in mind when he mentions that? Is it just a roving commission on the several centuries of the various types of legislation or does it merely refer to the enactments passed from 1782 onwards?
It refers to all Acts of the Parliaments previous to 1800. I think that no case has yet arisen where it was not possible to get along without the adaptation, but in certain cases some difficulty was experienced, and it was with a view to the same possibility of adapting provisions of enactments that existed in regard to pre-Union Parliaments that this measure is now being brought.
This objection occurs to one right off. One remembers that during the British regime certain old Coercion Acts were refurbished. Acts of Edward III. were refurbished. It would be a very objectionable thing to allow any Government, no matter what Government is in power, to have this kind of omnibus Act, so as to be able to draw on various Acts and bring them to life again by Order. There is a provision in the Bill that these orders should lie on the Table of the House, but it seems a very large measure of power to take all the same.
There is a safeguard, as the Deputy says. I do not think any question has yet been raised in regard to the hundreds of enactments adapted from the post-Union Parliament. We have had to adapt them wholesale. Their adaptation largely meant that the term "United Kingdom" was adapted to mean "Saorstát Eireann." Otherwise the statute could not have been read owing to changed conditions. Hundreds of adaptations have been made, and one adaptation sometimes covered a great number. I do not think that any question has ever been raised with regard to any one of them.
It would be very much more satisfactory if the Minister could mention a particular instance arising at the moment where he wants to adapt a pre-Union Act.
I do not think there is any one at the moment.
I think that the power which the Government secures under Section 2 will merely extend to the adaptations necessary to bring enactments into force. It will not apply to modifications in the purpose or the legislative effect of the Acts themselves.
The Deputy is right. It only makes them apply here. The Irish Parliament operated over a greater area than the Saorstát. For instance, there might be the Great Seal of Ireland used in one, and you might be adaptating that under the Seal of Saorstát Eireann. That is the sort of adaptation that is necessary.
Section 2 gives the Executive Council power to adapt or modify any statute of a pre-Union Parliament. Apparently the mere promulgation of the order is enough to make the law valid and operative. Supposing an order was promulgated during the period when the Dáil was not in session, a considerable number of things might be done under that order to which the Dáil would naturally object, but even the repeal of the order under Section 4 would not tend to make illegal anything which had been done prior to the annulment of the order. I certainly think none of these adaptations under Section 2 should be operative unless they are made during the period in which the Dáil is in session and has an opportunity of considering them and of dealing with them under Section 4. I do not think there is much in what the Minister has said in relation to the Acts of the Union Parliament, because after all the great majority of those have been passed within the last century or so and are within the knowledge of a considerable body of lawyers, but the great majority of the Acts that were passed by the pre-Union Parliament have been altogether forgotten. The position in regard to some of them may be altogether uncertain. It is quite possible that a Government which does not hesitate to abuse powers, as in the case of the order in connection with the demonstration at Bodenstown, might disinter a Convention Act when the Dáil was not in session and proceed to act in a perfectly legal manner, if the House passed the Bill in its present form.
I think before this measure gets a Second Reading that we should have a considered statement from the responsible Minister showing the Acts which he thinks would come within the scope of this measure. To give the Minister power to resurrect a forgotten statute and adapt and promulgate it as law during a period when the Oireachtas is not in session would be, I think, a great mistake. I think the House would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if it were to put such wide powers in the hands of a Government which has already shown itself capable of abusing any legislative power it may have at the present moment.
The Executive has been able to get on for a very long time without this Act, and the Minister, I think, should be able to show us why he is bringing it in at this time. He must have some particular Act in mind that he wishes to adapt. It seems to me there is no urgent necessity for it. I agree with Deputy MacEntee that it is looking for rather wide powers. The Bill does not even define the word "adapt." The Minister confines it to a narrow meaning, simply indicating an area of territory as something to which it may apply. I think it is capable of much wider interpretation than that. We have adaptations and modifications. It seems to me that there is no limit to the extent to which it may adapt or modify. We are quite unwilling that the Executive should get that power and I would suggest to the Minister who brought in this Bill that if there is any particular Act which is the immediate cause of its production he should present that to us, with a list of any other Acts which he wishes to adapt and let them be adapted specifically. Let the Bill have definite relation to the particular Acts that he wants to modify. It is a much better line of procedure. This gives the Executive practically uncontrolled powers of adaptation, and we will oppose it.
In view of the fact that the number of Acts that will need to be dealt with under this Act will be very small, if the Minister would insert in the Bill that if any objection is taken the order will not become operative until passed by the Dáil, it might meet the situation. That is, the order would come up definitely for sanction before the Oireachtas. These orders would be very rare and that suggestion would give the House control over every order that would be made.
As I said, this power has existed in regard to United Kingdom statutes. I think the Adaptation of Enactments Act was passed at the beginning of 1923 and no question has arisen. These matters are generally small and purely technical. They all have been of the nature I have indicated—adaptation of the "United Kingdom" to mean "Saorstát Eireann," of the "Lord Lieutenant" to mean the "Governor-General" and that sort of thing.
As I say, no difficulty has arisen and I think there are no grounds for suggesting that Acts which have ceased to be in force should be revived by means of these methods. I do not believe that such a thing could be done. There is no doubt that if it were attempted you would have to deal with the courts in regard to it, and it is not worth while in dealing with one particular group of statutes to have a different procedure, especially as there may not be five adaptations altogether. I have no idea of how many there may be, and it is not worth while adopting any different procedure.
Why not wait until the occasion arises?
There is no reason why, on a mere technicality and in the numerous cases which are likely to arise, we should find ourselves unable to do something that requires to be done, or that we should be held up because the law said something about Ireland, that could not be applied to Saorstát Eireann.
If there are so few cases involved why not adopt Deputy O'Connell's suggestion?
I do not think it worth while. My objection is that it would be yielding to a suggestion which I think is almost ridiculous. One might say that the power of adaptation of British statutes was a wide power, but it only appeared to be wide. Perhaps even a majority of the statutes relating to this country, which were passed during the Union period, had to be adapted one way or the other by a general adaptation—a general adaptation of such and such statutes of the United Kingdom. You have had this widespread power, and no difficulties have arisen and no suggestions have been made that there is any attempt to abuse any power or to indulge in any malpractice. If there is a sort of suggestion in regard to what is a limited power that there is going to be malpractice——
Why should the House be asked to take the Executive Council on trust? The powers of the Executive Council should be definitely limited in so far as the revival—that is what it amounts to—of legislation which has become obsolete, and even so far as the making of new legislation is concerned. The Minister says that because certain powers have been given to him under the previous Act therefore the House should grant him a wider power. The original Adaptations Act has to be read and construed in accordance with the clause in the Constitution which says in so far as certain things are consistent with the Constitution. There is no safeguarding clause of that type here. I think the clause gives wider power in this Bill than is given under the original Act. If the Minister thinks not, why not accept Deputy O'Connell's suggestion that the Act will not be adapted or applied to Saorstát Eireann until the Adaptation Order has been laid on the Table of the House and tabled for twenty-one days?
There is another matter from the lawyer's point of view. There are many of these old statutes which would be very inaccessible and they will be adapted. People will want to make use of them and I fear there will be the greatest difficulty in gaining access to them unless some provision is made. In fact, I think the whole thing is too short. There should be all sorts of restrictions put into the Bill in order to make it satisfactory from the Government point of view.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 42.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Léary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl, Deputies Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Friday, 3rd July.