The Parliamentary Secretary undertook last night to give us figures as to the cost of extending the concession for young solicitors from three to five years. He told me he would have it to-day.
Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, 1960—Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I am afraid that in the interval, we have not been able to get a reliable estimate.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean that he has not been able to get it by this morning or is he suggesting that he is not able to get it at all?
In the time available, we have not been able to get it.
If the information is requested in the Seanad, perhaps he will give it there?
Certainly.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to reiterate what I said on the Second Stage, that the solicitors' profession are undertaking a very substantial burden in the contribution they are now going to make to the Compensation Fund. It will be something appreciable in terms of money; whether it is a big office or a small office it will be substantial. Proposals have been made to the Parliamentary Secretary, as he is aware, and I appreciate his approach to those proposals on the Second Stage. I want to reinforce, however, what I said already in the most categoric manner, that it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary, the Department of Justice and to the other Ministers concerned to see that because of the liability that is being undertaken in this Bill the most sympathetic approach is made towards those proposals to cut solicitor's costs in other ways. There must be no mere idea that because a thing has been done for years in a particular way a change is unnecessary. Changes to offset the additional administrative costs that are proposed in this Bill are essential and it is essential that the Parliamentary Secretary should see that the Government give to all officers, be they court officers or officers of other Departments, specific instructions that they are to lean over backwards in an attempt to find administrative savings as a means of offsetting the additional costs undertaken in connection with this Bill.
Before the Parliamentary Secretary concludes, I want to say that there still seems to remain in respect of this Bill a residue of anxiety as to whether it fully meets the requirements of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. We all know that this is not the first Solicitors Bill. The first Solicitors Act foundered on a constitutional issue raised in the course of disciplinary proceedings. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be most unfortunate if a similar situation arose in connection with this Bill when it becomes an Act. I do not think the same unfortunate consequences would tend to follow from an adverse decision of the Supreme Court, if such were forthcoming, if the President were advised to exercise the constitutional prerogative of referring the Bill to the Supreme Court before giving it final legislative effect by his signature.
I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should ask the Minister and the Government to consider the desirability of that course so that we could be reasonably sure when the Bill is finally enacted that the President's signature could be regarded as definitive and effective and would put an end finally and authoritatively to the dilemma in which the profession at present finds itself in being unable to enforce the disciplinary measures which the profession itself considers necessary for its proper regulation.
I should like to support what Deputy Sweetman has said in regard to the Fund which the profession is undertaking to establish for the protection of any persons who may suffer loss as a result of default on the part of a member of the profession. They are undertaking a substantial burden and I think they are entitled to the appreciation and congratulation of the Oireachtas in assuming that burden for the protection of the people whose funds are entrusted to the care of members of the profession. It would not be right to pay that tribute without calling to mind that the profession requires to be made to provide against the contingency of a microscopic fraction of the whole profession proving unworthy of trust.
It is right to recall that if an individual member of the profession should default, there is much talk and comment about it whereas the day-to-day work of hundreds of members of the profession which proceeds for the protection of their clients is never commented upon and, indeed, is little known by the public at large, but it is desirable to put in correct perspective the necessity for this Fund on an occasion of this kind. It is provided by the vast majority of an honourable profession to provide against the default of the very few who prove unfaithful to their trust. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary, in concluding, would refer to the constitutional consideration to which I have directed his attention.
Let me say at the outset that I am very conscious indeed, and, in the course of the negotiations which have taken place as a background to this Bill, I have been aware at all times of the responsible manner in which the solicitors' profession are facing up to their responsibilities in taking on themselves the fairly onerous obligations which this Bill imposes upon them. I think it redounds very much to the credit of solicitors and very much to the honour of the profession, that, as the Leader of the Opposition has put it, in order to make good the harm done by a small minority of the profession, the majority is prepared to take on this obligation. I have great confidence that the spirit the Council have shown in the negotiations and discussions to date will do much in cleaning up the profession in the interests of solicitors themselves as well as of the general public.
As I have already indicated on the Second Stage, if we in the Department of Justice can do anything to help the solicitors in the administration of their offices, and in their work from day to day, we shall do so. I give the House the assurance that any suggestions of that nature which are put to us will receive most careful consideration, and, if we can help in any way, within the means at our disposal, we shall be very glad to do so.
With regard to the constitutional issue, I should like to repeat that we have done all we can to ensure that this Bill is constitutional. May I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the matter which he is now raising on Section 12 is, I think, something separate and distinct from the point in issue in the Supreme Court decision on the 1954 Act? We have done all we can to ensure that the Bill's provisions are constitutional and we and our advisers are satisfied that they are constitutional. In those circumstances, we do not accept that it is up to us to have this Bill, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, referred to the Supreme Court. It can be referred in a certain way if that is wanted, but we do not intend to take any step. We are as satisfied as we can be that the Bill is constitutional and, in those circumstances, I think it would be wrong for us to adopt the procedure which the Leader of the Opposition suggests.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary is he satisfied that the vast majority of the profession have had prior knowledge of the proposals contained in this Bill which is now about to become law? Is it a fact that only the élite or the alleged élite of the profesion, were brought into the consultations on this matter, and that the vast majority of solicitors were not aware of them and had no opportunity of making themselves familiar with the terms of the Bill?
I could make a very short answer to that by using a word like "nonsense". I prefer to say this: the solicitors' profession is a very well organised one. Vocationally speaking it is probably the best organised profession we have in the country. The Council of the Law Society is democratically elected——
Annually.
——annually, and I have every confidence that the Council fully represent the profession. It would be absolutely wrong of me even to suggest that they do not. I am not entitled to go outside the Council of the Law Society. I have dealt with the Council, and I am satisfied that in doing so I was dealing with those who represent and reflect the wishes of the profession.
Question put and agreed to.