Deputy Dillon seems to be afraid that adequate attention will not be paid to the Irish language side of the proposals here and that people qualified on the linguistic side to do the work will not be made available. The list of the committee as indicated in Section 2 would suggest that there may be something in that argument. The committee shall consist of a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, a judge of the Circuit Court, a justice of the District Court, a practising barrister, a practising solicitor, and only then do we come to a member of the Oireachtas translation staff and to some other person. While the Minister is endeavouring in this Bill to deal with a very practical problem, that is, to ensure that there will be the same firmness of meaning for a certain number of Irish phrases as has been established for a certain number of English phrases in the statutes, it is important that whatever may be introduced or built into the Irish language for the purpose of enabling Irish law to be administered, it should be made certain that it will be a thing that can be recognised as as natural a part and parcel of the Irish language as legal phraseology in English is of the English language. Therefore, it is very important that the language side of it should be done by persons peculiarly competent with regard to the living language and its roots and the suggestion that is made here, that there will be one member of the translation staff on the committee, hardly seems adequate to provide for that. I should like to hear from the Minister whether or not there will be any piece of organised machinery, competent to deal with the purely language problems that will arise, operating in connection with this body, perhaps, doing a certain amount of preliminary work or a certain amount of ordered work for them before they come to their final conclusions.
Committee on Finance. - Irish Legal Terms Bill, 1945—Committee and Final Stages.
Mr. Boland
We expect to get as good a lawyer with a competent knowledge of Irish, to assist the member of the translation staff, as we can possibly get.
Is that under (g)?
Mr. Boland
Yes. That would be the one other person—the seventh person on the committee. Some of the judges have a fairly good knowledge of Irish, I think, and I expect they are the judges who will probably be appointed. In regard to the points that Deputy Dillon is afraid of, I am sure they will be adverted to by the committee. They are practically all legal people, except the one member of the translation staff. I do not think there are any people in the country who have more experience of these phrases in Irish than the translation staff of the Oireachtas. No one else deals with them to such an extent, and the points that Deputy Dillon is afraid of, will, I am sure, be borne in mind by the other members of the committee, that is, the judges and the representatives of the Bar and the solicitors. I think it is as good a scheme as can be devised. I do not think it is capable of improvement.
My feeling is that the Minister is entirely oblivious to the difficulties which are about to confront him. He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that you can take a whole string of words in English and attach to them Irish equivalents which will be binding upon the courts. It is not a question only of swopping word for word. Legal terminology is full of phrases to which meanings have been attached as a consequence of the long operation of the common law and it has frequently transpired that phrases which, at first glance, to the untutored mind, mean one thing, to a trained lawyer, knowing the common law, mean something quite different. Deputies may imagine that this will give rise exclusively to difficulties in the course of trials proceeding in a court and it will appear to Deputies that if such ambiguity arises in the course of a trial it can easily be disposed of by having recourse, if needs be, to English, in order to remove the ambiguity, but these terms may very well be used in deeds and wills, the interpretation of which may not arise until all the parties to them are long dead.
On the interpretation of some word which has been borrowed from this list there may emerge an interpretation of a document which is irrevocable and utterly opposed to the intention of the person who executed the deed. Surely we know that, although English has been the language of the courts and lawyers have been studying the usages of the courts for three centuries, it still occurs that deeds fail to express the true purpose of the people who make them and that wills give rise to ambiguities which involve protracted litigation. To that already difficult situation, which is just as difficult in Great Britain as it is here, is to be superimposed the right of using arbitrary terms with this false guarantee that, if they stick rigidly to the translations provided in this foclóir, they are perfectly safe. Nothing could be further from the truth, because you cannot take the words and translate them literally one after the other. The forms of Irish do not fall into the same shapes as the forms of English. Very often one word in English would require a phrase in Irish adequately to reproduce it. Similarly, one word in Irish will be the equivalent of a phrase in English.
The Minister says that employing a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court, a judge of the Circuit Court, a justice of the District Court, a practising barrister, a practising solicitor, a member of the Oireachtas translation staff, and a person nominated from time to time as occasion requires by the Government is the best way of dealing with the problem. It is not. There is no way of dealing with this problem except by allowing the Irish language to take its place in the courts side by side with the English language, running the same risks in getting the forms settled by the courts as has been run in the past in getting the forms in English settled by the courts.
Would the Deputy please relate all that to the section?
The Minister says that the best way to do it is through this committee. I say it is not and I am going to prove that it is not.
Section 2 deals with the Irish Legal Terms Advisory Committee and on that committee I should like to hear the Deputy.
The Minister says the best way of geting this business done is by a committee of this kind. I think it will be a complete failure and I am going to prove it. I allege that the best legal and technical advice was got by the Taoiseach when he was burning midnight oil to draft the Constitution in Irish. I bet you that he had the assistance of this Supreme Court judge who is to be nominated under sub-head (a). I could nearly swear that the particular man who is going to be parpointed to that vacancy burned the midnight oil with the Taoiseach. I would not be at all surprised if the judge of the Circuit Court who is to be appointed was there also. We could name them just as well as the Minister.
Mr. Boland
I could not name them.
It is because you do not know the Gaels' mind in this country I know the tortuous obscure labyrinth it is. I can tell you who (b) will be.
Mr. Boland
I cannot.
I think I could tell you who (e) will be and who (f) will be. Every one of these consulted with the Taoiseach when drafting the Constitution. I challenge the Minister to deny that the constitutional dovecots were all in a flutter and that since the Constitution emerged from this enclave, scholars have got on to it and are prepared to prove that in some of its particulars it is just as meaningless as the inscription on the Countess Markievicz's statue, the first line of which means nothing and in every other line of which there is a mistake.
Which has no bearing on the section.
I suppose that was drafted by gentlemen who will be sitting on this committee.
The Deputy is very discursive in discussing a concrete proposal.
I venture to swear that the members of the committee to be set up under Section 2 functioned in regard to the Constitution and that the net result of their operations is that the widest ambiguity now exists in regard to the Constitution. That does not really matter very much, because the Constitution is going to affect nobody one way or the other. Here you will have a situation in which hundreds of poor people may be put to unnecessary expense and occasioned great suffering and hardship simply that a bit of codology——
Is the Deputy opposing Section 2 or the Bill?
I am opposing this committee.
It appears that the Deputy is opposing the main provisions of the Bill.
I say that it is an utterly incompetent body to handle this. I am begging the House to realise that in this committee we are providing there is no safeguard whatever for the people whom it ought to be the duty of the House to protect and that, for the promotion of the biggest codology and fraud, we are going to involve a lot of poor people in a great deal of suffering. This seems to be a demonstration that we are Gaelicising the nation at top speed. It is pure and shameless codology.
The committee or the Bill?
The proposals contained in it.
Exactly, the Bill.
This committee is described by the Minister as the most efficient and rapid way in which the work can be done.
Pune eagair. Nach raibh de cheart agus de chead ag aon Teachta ná raibh sásta lena bhfuil molta in alt a dó a mhalairt de ghléas a mholadh, sé sin, leasú a chur síos ar an gclár. Cé an fáth nach ndearna an Teachta Díolún é sin, in ionad bheith ag cur de fé mar atá?
I do not want to amend the Bill at all. I am pointing out the danger of the procedure in appointing a committee of this kind. When you begin to discuss a question of this kind, all reason seems to become suspended. I urge the Minister most strongly, instead of having a committee of this kind, to recognise that the best he can do is to get some kind of a committee which will record from time to time in a digest legal decisions relating to the use of the Irish language and the meaning attributed by the Puisne and the Supreme Courts to the phraseology of the Irish language as it crops up in the course of litigation. There is no other safe way of securing a compendium of dependable Irish terminology.
I believe that if this committee was charged with that task it might do something useful. In Great Britain, digests are being turned out year after year on account of the immense volume of litigation and the number of practising lawyers there. It would not be an economic proposition in this country for any firm working for a profit to print a digest in Irish for the limited number of practitioners who would avail of it. But, if you had a committee of competent Irish speakers with legal knowledge who would carefully peruse all the reports and prepare such a digest annually, it might cost a great deal of money—I do not believe it would cost any more than the proposal here—but at least it would be a useful service to the legal profession and the language. The suggestion that the miscellany provided for in Section 2 should pontificate on the meaning of words is merely a trap for the unwary. They may pontificate till the cows come home, but the courts will refuse to be bound as to the meaning they extract from sentences composed of the words defined by this committee. I confess at once that, if Deputy John Costello were here, he would probably be able to make the point I am trying to bring home to the House more clearly than I am able to do so.
Possibly, on Section 3.
Well, Section 3 gives a direction as to how the committee should proceed. I do not care what directions are given to the committee —they cannot do the work, because the task assigned to them is an impossible one. I believe that any lawyer would tell the Minister that, if a different kind of committee were chosen and a different task assigned to it, we would get some return for the money. This proposal is going to provide us with nothing but a trap for the unwary. The disgusting part of it is that the reason we are proceeding on these lines is in order to create the fraudulent impression that we are Gaelicising the nation at express speed.
I renew my representations on this section.
The same comment as on Section 2?
Very similar, Sir; is there any objection?
Strange that the same comment should be relevant to two dissimilar sections.
Sub-section (3) says:—
"Whenever the Minister makes a Legal Terms Order declaring that the equivalent in the Irish language of a specified term shall be the word or words specified in the Order, then, the said word or words whenever occurring in ... an Act of the Oireachtas, ... the official translation of an Act, ... any statutory instrument or ... the official translation of any statutory instrument or ... document used for the purposes of legal proceedings ... shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as having the same meaning as, and have the same force and effect as, the said specified term."
Does the House realise what those words mean? Does the House realise that a person going to this list and picking out of it an expression provided for in the list, is liable to go into court and meet the argument that, although the words used appear in the list, from the document a contrary intention appears? Instead of finding himself on a rock of certainty, which it is represented to this House will be provided by this committee, that man is back into exactly the same field of ambiguity that he would have been in had this statute never been passed.
I am submitting to the House that this whole business bears upon its face the stamp of fraud. In so far as the Attorney-General has seen this Bill, he must have told those responsible for it that the purpose they had in mind of providing certainty in Irish was not being done and that the only way that could be got was by establishing a committee to publish regularly a digest for lawyers and that even then there would be no more certainty than they at present enjoy in the employment of the English language. Do Deputies realise that these words "shall, unless the contrary intention appears" mean that the person drawing up the document or drafting the deed, when he comes before the court, is in exactly the same position as if this Bill had never been passed? Will the Minister consider, at some stage, instead of the machinery he has provided in these two sections, the desirability of setting up a body to prepare an annual digest?
The Committee is dealing with one section now. The Deputy made the same suggestion on Section 2.
There is no body set up for this purpose.
That does not come under Section 3.
If the Minister decides that the body shall be set up and directs the body to prepare an annual digest instead of doing all this, it would be better.
The Deputy discussed that on Section 2 and should not repeat it.
I got no reply from the Minister. Is the Minister saying that the task is manifestly impossible, in view of the revelation he himself makes in sub-section (3) (f)? If he does so admit, will he consider the desirability of substituting for this impossible proposal an annual digest which would be of some value to somebody? Does the Minister see the implication of (3) (f)?
Mr. Boland
Deputy Costello might have said what Deputy Dillon has said. He spoke on the Second Reading, and did not say that at all, so I took it then that he did not see that danger. Deputy Costello said:—
"The real essential is that where a technical term is about to be translated into Irish somebody with a complete technical knowledge of the precise significance of that term, a competent Irish scholar if possible, one with legal knowledge and training should give advice as to what is required."
That is all provided for. What Deputy Dillon says may arise in the future and there may be some decision such as at present occurs even in regard to well-known English words. That cannot be avoided and we cannot make anything any more certain.
Is that not what you are trying to do?
Mr. Boland
We are doing the best we possibly can for those who wish to have their cases dealt with in the Irish language, who wish to have their wills drawn up or deeds executed in that language. There may be some interpretation given in a court which we might find was never intended, but we are trying here to do the best we can to facilitate those people who are trying to have their work done through the medium of Irish. I think the machinery set up here is as good as any that can be devised. The question of a digest does not arise here. It may be advisable to have it also, but that is another day's work.
It is an infinitely better method.
Mr. Boland
Deputy Dillon may think so, but as far as I can see he has mentioned only Deputy Costello. That Deputy did speak here—we kept the Bill back until he had an opportunity to speak on it—and he made no such suggestion as Deputy Dillon has made. As Deputy Dillon has cited him, that is my answer.
Mr. Boland
I was hoping that if there was no objection all stages might be taken to-day, but if there is objection I do not wish to insist.
Would it inconvenience the Minister to postpone the final stages until to-morrow?
Mr. Boland
It cannot be taken to-morrow, and would have to wait until some other day. Civil aviation is to be dealt with to-morrow, I believe, and Private Members' time is also being given.
I will not oppose the taking of the final stages now.
There is no objection, unless Deputy Dillon wishes to defer it.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
I think the machinery designed does not look too satisfactory, but it will have to be tested by its results. I am sure the results will be watched very critically by all concerned and I hope the earliest weakness in the work that is being turned out will be detected and the machinery improved, if necessary.
Mr. Boland
I wish to say that I did not rush the Commitee Stage. I was prepared to wait, if Deputies had any better suggestion but, as no amendment was tabled, I took it that the Bill was accepted. As Deputy Mulcahy has said, we will have to wait to find out how it will work. All any human Assembly can do is what is best at the particular time; and if defects become evident we will have to come back and amend it. This is a genuine attempt to deal with the matter. I think Deputy Dillon went too far in saying it was a fraud and that that was stamped all over it. We know that there is a certain element anxious to do their legal work through the medium of Irish and this is an effort to facilitate them. It is not fair to say the Bill is stamped with fraud. That is strong language to use.
I will tell the Minister why. There is nothing to prevent anyone in this country having his business done through the medium of Irish at the present time. I will get a dozen men to-morrow who will draft any deed the Minister ever heard or thought of in good literary Irish without any serious difficulty, and it is ridiculous for the Minister to pretend that Irish is so hopeless a language that you cannot express in it anything you can express in English, because it simply is not true. Any concept of ordinary life can be just as effectively expressed in the Irish language as it can be in English.
But what we are doing is, we are trying to barge in on the legal system which we are operating and we are trying to say to people: "You can use the new instrument of expression, an instrument new to this system, with perfect safety because we are providing you with a precise terminology." That is something we are not doing and it is something we cannot do. We are admitting our inability to do it in sub-section (3) (f) of this Bill, whereunder we throw back to the discretion of the judges the interpretation of any and every document, word and phrase that comes before them. Although a particular phrase in a particular instrument is declared by the foclóir, or the dictionary prepared by this committee, to mean something, it is open to the judge to say: "While that may be strictly so, taking the meaning of the whole instrument and of the words and sentences employed in it, I determine that the true meaning is other than appears upon the surface."
Deputies may say that that is being unduly apprehensive and that such things are not likely to arise; that competent scholars will handle this thing, and that competent lawyers will also be concerned, and they may say that no danger of ambiguity arises. But the fact is—and everybody closes his eyes to it—that in connection with the Constitution the best Irish lawyers were retained as well as the best Irish scholars, and the Taoiseach himself presided over their deliberations, taking a personal interest in every line, in every comma, in every word. Months were devoted to the preparation of the Irish text of the Constitution, and, nevertheless, after the period of amendment by legislation has passed, it is now discovered that the text of the Constitution contains several ambiguities, and the meaning attributed by the Taoiseach to many parts of the Constitution is seriously challenged by competent scholars who are not inclined to disagree with him and who would like to accept his interpretation, but who say that interpretation could not legally be attached to the phrases and sentences used.
Now, the Constitutional dovecots are fluttering, and everyone is wondering what he will do. Some are praying to God that the ambiguities in the Irish phrases of the Constitution will not be invoked by some why individual who will go into the court on foot of the Irish text and reject the English. And probably out of the fertile brain of the Taoiseach some expedient will emerge to get out of this linguistic difficulty without going to the country on a referendum. He thought that every possibility of obscurity had disappeared, that he had provided for everything; but he discovered to his cost that he could not and did not. That is all very well for the Taoiseach, but what will happen suppose some unfortunate person in County Kerry permits his solicitor to draft his will in Irish, or makes an assignment of his property to one of his children in Irish, believing he has provided adequate protection for an elderly wife or daughter? After he has died, the man who executed the deed or made the will, somebody starts litigation on the true meaning of the text of the instrument, and some ambiguity such as is at present perplexing the Taoiseach emerges as to the true meaning of the words employed.
As a result of what we are doing here some unfortunate individual in the country may be very seriously embarrassed. It might occur to us that we might provide some kind of insurance fund against that by saying that where a man suffers financial loss arising from an ambiguity created by this dictionary, funds should be made available out of which to compensate him. But it is not practical politics to do that. You will find yourself in the position of having to decide whether the ambiguity was in the language or in the mind of the person who executed the deed. It is all very well to do these things in regard to the Constitution —they do not matter very much one way or the other—but it is a serious thing to involve poor people in the country in unnecessary expense.
I put it to the Minister that before he goes further in this matter he ought to take further counsel with competent lawyers and put it to them that the object is to make the use of the Irish language as easy for an Irish speaker in this country as the English language is for English speakers and to make it as safe to draft any deed or instrument in Irish as it is in English. I think he will get from these lawyers the same advice as I am giving him. The way to achieve that is by not attempting to prepare some kind of dictionary that will not work.
The best service the Legislature can do to the promotion of that end will be to publish an annual digest giving cases in which certain language was employed and the interpretation attached to that language by High Court judges in the course of ordinary legal procedure. That is the most effective thing we can do here to facilitate the use of the Irish language in legal proceedings and documents. If we delude ourselves into thinking that we can do anything more, we are simply fooling ourselves and, what is worse, we are probably involving simple people in an expenditure which they should never be called upon to bear.
I want to be recorded as dissenting.