Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 1960

Vol. 184 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Veterinary Surgeons Bill, 1960.—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

On this, I take the opportunity to make a slight criticism. I suggest that where a Bill is circulated which says—

1.—The section set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act is hereby substituted for section 34 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1931.

2.—The section set out in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act is hereby substituted for section 36 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1931.

3.—Each enactment mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act is hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.

4.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1960.

it would not be unreasonable, I think, for the Department concerned to set out what we are deleting. This Bill is not a particularly bad example of that about which I complain because, in fact, you have simply to look at the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1951, and it is all there; and I do not think it would have been a wholly unreasonable burden in this instance to ask people to go back and get just one Act of Parliament and check with it. It does, however, make consideration of these Bills a good deal more onerous if you have to root out ancient statutes to find exactly what the substitution is. A short White Paper setting out the sections proposed to be deleted in conjunction with a Bill setting out the sections proposed to be substituted makes for intelligent consideration and makes that intelligent consideration much easier for all members of Dáil Éireann.

I freely concede that I have at my disposal, as a result of arrangements which were made in the last Finance Act, resources which enable me to get this information. It is also true that I can communicate that information to my colleagues who are interested in the Bill. But I suggest that where we are legislating by reference, it is a great help if a short White Paper is circulated with the Bill describing the deletions we are making in previous legislation and showing for what we are substituting these new provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Mr. Dillon

On Second Stage I directed the attention of the Minister to this Schedule. I now want again to direct his attention to subsection (5) of the First Schedule. Would he tell us what the figure "34" is doing before subsection (1) of Part 1 of the First Schedule? Where does that belong?

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

It is the new section in substitution for——

Mr. Dillon

For Sections 34 and 36 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1931?

Mr. Smith

That is right.

Mr. Dillon

And this is a new Section 34? This is the way we put it in? As a Schedule to this Bill, we put two new sections into the 1931 Bill and this is the new Section 34?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

I would direct the Minister's attention to subsection (5) of the new Section 34 which sets out that the decision of the High Court on an application under this section shall be final. This raises exactly the same problem as was raised in connection with the solicitors' profession. I do not say that Section 12 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill refers exactly to the same issue as was raised in the Supreme Court in regard to the old Solicitors Act which has been declared unconstitutional, but it was in the background of that constitutional litigation that the new Solicitors (Amendment) Bill we have just passed was drafted.

If the Minister will look at Section 12 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill he will there see that in that section. which is described as a section to deal with finality of orders of the High Court, subsection (1) sets out:

Subject to subsection (2) of this section, an order of the High Court under section 8 of this Act, under that section as applied by section 11 of this Act or under section 9 or section 10 of this Act shall be final and not appealable.

That is substantially the effect of subsection (5) of the new Section 34 which it is proposed to insert in the Veterinary Surgeons Bill. But, in the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, we stop there. We simply say that the decision of the High Court on an application of this section shall be final. The Solicitors (Amendment) Bill does not stop there.

After subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, subsection (2) provides:

By leave of the High Court, an appeal, by the Society or the solicitor concerned, from an order of the High Court under section 8 of this Act, under that section as applied by section 11 of this Act or under section 9 or section 10 of this Act shall lie to the Supreme Court on a specified question of law.

I doubt, and I have already expressed my doubt here, whether that is a sufficient protection of the constitutional right of a citizen to access to the Supreme Court. I do not know what views the Supreme Court will take of it but at least it is an attempt to reserve that constitutional right in the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill.

If any veterinary surgeon comes into collision with the new Section 34 which we propose to insert and seeks in the Supreme Court, on constitutional grounds, a right to appeal from a decision of the High Court on an application under Section 34 of the Bill, he will succeed. If he succeeds his success will have the effect of having the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, as enacted by us here, declared unconstitutional, with all the consequential annoyance which that action precipitated in connection with the Solicitors Act.

It has, however, this additional possibility. In regard to the Solicitors Act we were dealing with a purely domestic issue, all parties to which fully understood the constitutional implications and difficulties that our domestic set-up involves. In this Veterinary Surgeons Act, we are dealing with the situation where we have close reciprocal relations with the profession in Great Britain. In Great Britain they have no written constitution and the question of a conflict between legislation and the written constitution does not there arise. It is very important that we here in Ireland should be satisfied that the veterinary profession in Great Britain maintains the same standards that we enforce for our profession here. It is equally important that the veterinary profession in Great Britain should be satisfied that we maintain in Ireland the same high standards that they maintain in Great Britain. It would be most unfortunate if misapprehension were created in Great Britain when the governing body of the profession here sought to enforce disciplinary measures against a member of the profession under this Bill, when enacted, because the Act broke down in the process of enforcement.

Therefore, I suggest that this Bill should be referred to the Supreme Court for review before it is finally enacted so that the possibility I envisage can be effectively avoided. There is no violent urgency about this Bill provided it is in the process of enactment. It would be most unfortunate if it broke down in operation. I recommend to the Minister the cautionary step of having its constitutionality tested before its actual use in the maintenance of ethical standards in the veterinary profession.

Mr. Smith

In consultation with the legal advisers of the Government, I have considered all that was said during the Second Reading on this measure and this particular provision. On coming here on the occasion of the Second Reading debate I was convinced as a layman, and I think I stated so here, that, in the first place, the machinery that was being provided for here sounded very fair. That would not be enough, I admit, because it would have to answer the other requirements to which Deputy Dillon has referred.

I think I said also that, since the Bill was one designed solely to meet and to rectify the position that had arisen as a result of a Supreme Court decision, there could not have been any doubt in the minds of those who were responsible for designing the new machinery as to what was expected. It was a constitutional question. That was what they had on their table and this is what they gave us to remedy the situation.

I therefore felt convinced that we were safe enough. I was equally anxious that what we were, in fact, providing would be adequate to the case because I appreciate, as does the Deputy who has spoken, that it would be very undesirable that there should be any doubt in so far as the human mind and ingenuity could guard against doubt.

Since the discussion in the House on Second Reading, I have had talks with the legal advisers of the Government on this matter. During the course of these discussions I took the line that the Deputy here has taken in order that they would see all the pitfalls as far as I could see them. The general attitude was that they were satisfied that the provision in Section 34 was adequate and safe but at the same time they indicated to me that if I had any special desire to bring this measure into line with the Bill dealing with the solicitors' profession they would have no objection to my taking that course. They knew and I know and, as the Deputy has stated, we all know that the two professions and the two situations are different but, on the other hand, the rights of individuals, no matter to what profession they belong, should be the same. If there is any desire on the part of any member of the House to have this Bill brought into line with the Bill which has just passed dealing with the solicitors' profession I have here—it has not been circulated—the form the amendments should take so as to bring about that situation. If there is a desire that I should do that, that is all right with me.

Deputy Dillon has stated that there is not any great urgency about this matter. I do not agree that that is the case. If I were sure it was unnecessary, I should not like the idea of prolonging the investigations. Deputy Dillon has referred to the reciprocal arrangements. I do not like adding to this measure a provision that could possibly prolong the investigations before the profession here could deal with an alleged offender. However, if it is thought that it might be the best course, I have no objection to taking it.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister propose to submit an amendment?

Mr. Smith

I have here in fact the amendments that, if accepted by the House, would bring this measure into line with the measure which has just been passed dealing with the solicitors' profession.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister want to have the amendments considered now?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

We are on Committee Stage.

Mr. Smith

That is right.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister wants to have them considered now we are quite prepared to discuss them now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it agreed to take the amendments now ?

Agreed.

Mr. Dillon

There are five amendments. Are they all consequential ?

Mr. Smith

Yes. I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 19, to add ", save that, by leave of that Court, an appeal, by the Council or the person concerned, from the decision shall lie to the Supreme Court on a specified question of law" after "shall be final".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, lines 20 and 21, to delete "pursuant to an order of the High Court".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 2, to add ", save that, by leave of that Court, an appeal, by the Council or the person concerned, from the decision shall lie to the Supreme Court on a specified question of law" after "shall be final".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, lines 3 and 4, to delete "pursuant to an order of the High Court".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, to delete in lines 8 and 9 "an order of the High Court under this section directs" and substitute "a direction is given under this section" and to delete in lines 14 and 15 "the direction of the High Court" and substitute "such direction."

Mr. Dillon

On that amendment, I want merely to record a measure of agreement and I think of disagreement between us and the Minister. The Minister and we are agreed that it is desirable on the whole to take the precaution of making the Veterinary Surgeons Bill march with the Solicitors Bill, on the purely constitutional aspect of this question. There is another aspect of the question to which the Minister referred and that is his personal reluctance to see any protraction of proceedings in a disciplinary matter. I want to record my disagreement with the Minister's view there. When a disciplinary body of a profession like this or the solicitors' profession or any other professional body is striking a man's name off the register we in the Oireachtas should not underestimate the gravity of that decision on the individual.

Although that individual may be obscure and insignificant for him it can mean the end of his career and the destruction of his standing in the society to which he belongs. We would be mistaken in this House in saying that his deep concern in such a situation is to be disregarded in order to secure a higher degree of expedition in disposing of the matter. If you propose to wipe out a man professionally, destroy his standing in the community to which he belongs and alter his whole situation in life, no matter who he is he is entitled to the protection of all the institutions of this State which are ordinarily set up to protect the individual against the Executive or any other authority arrayed against him.

Therefore, in principle, I welcome the decision we have taken here now not only on the constitutional grounds which are agreed between us and the Minister but on the sound philosophical principle that the right of the humblest citizen of this State to invoke the protection of the highest court in the land to defend his modest interests against the authority of his profession or of the State itself is something this House should always be solicitous to vindicate and to reinforce. The fact that in this case we have restored to the most insignificant member of the veterinary profession his right to invoke the full majesty of the Supreme Court to protect him against what he may think is an injustice, however mistaken he may be, establishes in my opinion a good precedent. Over and above the protection it provides for the individual members of this profession what we have done this morning will entitle us hereafter to ask: since we have vindicated this right in the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, is it not worth doing it in any other similar Bill that is ever brought before us? For that additional reason, I rejoice in these five amendments that have been adopted by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill".

Mr. Dillon

This is the Schedule which repeals a part of Section 39 which was quoted as a precedent by the Minister for Justice for something he proposed to do in the Solicitors Bill. I hope the authorities of the Departments of Agriculture and Justice will get together some time and find out why, if the Minister for Justice attaches such importance to subsection (3) of Section 39 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1931, the Minister for Agriculture decided to repeal it in this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.