Interpretation Bill, 1937—Second Stage.

The President

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purposes of the Bill generally are indicated in the Long Title. They are: to make various provisions regarding the form of Acts of the Oiréachtas, under the new Constitution, the operation of Acts and their interpretation. The Bill deals in addition with the form, operation and interpretation of instruments such as Statutory Orders made in pursuance of Acts of the Oireachtas. The Constitution has rendered obsolete a number of definitions contained in the interpretation Act, 1923, as, for example, the definitions of "the Executive Council", "Executive Minister", "the President". In addition new words and expressions have been introduced by the Constitution and, in some cases, existing words and expressions have been given a new meaning. For example, it now becomes necessary to define the word "Government" and to give a new definition to the word "President". It would be possible to deal with the removal of the obsolete definitions and the insertion of new ones by amending the Act of 1923. It has, however, been considered desirable to take advantage of the opportunity for a complete redrafting of that Act. There is, however, no change in the general principles underlying the 1923 Act. The changes made are confined to rearrangement, clarification and such extensions as experience has shown to be necessary, or which have become necessary in consequence of the new Constitution. The Interpretation Act of 1923 will continue, of course, to apply to the statutes which have been enacted by the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann. There are certain exceptions which will be referred to in the course of the detailed consideration of the Bill. It will not apply to Acts of the Oireachtas set up by the new Constitution.

I do not think it is necessary at this stage to go into a detailed examination of the Bill. That can be done more properly on the Committee Stage. I do not think that the Bill is likely to give rise to any controversy and we can deal with any particular points that occur to any Deputy on the Committee Stage. There is just one thing that I should like to make reference to in advance and that is in regard to the word "Minister". We shall add to that the words, "in charge of a Department of State" or "administering a Department of State". I think Deputies who have examined the 1923 Act and who have looked over this Bill will clearly understand what the object of the Bill is.

Professor O'Sullivan

Is it possible under the Constitution to have a Minister without portfolio?

The President

It is.

Professor O'Sullivan

Then you are going to delete these words?

The President

The intention is to make it quite clear that you can have a member of the Government, who need not necessarily be a Minister, administering a Department of State. For that purpose I shall introduce an amendment on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Dillon

I understood the President to say that this Interpretation Bill was designed to take the place of the old Interpretation Act, and that it was deemed advisable to have a new Act rather than to amend the old one. In the next breath I understood him to say that the old Act would continue to govern the statutes of the present Oireachtas, and that the new Bill would govern the statutes of the new Oireachtas. In a third breath, I understood him to say that there are certain exceptions to that arrangement. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to produce confusion than that pronouncement. If you amend the first Interpretation Act, then everybody knows that he cannot safely proceed to the final interpretation of any statute of either Oireachtas until he has perused both the details of the original Act and the new Bill; but if you have two Acts which overtly are meant to deal with all Acts of each Oireachtas, and then an arrangement whereby there are minor exceptions, you are opening pitfalls for everybody who wants to interpret an Act.

The President

If the Deputy would read the Bill he will find that all that is dealt with.

Mr. Dillon

I was sufficiently foolhardy to imagine that the President, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, would explain the provisions of the Bill, but that procedure is apparently not considered necessary in these modern days. The provisions of the Bill will presumably be explained at a meeting of the Wolfe Tone Cumann Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Lemass

A more intelligent audience!

Mr. Dillon

If that is the Minister's idea of his own Party, I am not surprised at that point of view being expressed, but we do not share that view. I think it would be much better if the President, before proceeding further, would give us some indication as to the exceptions which he proposes to make, whereunder this Interpretation Bill will not apply to certain statutes.

Mr. Davin

Is it in order for the Minister to say that the members of the Wolfe Tone Cumann Fianna Fáil constitute a more intelligent audience than the members of the Dáil?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, in so far as the Minister refers to the Fianna Fáil Party exclusively.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not see anything very disorderly in it.

Mr. Dillon

Neither do I.

Mr. Davin

It is disrespectful, if not disorderly.

An Ceann Comhairle

Possibly.

Mr. Lemass

They are less given to interruption.

Professor O'Sullivan

The President suggested that questions on this Bill might be raised on the Committee Stage. As a non-legal member of the House I can assure the President that it is very difficult, not to read the Bill which is quite easy, but to follow all the implications of the Bill. If he wants detailed consideration of the Bill on Committee Stage, I think he might utilise the opportunity offered him now to explain rather more fully what the Bill means so that ordinary Deputies like myself would understand it.

The President

Very good. The only thing is that it seems to me to be upsetting the general principles of the House, because a Second Reading Bill is confined to general principles. As far as this Bill is concerned, the matter that is interpreted by the Bill, the form and operation and so on, could be taken for granted, but the lawyers take a different view; they are not going to take anything for granted. They define all the expressions, indicate the exact meaning of certain terms, and indicate when the Act comes into operation. You have a glossary at the end which in a way summarises previous experience of constructions which have been involved as a result of court decisions. Some of them were embodied in the 1923 Act, but you have also the experience of the last 15 years. On page 10 you have a glossary or dictionary of terms. They are arranged in alphabetical order, having been put in that form for convenience of reference. In many cases they save the draftsman himself, in drafting a statute, from putting in special definitions of words, and from a great deal of needless repetition. I do not think there is anything in that part of the Schedule except the same as a dictionary, that is you are given special meanings, the meanings that are to be attached in statutes to the words that are used in the Act, so I take it that the Deputy —or any other Deputy—has no trouble about that?

Mr. Dillon

I have no trouble with it. I am interested in the exceptions which the President mentioned.

The President

Deputy O'Sullivan seems to want something fuller than that. Now we go back and take the Bill section by section.

Mr. Dillon

Let me be quite clear on this. If it would be more convenient for the President to circulate between this and the Committee Stage, a Memorandum setting out the special exceptions he referred to, that would be quite acceptable to me.

The President

But the Deputy is not alone. I was quite prepared to deal in a few words with the Deputy's point, but Deputy O'Sullivan thinks it would be well if we went through the Bill section by section. Of course if it is only now Deputies are reading it for the first time they will find it will not be so easy to manage, but I presume that Deputies have looked over the Bill already. The first section here simply gives the Short Title of the Act, and then the date of commencement. That is plain enough. It will come into operation immediately after the coming into operation of the Constitution of Ireland lately enacted by the people. That very fact will give me an opportunity of speaking about those exceptions. There is a number of Bills which have been passed now in connection with the new Constitution. Those Bills will come into operation immediately after the Constitution itself comes into operation. They come into operation only on a certain date, and they are to be interpreted after that date as if they were Acts of the new Oireachtas. They are intended to come into operation, and therefore they will be interpreted as if they were Acts of the new Oireachtas in accordance with this Act.

The only point is that, in the case of some of them, there may be mention made of certain acts which have to be done during this intervening period, and as those will be done during the intervening period they will be governed by the old Interpretation Act. The old Interpretation Act will, of course, continue to govern the old Acts of the Oireachtas even after the coming into operation of the new Constitution. In general, the method is this: This particular Act will govern the interpretation of Acts which will be passed after the new Constitution has come into operation, and will also govern those Acts which are passed now and will only come into operation after the Constitution has come into operation. That is a sensible, natural and logical division. The old 1923 Act will govern all the Statutes of the Oireachtas including those Acts, in so far as anything is done under them in anticipation of the time at which they are due to come into operation, so you have a definite, clean division of time.

Professor O'Sullivan

Perhaps I might interrupt the President? He speaks of Acts that follow from the Constitution—Acts which I may call incidental to the passing of the Constitution. Those come under the new Interpretation Act. That is a logical division. But take an Act which we pass next week, and which does not come into operation until January?

The President

That has regard to the manner in which it is expressed —whether it is expressed on the face of it to be an Act which is to come into operation when the new Constitution comes into operation. There is a special class of Acts which we may call anticipatory Acts. Any other Act, except it is so expressed, will be governed by the old Interpretation Act.

Professor O'Sullivan

The Acts governed by this Interpretation Act are Acts incidental to the Constitution itself, but an ordinary Act—say one introduced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce next week, and due to come into operation on 15th January—is governed by the older Act?

The President

Yes.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is what I wanted to be clear about.

The President

There is a clear and logical division. The only thing that perhaps may appear to be confusing —I have no example to give to Deputies on the point, but provision is made lest there should be such— is that if there was something to be done under one of those ancillary or anticipatory Acts, as I call them, or incidental Acts as the Deputy called them, between now and the date on which they were to come into operation, then that particular Act would be governed by the existing conditions. I think that is logical.

Mr. Dillon

If you bought the President's seal? If the Act was passed into law that may come under the new Interpretation Act?

The President

I would say if there was something in the Bill referring to action to be taken now, and if there was a question of what interpretation was to be given—whether it was under the new or the old Interpretation Act—I would say that the particular part of it which referred to the doing of it now would be under the old Act. That is my view on it. I am giving these as I understand them. If by any chance I should find that I am giving anything which is not strictly right, I will check up on it again when we come to the Committee Stage. I think the only difficult clause is this one in Section 4. Section 3 refers only to the definitions of the words "Statute", "instrument" and "statutory instrument." Then there is a question with regard to "references to instruments made wholly or partly under an Act of the Oireachtas"—as to how that is to be construed. The definition section sets out how it shall be construed.

Section 4 is a slight bit more difficult, but I am sure that if we were to go over it together we would have no difficulty in seeing what it means. It sets out: "Save as is otherwise expressly provided by this Act, every provision of this Act which relates to Acts of the Oireachtas shall apply and have effect in relation to this Act and every other Act of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann (whether passed before or after this Act) which is expressed to come into operation immediately after the coming into operation of the Constitution." As regards the expression, "whether passed before or after this Act," that is meeting the point whether it is passed now, or between here and the coming into operation of the Constitution. The section proceeds: "and accordingly, this Act and every such other Act shall, for the purpose of such application, but no further or otherwise, be deemed to be an Act of the Oireachtas."

These Acts we are talking about should be deemed to be Acts of the Oireachtas "save as is otherwise expressly provided by this Act." The point is, you have to look them over to see if there are any exceptions. The section goes on to say that "the expression `Act of the Oireachtas' shall in this Act be construed and have effect as including this Act and every such other Act of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann." All it means, generally, is that this Act and every one of that set of anticipatory Acts, as we call them, shall be included, unless expressly excluded. They shall be included in the term "Acts of the Oireachtas."

Mr. Dillon

Does the word "Oireachtas" here mean the Oireachtas under the new Constitution?

The President

Exactly.

Mr. Dillon

I take it that elsewhere the word "Oireachtas" means the Oireachtas under the old Constitution.

The President

No; that stands with Saorstát Eireann. Wherever "Oireachtas" stands alone, it means the new Constitution. In Section 5 it is set out that the Interpretation Act of 1923 shall not apply to any Act of the Oireachtas. That is, that it shall not apply to any of these Acts we have been talking about. The section proceeds: "or to any instrument made wholly or partly under any such Act." That excludes the application of the Act of 1923 or any of these Acts. In the second sub-section it is stated: "The foregoing sub-section of this section shall not preclude or prejudice the application to this Act and to other Acts of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann which are expressed to come into operation immediately after the coming into operation of the Constitution of so much of the Interpretation Act, 1923... as concerns events happening or things to be done in relation to an Act before it comes into operation." That is with reference to the seal.

Mr. Dillon

May I take it that this new Interpretation Act applies to itself?

The President

It does, definitely. That is one of the causes of the long phrasing, such as, "this Act and to other Acts of the Oireachtas." As regards the citation of Acts of the Oireachtas, there is nothing in that. Coming now to Section 8, which refers to the date of passing of Acts of the Oireachtas, that is set out as the date of the day on which the Bill for such Act is signed by the President. These anticipatory Acts will not be signed by the President, and, therefore, there has to be an exclusion clause. You will see in sub-section (4) of Section 8 they are supposed to come into operation from the end of the previous day, to make sure, I suppose, that the first instant of time of the new day is taken in. Section 9 deals with the commencement of Acts and instruments, and Section 10 refers to the exercise of statutory powers before the commencement of the Act. I think there is nothing in that that we need worry about.

Mr. Dillon

Where an Act confers powers on a Minister, does it mean that the Minister could exercise the statutory powers before the Act itself would come into force?

The President

No. The section sets out "Where an Act of the Oireachtas or any particular enactment contained in any such Act is expressed to come into operation on a day subsequent to the date of the passing of such Act"— there is an interval between the day of passing and the day of coming into operation. The section goes on "if the day on which such Act or such enactment (as the case may be) comes into operation is to be fixed or ascertained in any particular manner", there may be an indication in the Bill as to how the date is to be fixed. For instance it "may, subject to any restrictions imposed by such Act, be made or done at any time after the passing of such Act"; that is, at any time after the passing. There can be no question of the Deputy's remark holding, namely, that it can be done in anticipation. This refers to the interval between the passing and the coming into operation.

Mr. Dillon

Is that a new departure?

The President

It is not; I do not think so. If the Deputy looks up the Interpretation Act, he will see for himself. I am afraid the Deputy expects us to do work for him which he should have done himself.

Mr. Dillon

Upon my word, I do not. I spent my morning wrangling with Ministers, on this very matter, Ministers who put their feet into it; I spent my day putting them right.

The President

A Second Reading speech——

Mr. Dillon

Tells the House nothing.

The President

——in a general way puts before the House the purpose of a Bill and deals with its principles. What is being done at the present moment is work that will have to be done over again. If there are any questions to be asked, section by section, that could be done on the Committee Stage. The question whether there is anything new or not is one that could be determined by reference to the 1923 Act. The only thing that occurs to the lay mind in reading through this Bill is, is it necessary to go into such detail to say that what appears to be the obvious should be stated to be the obvious?

Mr. Dillon

Ask your Minister for Agriculture that question.

The President

I do not think there is any point in going into this matter in detail. The third part of the Bill deals with the meaning and construction of particular words and expressions. There are certain general rules of construction for the singular and plural, the masculine and feminine. There is a reference to a point of time. It is to be construed as relating or referring to Greenwich Mean Time; that is, General Western European Time. There has been general agreement about that, so that is taken as a standard. Of course it does not prevent, nor do any of these definitions prevent, us from departing from them in any way we wish. On the subject of distance, there is an indication of how to measure distance between two points. If you want to go into this matter in detail, this is scarcely the time to do it, but there is a rather curious phrase for doing it. The point is that these distances will generally be measured in relation to a map and they will be determined by projections on a map.

Mr. Dillon

Is there any new thing done under this Interpretation Act that is an addition to the old Interpretation Act?

The President

There are additions to the dictionary.

Mr. Dillon

There is no adoption here of a contested court ruling?

The President

I do not know of any.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to trouble the President to go into this Bill in detail now. I am quite prepared to go into it in Committee, if that is more convenient for him. I was principally concerned about the point which the President has explained and to ascertain if there was anything new in this Interpretation Bill which does not jump to the eye.

The President

There is no point of that sort. If there were, it would have been referred to me for decision. There is no important point of that kind in the Bill. Everything in the Bill is well-defined and accepted. As regards rules of court, there is provision that, in case of extension, the body empowered to make the rules will continue to be the rule-making authority for the purpose of the extensions. In regard to repeals and revocations, it is provided that mere repeal will not serve to revive the matter previously knocked out. As regards Section 22, the provisions could not be put in any shorter way than they are in the Bill itself. Deputies will have to read the Bill for themselves and, if they desire to raise any questions on Committee Stage, I hope to be able to give them satisfactory information. I have told the House everything that is necessary to secure its acceptance of the motion for Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Tuesday, 7th December.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 1 Dec 1937

Interpretation Bill, 1937—Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Dec 1937