Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Jun 1961

Vol. 190 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Bill, 1959—Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 1 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:

In subsection (1), page 2, line 23, to delete "An Chúirt Uachtarach" and the brackets enclosing the next three words.

If the House is agreeable there are a number of following amendments which might be considered at the same time. The purpose of this is to delete the words "An Chúirt Uachtarach" in the section so that the section, if the House agreed, would read: "...the Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called the Supreme Court, shall stand established." I hope it will be understood that this amendment is not put down with a desire in any way to belittle the Irish language or the language revival movement.

The object of the amendment is to provide some reason and sense in our legislation. We have come into this House under a Constitution which provides that we are entitled to speak either Irish or English and the Constitution provides the right to speak both languages but I do not know that the Constitution provides that we can speak either pidgin English or pidgin Irish. Pidgin English connotes the type of person in some of England's former colonies who knew a bit of English and a bit of the native language and proceeded to converse in a kind of hybrid language, using part of his native tongue and part of some other tongue.

We frequently find legislation being proposed in this House in English, having every important section and point in English and then a genuflection is paid to the Irish language by calling the particular board to be established by some Irish title. That kind of approach to the language has led to absurdity and to jokes which one hears on the stage and elsewhere belittling the language. Here we find, under the proposal in the Bill brought in by the present Minister for Justice, and discussed by his Parliamentary Secretary, that this disease is beginning to spread to the courts. I noticed the other day when the President of Ireland decided to refer legislation from this House, he referred it to the Supreme Court of the country. The announcement was in English and very properly the President referred to the court in accordance with the title by which it is known and respected, the Supreme Court.

The purpose of Deputy McGilligan's amendment is to prevent that court being described as something which it is not. Under this section—if it were passed—it is to be described as "An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court)". I do not know by what authority it can be so described. Our Constitution provides that it shall be called in the Irish language, An Chúirt Uachtarach, and in the English language that it shall be called the Supreme Court.

I am surprised to learn that we arrogate to ourselves in this House the right to change the Constitution. I should have thought that since 1937 we should, at least have learned the lesson that we have no right in the Dáil or in the Oireachtas itself to alter by even a comma what the Constitution provides. I suggest that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary might consider this amendment as being helpful and withdraw the different references to our courts in the Bill except where we are referring to them in the Irish language and then, very properly and appropriately, they should be called by the Irish equivalents. Where we are referring to them, as we are in this Bill, which is being discussed in English, we should call them by the English names. The English name in this context is the Supreme Court and, in relation to the other sections, we should refer to them by the appropriate titles by which they are known.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

I am not in a position to accept this amendment. The decision to include the Irish forms in the Bill was made by the Government after careful consideration. They felt it desirable to emphasise the importance which they attached to the Irish styling in the establishment of courts, pursuant to the Constitution. The House will be aware of the fact that "An Chúirt Uachtarach" is the description used in the Constitution itself——

Mr. McGilligan

Ní hé sin teideal na Cúirte sin.

Mr. Haughey

Sé.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

As Béarla, sé an teideal, "The Supreme Court".

Mr. Haughey

In this Bill we are giving it the title An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court).

Mr. McGilligan

An Chúirt Uachtarach is teideal don Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh, the Court of Final Appeal. I am talking Irish now.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is talking in both languages.

Mr. McGilligan

An Chúirt Uachtarach is teideal don Cúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh. That does not say the Supreme Court.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is using both languages. We regard the Supreme Court as being one of the most fundamental institutions of the State. It is on a par with Dáil Éireann, Seanad Éireann and the Ceann Comhairle. I think that as we are now establishing the Irish courts under the Constitution it is right, appropriate and correct to give them the nomenclature that we are using in the Bill, the Irish form together with the English form in brackets.

Mr. McGilligan

There was a reference made to "Dáil Éireann". Dáil Éireann is described in Article 16 of the Constitution and there is no phrase other than "Dáil Éireann". There is no phrase like "the Irish Parliament". It is "Dáil Éireann" in English and in Irish. The whole of Article 16 relates to that. Then we turn to Article 34 which deals with the courts. Clause 2 says that "The Courts shall comprise Courts of First Instance and a Court of Final Appeal". The Irish for the phrase is "Cúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh". Then one comes to Clause 4 which says in English that "The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court". The Irish version is "An Chúirt Uachtarach is teideal don Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh". and if I found in this Bill instead of "the Court of Final Appeal""An Chúirt Uachtarach in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution..." I would agree. But that is not what is said in the section.

The section says that the Court of Final Appeal in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called "An Chúirt Uachtarach". But Article 34, clause (4) says that the Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court. Why get into this bastardization of two languages and mix up a statement of a court with the English version and give it an Irish title? Let us have both Irish and English. To say that the Court of Final Appeal in accordance with the Constitution is being called this Irish title is not correct. The Article says that the Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court.

Mr. Haughey

I think possibly only the mind of Deputy McGilligan could see any difficulty in what we are doing in subsection (1) of Section 1. It is quite clear in the Constitution that the Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court or An Chúirt Uachtarach.

Mr. McGilligan

No, the Court of Final Appeal is not to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach.

Mr. Haughey

It is the same court. There are not two courts. The whole basis of the constitutional provision is that this one court is to have two names, the Supreme Court and An Chúirt Uachtarach, the Court of Final Appeal or, in the Irish——

Mr. McGilligan

Is this in the Irish language?

Mr. Haughey

It is obvious that it is in English. However, I am not going to be cross-examined. The position is quite simple and clear and I am sure it will be clear to every reasonable member that the Constitution envisages one Court of Final Appeal which shall be called, in English, the Supreme Court and, in Irish, An Chúirt Uachtarach and that is exactly what we are providing. For the first time, we are establishing a Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution of 1937 and giving the Irish name with the English equivalent. That is what we decided to do and that is what we are doing.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Parliamentary Secretary surprises me. Perhaps he uses the words inadroitly but it is quite wrong to say that we are for the first time——

Mr. Haughey

In accordance with the Constitution.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We have enjoyed a Supreme Court for the last 40 years and thank God we did. That court has established respect for the Constitution and for law and order.

Mr. Haughey

Please do not misquote me. I said "for the first time, in accordance with the Constitution."

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Very well; I shall accept that. But we are not. In fact, the Constitution lays it down in words that are crystal clear that the Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court. That is in English. It does not say anything else, it does not say An Chúirt Uachtarach, in brackets, the Supreme Court, shall be called the Supreme Court.

Mr. Haughey

That is in the Bill.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is not.

Mr. Haughey

The words in brackets.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Section 1 provides that "On the commencement of this Act, the Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court), shall stand established." That is in the teeth of what is laid down in the Constitution in the English version. If one turns to the Irish version, it provides that "An Chúirt Uachtarach is teideal don Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh." That is specifically and expressly stated. In defiance of both the English and Irish versions in the Constitution, there is a provision that an entirely different form of court shall be established and that is "An Chúirt Uachtarach" and in brackets "The Supreme Court".

Mr. Haughey

Everything the Deputy says would make sense if there were two courts but there is only one court.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

This is not the title of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution. We cannot change that. It is very wise to learn by experience and much wiser to conform now to the Constitutional provision without having a lot of trouble later on. Certainly I recommend the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at that section.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to argue this point again. May I read the Constitution——

Mr. Haughey

Can we not take the Constitution as read? It was quoted two or three times.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary has not read it.

Mr. McGilligan

Article 34, clause (4), says: "The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court." I have a piece of legislation offered to me that says that "on the commencement of this Act the Court of Final Appeal, shall in pursuance of Article 34, be called An Chúirt Uachtarach". That is not so. That is a falsehood. In Article 34, the Supreme Court is not to be called "An Chúirt Uachtarach" but the Constitution says in the Irish version "An Chúirt Uachtarach is teideal don Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh", and if this piece of legislation said that An Chúirt Uachtarach in pursuance of the Constitution is to be called the Supreme Court, I would have no objection.

Mr. Haughey

This is word-spinning nonsense.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a very Olympian attitude to take up. I did not know the Parliamentary Secretary had constitutional status yet.

Mr. Haughey

I took lectures from your good self.

Mr. McGilligan

From my predecessor, and if he were alive——

Mr. Haughey

From you.

Mr. McGilligan

I am afraid I was a very lax examiner. Anyhow, I was not examining you on this sort of Irish matter.

The Court of Final Appeal according to the Constitution shall be called the Supreme Court. I do not mind the Government saying that the title in the Irish version shall be "An Chúirt Uachtarach" but I do mind when I get a piece of legislation presented in English which, as I say, utters a falsehood immediately and says that the Court of Final Appeal in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution shall be called An Chúirt Uachtarach. That is not so. The Constitution says the title of the Court of Final Appeal is to be the Supreme Court. That is my point.

Mr. Haughey

Let me repeat. We, as I say, feel it important especially in regard to Irish courts set up in accordance with the Constitution to emphasise the Irish form of the names of the courts. There is only one Court of Final Appeal; The Constitution visualises only one, but it has two names.

Mr. McGilligan

It has not.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy McGilligan is falling into an essentially simple error. Because the Constitution speaks, on the one hand, of the Court of Final Appeal, and on the other, of An Chúirt Uachtarach, he thinks they are two different courts.

Mr. McGilligan

No; they are the same court.

Mr. Haughey

They are the same court.

Mr. McGilligan

There are two titles.

Mr. Haughey

Yes, there are two titles. We are incorporating that very concept in subsection (1).

Mr. McGilligan

And putting in the wrong title.

Mr. Haughey

We are speaking of the Court of Final Appeal and giving its Irish name and the English equivalent. It is as simple as that and all the Machiavellian constitutional legalities of Deputy McGilligan will not make it complicated for me, anyway.

Mr. Dillon

That is a very foolish interpolation. I heard that kind of talk in this House before. I remember a Parliamentary Secretary sitting behind where the Parliamentary Secretary is sitting who when confronted with what the then Taoiseach described as Deputy McGilligan's legalisms, said: "Let's get rid of the old jossers." That was the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, then functioning as Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, I think, and his reaction to legalistic word-spinning was: "Let's get rid of the old jossers."

Mr. Haughey

I have not said anything.

Mr. Dillon

Not at all. Mind you, the words in the Constitution are there. Do not let us forget that this Government on three separate occasions found themselves in a dilemma in their efforts to drive a coach and four through the Constitution which ended up in grave public inconvenience and, on occasion, in substantial financial loss. One of the advantages of having a Constitution is that it is a rigid instrument. That also involves disadvantages and we can all see that.

Recently, I had occasion to hear this matter discussed in exalted places and I heard the view expressed that there must be the presumption that Deputies in Dáil Éireann in enacting laws had the letter and the spirit of the Constitution present to their minds. I availed of that exalted company to say that that was a very considerable presumption. That was the view expressed, that there must be the presumption that there was present to our minds when enacting laws not only the letter but the spirit of the Constitution.

It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to turn hopefully to Deputy P. J. Burke and call him to witness the argumentation on the meaning of the Constitution and the legalistic word-spinning. I am sure Deputy Burke was straining in his waistcoat to say "hear, hear," but the Supreme Court will not take much stock of the Parliamentary Secretary's appeal to Deputy P. J. Burke.

Our job in these Opposition Benches is to bring to the consideration of legislation of this kind the best and most informed criticism we can provide. I dare to say that the contribution we are in a position to make from these benches on this topic is unique, and should not be lightly disregarded even by the Parliamentary Secretary, whose Minister commends him as a man of legal training and the obvious choice of a future Taoiseach for Ministerial office.

Mr. Haughey

I had the advantage of lectures on constitutional law from Deputy McGilligan in his day.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy McGilligan answered, a little tartly, I think, that he must have been a lax examiner. I rather prefer to say he was an indulgent professor.

Mr. Haughey

He was not bad.

Mr. Dillon

Giving lectures is one thing and absorbing them is quite another. I do not want to swap discourtesies with the Parliamentary Secretary. He has his job to do but he should be careful before he describes informed criticism on legislation of this kind as legal word-spinning. That kind of thing provokes rejoinder and makes his position difficult. We all accept that he comes in here well briefed and perfectly advised and we do not expect him to make obeisance to every representation made. It is perfectly natural that he should defend the advice he has been given. He has to make his case which I personally think has no constitutional authority.

There is force in the whole case which falls to be made on the general tenor of this Bill. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is misdirecting himself in thinking it expedient or desirable that we should by implication in this Bill reverse the accepted practice in this State which is to accord to both languages a strict equality. There is no obligation on anyone who speaks in this House in Irish to provide an English translation of what he says, and there is no obligation on anyone who speaks in English to provide an Irish translation. Either may be freely used. I think the Ceann Comhairle would flinch in spirit if we stood forward and uttered a sentence in Irish, translated it into English, uttered another sentence in Irish and translated it into English, and proceeded on those lines. I think he would charge us with repetition if we advanced that idea. We have just passed an Act of Parliament where every word in substance is written in one language and translated into another. I presume it is the Parliamentary Secretary's intention that this legislation will be translated into Irish. Will the Irish version read "An Chúirt Uachtarach", or whatever it is called, with "The Supreme Court" in brackets? Is that the intention?

Mr. Haughey

It is not for me to decide.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, but I think it is.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Deputy mean that he wants me to decide what form the Irish version of this Act will take?

Mr. Dillon

Of course.

Mr. Haughey

I am not the official translator.

Mr. Dillon

But we are the official enactors. The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is proposed to follow a theme in this Bill of providing an Irish title in the English version with "The Supreme Court" in brackets, even through the legislation is in English. The Parliamentary Secretary says we are trying to give an Irish flavour to the Bill.

Mr. Haughey

To emphasise it.

Mr. Dillon

We point to the Constitution which gives strict equality to the two languages in legislative procedure. We are trying to make him realise that he is making our legislative procedure ludicrous. It is this kind of half-cocked fraud which is bringing the whole Irish language movement into contemptuous reproach, the implication being that unless we are commanded by statute to speak Irish, we will not speak it. Why should it be necessary to prop up the Irish language with this degrading wooden leg which is provided by these parenthese in this Bill? Why do we think it necessary to protest that in every definition paragraph everybody must record the fact that there is an Irish language, too? If the Parliamentary Secretary was so passionately anxious as to achieve his purpose, why did he not bring in the Bill in Irish?

Mr. Haughey

Standing Orders take care of that. There will be an Irish version.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not legitimate, a Cheann Comhairle, to bring in a Bill in Irish?

Mr. Haughey

I am being considerate of the Opposition.

Mr. McGilligan

The Parliamentary Secretary is considering himself.

Mr. Dillon

The Parliamentary Secretary speaks good schoolbook Irish.

Mr. Haughey

Donnycarney Irish.

Mr. Dillon

He speaks schoolbook Irish, the same as we all speak and he is fluent. I think he must see himself that if there were a genuine desire to give emphasis to the Irish character of the legislation implementing the establishment of the courts, he could make a case for bringing in the originating instrument in Irish and enacting it in Irish. He did not do that. I could understand his doing that and then saying in the English version that the name of the Supreme Court will be reproduced in the terms employed in the Constitution.

But the procedure here is wrong, according to the Constitution which, after all, is important, but it is also wrong, in my respectful submission, from the point of view of our whole approach to the language. I think the whole procedure is misconceived. I think there is inherent in it the nature that if you depart in a matter of this kind from the letter of the Constitution, it opens a crack.

Some people may say that I am getting very anxious about the sanctity of the Constitution. I am a pragmatist. I do not believe in chewing over old battles as to whether this is a good Constitution or a bad Constitution. There I leave it. It is now the fundamental law. We have a procedure for amending it, if we want to. Such as it is, there it is. We ought so to conduct ourselves, and I quote the highest authority and if the Parliamentary Secretary wants further verification, let me refer him to the Leader of his own Party, the Taoiseach, as to legislate in this House with due regard to the letter and spirit of that document.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary cannot challenge the proposition that the section here does not correspond to the letter of the Constitution. Quite apart from the very form on matters relating to constitutional law in this country, there is the very highest judicial opinion to support my view. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would be wise to yield to Deputy McGilligan, in the knowledge that he is far from being alone in warning the Parliamentary Secretary that the letter of the Constitution is something to which this Legislature must have regard and that there are means available to evoke the courts.

Mr. Manley

I know nothing whatever about the law or the courts. I am interested in this matter just for the sake of accuracy. The literal meaning of the word "uachtarach" is "upper". Can one reconcile the words "uachtarach" and "supreme" as meaning one and the same thing? I doubt it. I think what Deputy McGilligan says, an Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh, would be the proper title because the other could be misleading except when taken in conjunction with the High Court. If you are going to take it in conjunction with the three others, I think it should be an Chúirt is Uachtaraí. That is the only point I wish to make. "Uachtarach" does not express the meaning intended.

Mr. Haughey

That is in the Constitution.

Mr. Manley

Everything in the Constitution is not sacrosanct.

Mr. Haughey

The air of sweet reasonableness adopted by the Leader of the Opposition captivates me and makes me very amenable to what he has to say. I think, however, that he might be disposed to agree that Deputy McGilligan in supporting his amendment was not beyond trying to force me, as it were, into a corner of argument and did not hesitate to use any trick of debate to get his point of view over, so that if I were to tend to reply somewhat in kind, I do not think he need take it too badly.

The Government are not attempting to abandon the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Indeed, the case is exactly the opposite. They are fully conscious of the fact that the Constitution envisages Irish titles and English titles for the courts. It is clearly stipulated in the Constitution that the Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court, on the one hand, and An Chúirt Uachtarach, on the other. It is because the Constitution in the letter and in the spirit envisages dual nomenclature that we have this form in subsection (1).

We feel we are perfectly in accord with both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution in what we are doing. If we can accept that, then the only other thing that follows is to ask whether it is desirable to do it? The Government in this have been influenced by the fact that they want to put an emphasis on the Irish titles of our Irish courts. We are acting in accordance with the provisions of our own Constitution enacted by the Irish people. The Constitution envisaged Irish courts and in setting up and establishing those courts for the first time, we want to put an emphasis on the Irish aspect of our titles. The Constitution gives any one of the courts two names—an English name and an Irish name.

Mr. McGilligan

It does not, of course.

Mr. Haughey

It does not give them two names?

Mr. McGilligan

It gives one name and a translation.

Mr. Haughey

That is a subtle difference.

Mr. McGilligan

No, it is not. Look at the Article about the Taoiseach.

Mr. Haughey

It is a subtle difference. It escapes me.

Mr. McGilligan

I am sorry for that.

Mr. Haughey

If a name and a translation of that name are not two names——

Mr. Dillon

I think the Parliamentary Secretary is walking into a trap he need not fall into. There is an instance in the Constitution where the very thing the Parliamentary Secretary denies is possible is adopted. If he will look at Article 28 (5) (i), the Constitution says:

The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in this Constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach.

It does not say:

The Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, is the head of the Government.

It says:

The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in this Constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach.

Mr. Haughey

That is exactly the point. We are not legislating in pursuance of that Article but of Article 34.

Mr. McGilligan

It says:

The Courts shall comprise Courts of First Instance and a Court of Final Appeal.

It also says:

The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court.

Mr. Dillon

In the corresponding Article, it does not say "the Supreme Court". The Article I am referring to says:

The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in this Constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach.

The parallel piece of legislation would be to say "The Supreme Court, or the Court of Final Appeal, shall be called An Chúirt Uachtarach." Then I would understand the Parliamentary Secretary's introducing legislation referring, in the English text, to "An Chúirt Uachtarach" just as, when speaking in this House or outside it, we do not refer to the Taoiseach as "the Prime Minister." We call him "the Taoiseach," because it is laid down in the Constitution that the Prime Minister shall be called the Taoiseach. That is quite all right, if that is constitutional practice.

Exactly the opposite practice is chosen in the other article—34 (4). I cannot see how the Parliamentary Secretary can escape from that parallel. We are charged as legislators to correspond to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. We have an example of a circumstance in which the Constitution directs us to call the Prime Minister "the Taoiseach" and to state categorically throughout the Constitution that the Prime Minister shall be described as "the Taoiseach," and is thereafter referred to as the Taoiseach. However, Article 34 (4) goes out of its way to speak of "the Supreme Court" but, on the opposite page, you find:

An Chúirt Uachtarach is teideal don Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh.

It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying, despite the Constitution, to adopt a course for which there is no constitutional basis and is doing it in the light of the clear inference that when the Constitution was drafted and enacted, it was present to the minds of those who drafted and enacted it that in certain circumstances they would direct that an Irish word would be used even in an English context to describe an officer or institution of the State. I think that is an inescapable situation.

Mr. Haughey

There is no comparison between Article 28 and Article 34 in this regard. If we were legislating here in pursuance of Article 28 (4), we would simply have to provide for the person under Article 38 (5) to be called the Taoiseach because Article 28 (5) clearly lays down, and the Irish version confirms it, that he is not to have an English title. He is just to be "Taoiseach" in English and Irish. There is no translation.

That is a completely different situation from Article 34 which clearly lays down that this Court of Final Appeal will have two names, an English name and an Irish name. That is what we have written in subsection (1). We say it is to be called "An Chúirt Uachtarach (the Supreme Court)"— the English title and the Irish title.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to put these in contrast. Article 28 (5) says:

The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in this Constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach.

"The Taoiseach"—and that is the title he has in the English version. When it comes to Article 34, the English version is "The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court" and the Irish for that is "An Chúirt Uachtarach is teideal don Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh." But we are not speaking of "An Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh." We are speaking of "the Court of Final Appeal" and the Constitution says in English that that shall be called "the Supreme Court." Article 28 says—I am speaking of the English version:

The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in this Constitution referred to as, The Taoiseach.

That is entirely different. In order to put the two in equality, one would have to have here "The Court of Final Appeal shall be called An Chúirt Uachtarach." That is not in the Constitution. The Parliamentary Secretary has been referred to as a legal expert in his own right.

Mr. Haughey

Never by me.

Mr. McGilligan

By the Parliamentary Secretary's supporter, the Minister for Justice. I am not saying it is not true. I want to find out why it is true—because he passed an examination. According to that examination, under the Legal Practitioners Act, an Act passed in 1928——

Mr. Haughey

Is that why the Deputy is practising?

An Ceann Comhairle

How is this relevant?

Mr. McGilligan

Under that Act, every person, to pass that examination for practice in this country, must be qualified to take instructions, examine witnesses and conduct proceedings in Irish. The Parliamentary Secretary passed with that qualification. It is amazing to me that I have had, I suppose on an average, six or seven Africans in my class over at least 15 years. Not one of them has failed to pass the Legal Practitioners Act with qualifications. The Parliamentary Secretary has them. Will he say to me in three Irish sentences the argument for his statement on this Bill —three Irish sentences?

Mr. Haughey

I think I will do better. I will use Deputy McGilligan's own petard on which to hoist him. If I am falling into error here, I think there is an excuse for me. I have in my hand the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) Act, 1922 —the original 1922 Constitution. Article 64 of that Constitution reads as follows:

The judicial power of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) shall be exercised and justice administered in the public Courts established by the Oireachtas by judges appointed in manner hereinafter provided. These Courts shall comprise Courts of First Instance and a Court of Final Appeal to be called the Supreme Court...

Not a word about the Irish version of "The Supreme Court".

Mr. McGilligan

The which? Would the Parliamentary Secretary turn over to the Irish version?

Mr. Haughey

"These Courts shall comprise Courts of First Instance and a Court of Final Appeal to be called the Supreme Court." Right in pursuance of that Article, we have here the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. No doubt Deputy McGilligan will recall it. I am quite certain he had a very considerable hand in framing and passing it. Will Deputy McGilligan agree to that?

Mr. McGilligan

I was not in the Dáil at the time.

Mr. Haughey

I have no doubt you were advising on it.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not think I was in Ireland at the time. Certainly, I was not in the Dáil.

Mr. Haughey

In any event, your colleagues were.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest that Deputies should drop the second person and address the Chair.

Mr. Haughey

In the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, Part 1, Section 5 we find the following:

A Supreme Court of Justice (Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach) shall be constituted under this Act to be the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State...

We have the Constitution specifically stating in Article 64 that the Court of Final Appeal is to be called the Supreme Court. Nevertheless the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 says: "A Supreme Court of Justice (Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach)——"

Mr. McGilligan

Yes. Supreme Court of Justice.

Mr. Haughey

It is exactly as is being done in this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Surely not. It is the other way around.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, the other way around.

Mr. Haughey

There is the use of the two titles.

Mr. Dillon

One is a translation of the other but the English title is given in the English version.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy cannot wriggle out of it. It is exactly the same procedure. Despite the fact that Article 64 of the 1922 Constitution merely says it shall be called the Supreme Court, we have written into the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, "Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach", the Irish title written into the Act. If it is wrong now it was wrong then but the simple fact is that it was neither wrong then nor is it wrong now.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is misleading himself. I do not blame him for struggling valiantly to escape the error into which he is falling. In regard to the provisions: "A High Court of Justice (An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais) shall be constituted under this Act,""A Supreme Court of Justice (Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach shall be constituted under this Act" and "The Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court) shall stand established"—unless we have all gone daft or unless our minds have ceased to function no rational man can say: "An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court)" is the same thing as "The Supreme Court of Justice (Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach)." The two things are fundamentally different. One idea is to inject into the statutory instrument a title which does not exist in the corresponding paragraph of the Constitution. The other is to put in what is in the Constitution and then to make the gesture of translating it thereafter. It does not matter what you put in by way of translation so long as the language of the Constitution is being reproduced. Does the Parliamentary Secretary see no difference between elaborating the language of the Constitution and substituting for the language of the Constitution?

Mr. Haughey

The parallel is exactly the same. The argument being put to me here is because the Constitution in the English version says "Supreme Court" I am wrong to put the Irish version into the section.

Mr. Dillon

Not to put it in as the operative words.

Mr. Haughey

In reply to that argument I am saying that the 1922 Constitution, English version, simply states it shall be called the Supreme Court. Despite that in the 1924 Courts of Justice Act there is clearly a dual nomenclature.

Mr. Dillon

But it does not call it by anything other than the Supreme Court.

Mr. Haughey

It does. It says "A Supreme Court of Justice (Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach) shall be constituted under this Act——"

Mr. Dillon

Are these the operative words? Suppose it read: "A Supreme Court of Justice shall be constituted under this Act to be the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State." If you stop there——

Mr. Haughey

But you do not stop there.

Mr. Dillon

Is there any flaw if you do stop there? The operative words are intact.

Mr. Haughey

The operative words are here too.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose you put in this Bill a provision that the Court of Final Appeal is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach and I take up the Constitution and see the Court of Final Appeal is to be called the Supreme Court——

Mr. Haughey

Deputy McGilligan's only complaint which is crystallised in his amendment is that he wants to take out the words "An Chúirt Uachtarach." That is his only ground for complaint. These Irish words are in the 1924 Courts of Justice Act. Why did he not take them out of that?

Mr. Dillon

I will keep my patience, though it tax my soul. It is fascinating the way Fianna Fáil—and the Parliamentary Secretary acquired this habit pretty late in his life; he has wonderful powers of absorption—can dance from one leg to the other when under pressure. Anything that is done under the original Constitution and the legislation dependent therefrom is sacrosanct in the eyes of the Parliamentary Secretary. If it was done then it must be right now. That is one line of argument. The next line of argument is: "Ah! everything began with the 1937 Constitution." When the Constitution was being discussed, I said it was cod very largely. Most of it was derived from the old Constitution; then all the trimmings and furbelows were put on to make it sound pious because, as we remember, Machiavelli enjoined that the politician should always appear pious and good.

By whatever fraud that pious and good instrument was sold to the people, there it is now and in our judgement, when you have to have a Constitution, you ought to abide by it and if you ask us why, our answer is because too-frequent invocation of the powers of the Supreme Court to negative legislation of this House is undesirable. The Government are gravely answerable if they push themselves into a position of having legislation sponsored in this Parliament overturned in the Supreme Court too frequently. Therefore, for that reason, if you have a Constitution, acknowledge the inconvenience or the restrictions it puts upon you, acknowledge that sometimes legislation which you would like to have you cannot have because of the Constitution. That is one of its inconveniences.

On the other hand, its very inflexibility has its blessings as we saw in the Sinn Féin funds case. There the Government rolled legislation through this House over violent and indignant protests. They then came up against the High Court and the Supreme Court and were obliged to come back and reverse engines. Therefore, when you meet inconvenience it is well to recall the blessing of a rigid Constitution.

These departures from the letter of the Constitution are departures of no fundamental importance. This is the last intervention I shall make. They are open to these two objections. First they are an infringement of the Constitution, which is important and, second, for quite another reason, they are an effort to cash-in by a political Party, the Fianna Fáil Party, on the Irish language and to pretend they are so solicitous for its welfare that they never miss a chance of plastering it up somewhere.

I want to say that this whole attitude is grossly offensive. The Irish language does not require wooden legs of that kind. The Irish language is not a two-legged stool; it can stand on its own bottom without being dragged like a tin can at the tail of every piece of legislation brought into this House. There is neither dignity nor prudence to be associated with this legislative warning that you must begin every letter with "A Chara" and end it with "Mise le meas mór"; that the less Irish you know, the more important it is to begin every public speech with "A Chairde Gael" and that, whenever you get a chance of translating a phrase in an Act of Parliament just before a general election, you must wrap the Craobh na gCúig gCuigí around it and say: "Now, hit me with the baby in my arms." There is neither decency nor dignity in the figure of the Parliamentary Secretary treating the Irish language as the baby in his arms as he squares off to the constituents of North-East Dublin. He ought to be able to get a quota there without any baby in his arms, but, if he requires a baby behind which to shelter, in ainm Dé, let it not be ár dteanga féin.

Mr. McGilligan

Article 34 of the Constitution says: "The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court." Look at the Bill.

Mr. Haughey

So did Article 64 of the 1922 Constitution.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there anything there that the court "shall be called"? There is not.

Mr. Haughey

There is, of course.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there a phrase in it which says: "The Court shall be called"?

Mr. Haughey

"These courts shall comprise Courts of First Instance and a Court of Final Appeal to be called the Supreme Court."

Mr. McGilligan

Where is that broken? The court was called the Supreme Court and an Irish translation was appended. I find here a simple phrase: "The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court." I turn to the Bill and find:

On the commencement of this Act, the Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach....

That is a falsehood.

Mr. Haughey

Read on.

Mr. McGilligan

The Constitution does not say "It shall be called the Supreme Court (An Chúirt Uachtarach)". It says: "Shall be called the Supreme Court." The piece of legislation says:

On the commencement of this Act, the Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach....

It is not. That is simply a falsehood. It is a misinterpretation of what the Constitution says. The Constitution says "shall be called the Supreme Court." Put any translation you like on it afterwards, that is what the Article says: "The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court." The legislation says:

On the commencement of this Act, the Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach....

It is not. It just simply is not. If people pass that, they are passing an obvious falsehood.

I would not mind if the Parliamentary Secretary would go completely Gaelic and bring in legislation, even partly in English, by saying: "On the Commencement of this Act An Chúirt Athchomhaire Dheiridh shall be called An Chúirt Uachtarach." But in view of the Article which says it "shall be called the Supreme Court," why say in pursuance of that Article that the Court of Final Appeal shall be called An Chúirt Uachtarach?

Mr. Haughey

Supreme Court is in brackets.

Mr. McGilligan

Why put it in brackets? Why put in An Chúirt Uachtarach at all? It is not to be called that.

Mr. Haughey

It is. The Irish version says the title of An Chúirt Athchomhairc Dheiridh is to be An Chúirt Uachtarach.

Mr. McGilligan

I am not bothering my head about that at all.

Mr. Haughey

But I am.

Mr. McGilligan

We are passing a piece of legislation which says in English that we are establishing a Court of Final Appeal. We say it is to be called, in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution, An Chúirt Uachtarach. I say it is not.

Mr. Haughey

How many courts are we establishing?

Mr. McGilligan

In this case the Court of Final Appeal.

Mr. Haughey

One court.

Mr. McGilligan

The Constitution says: "It shall be called." It is not a question of how many courts we are establishing.

Mr. Haughey

The English version says "The Supreme Court." The Irish version says "An Chúirt Uachtarach."

Mr. McGilligan

No; the Irish version says "An Chúirt Athchomhaire Dheiridh."

Mr. Haughey

It is the same court.

Mr. McGilligan

It is the same court, but it is not the same title. Why say in a piece of legislation that you are establishing the Court of Final Appeal and that in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution it is called An Chúirt Uachtarach? It is not. Article 34 of the Constitution says: "The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court." This is a falsehood. We are deliberately pursuing a lie.

Mr. Haughey

I just want to say finally that this is not a falsehood, not a lie or anything of that nature. Deputy Dillon asked us to comply with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. That is precisely what we are doing. Deputy McGilligan is, I think, endeavouring to persuade the House that, because we have an English version and an Irish version of the Constitution, we have two different courts. He is trying to tell us that An Chúirt Athchomhaire Dheiridh is a different thing from the Court of Final Appeal. It is not; it is the same. The Constitution, taken in its entirety with the English and Irish versions, finishes up with the end product of one court with two different names or a name and a translation: the Supreme Court and An Chúirt Uachtarach. That is exactly what we have put into our Bill—one Court of Final Appeal as envisaged by the Constitution, and further, as envisaged by the Constitution, an Irish and English name. We have written them down in black and white into the Bill.

Mr. McGilligan

The Constitution says it "shall be called the Supreme Court."

Question put: "That the words in brackets proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 13

Tá.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Collins, James J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Loughman, Frank.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán.
• Ormonde, John.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Teehan, Patrick.

Níl.

• Byrne, Tom.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Dillon, James M.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Rooney, Eamonn.

Tellers:- Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O.J. Flanagan and T. Lynch.

Question declared carried.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (2) (a), page 2, lines 27 and 28, to delete "An Príomh-Bhreitheamh" and the brackets enclosing the next three words.

If the amendment is accepted the phrase will read:

The Supreme Court shall be constituted of the following judges—

(a) the president thereof, namely, the Chief Justice.

I turn again to Article 34.4.2:

The President of the Supreme Court shall be called the Chief Justice.

I want to restore the Constitutional title.

Mr. Haughey

The principle is exactly the same as that involved in the first amendment and all the arguments which I have put forward in favour of the Bill as it stands in relation to subsection (1) apply also in relation to paragraph (a) of subsection (2). I do not think I need delay the House by travelling over exactly the same ground.

Mr. Dillon

It seems to me the Parliamentary Secretary does not see the distinction. There is a precedent for the matter with which we are now dealing. There are various officers of State to whom the Constitution refers. One is the head of the Judiciary. Another is the head of the Government. In Article 28.5.1. the Constitution says:

The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in this Constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach.

Whether you agree with that or whether you disagree with it, these are the terms of the Constitution and it would be perfectly proper in any legislation tendered by the Government, this Government or any other Government, that they would abide by that injunction of the Constitution.

Article 34. 4, subparagraph 2, says:

The president of the Supreme Court shall be called the Chief Justice.

Surely if we are to have any respect for this document we must read it in its own context.

We know that the drafters of the Constitution when submitting it to the people for its approval consciously said that in respect of the head of the Government, commonly known as the Prime Minister, he shall be called the Taoiseach and, signs on it, when we address the Taoiseach in this House, when we meet him socially, when we refer to him in the ordinary course of conversation in this country we always say, "This is the Taoiseach," always speak to him as "Taoiseach" when we address him. Frequently we are asked, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has been asked, "What is that word you have used addressing the Prime Minister" and we explain that in Ireland we call the Prime Minister the Taoiseach.

Does anybody in this House when he addresses the Chief Justice in English or when he meets him socially and speaks to him in English or when he introduces him or presents somebody to him say, "This is the Priomh-Bhreitheamh?" We do not, because the Constitution has laid down that the President of the Supreme Court shall be called the Chief Justice. He is addressed in court by the customary title—I emphasise the word customary title—laid down by the custom of the courts but he is addressed on all other occasions as "Chief Justice," he is spoken of as "Chief Justice" and familiarity may carry one to "C. J." but no one is going to say: "Good morning P.B."

Mr. Haughey

"Chief".

Mr. Dillon

Oh, that is reserved. This is blasphemy. I see Deputy Davern shivering like an aspen at this blasphemy. Are we not all agreed that no degree of familiarity would suggest to any sane person in this country to meet the Chief Justice and say "Good morning P.B.?" But, remember, if this piece of legislation is to stand, that is the appropriate address. Can nobody see, quite apart from the argument based upon the sacrosanct character of the text of the Constitution, the fatuity and the humiliation that any rational and reputable person must feel at this prostitution of the Irish language? Can no one share with me my contemptuous indignation for a political Party that is prepared to drag the language through the gutters of political expediency as this Party attempts to do?

Mr. Haughey

Does the Deputy really think there is a vote in this for anybody?

Mr. Dillon

I think you are kind of hopeful. In fact, I know quite well you hope.

Mr. Haughey

To get votes out of this?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, of course you hope, and that is what disgusts me. Your whole desire is to drag the language through the gutter of political expediency.

Mr. Haughey

We will win in a canter this time. We will not need things like this.

Mr. Dillon

Whistling by a graveyard gate is a common practice on which I have no desire to comment in the context of this legislation.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They probably said the same thing at the time of the referendum.

Mr. Dillon

Who would blame them? Is there not a popular song about that? Was there not a lady who was going to Siam, who sang a song in the hope of deceiving the public and discovered in the process she was deceived herself? Leaving all that aside, is not there something disreputable in this whole thing, which is so unnecessary and which is so degrading, not only to the language, but to ourselves? It is this kind of thing that is making the language hated by so many of our people—the effort to force it down our throats. It is that kind of thing which takes all joy and self-satisfaction from a person who uses the language and who would, speaking in Irish, triumphantly address the Chief Justice as "a Phriomh Bhreitheamh," feeling it was a dignified, appropriate and proper thing to do.

Is there anyone who doubts that hereafter these words will become associated in our minds with a sort of racket, a desire to make capital? That is the part of this proposal that revolts me but, strictly as a legislator, how does the Parliamentary Secretary claim to reconcile this legislation with the Constitution? Article 28, subsection (5), paragraph (i) says:

The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in this Constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach.

And Article 34, subsection 4, paragraph 2 says:

The president of the Supreme Court shall be called the Chief Justice.

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that, certainly in respect of this matter, there is a departure from the context of the Constitution itself? If he does, will he not agree with me that is a procedure that should not be lightly undertaken? Surely this procedure is lightly undertaken for a wholly unworthy reason, a material departure from the context of the Constitution. That being so, will he not even now realise that by every argument based upon Constitutional observance and decency in the matter, we should respect the accepted doctrine that has now been in universal practice, that the two languages should be treated on the basis of strict equality and proclaim by our legislation that the Irish language requires no fatuous and fortuitous assistance of the kind which it is attempted ineptly to give it by this proposed section of this Bill?

Mr. Ryan

If any test were to be made to decide whether there was any merit in this, it would be found in an examination of the consequences of making it compulsory in 1929 for all law students to pass a test in Irish before practising in the Courts. The effect of that has been to ridicule the Irish language among the legal profession because while there is nobody since then who has qualified, either at the Bar or in the solicitors profession, who does not hold a certificate of competency to carry out the duties of his profession through the medium of Irish—members of the solicitors profession must attain 75 per cent. in the examination before they can hold a certificate that they are competent to practise in Irish—not .005 of the profession would be able to do it.

The reason is that something that should be cherished and respected in the legal profession is regarded as a joke. In fact, if a student gets 30 per cent., or 25 per cent. on a second or third attempt or even, in one branch of the profession, if he sits or if he attends a grind given by the examiners, he will pass if all he can do is write his name in Irish. Now we have an extension of this utter and complete farce, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows it to be, to the courts.

I have discussed this matter with many members of the profession, many of whom are proficient in Irish and use it outside the courts, and I have not been able to find one person who has found there is any merit whatever in the provision that is being enshrined in this Bill. If we admit this, I believe we may yet find ourselves refusing medical assistance to persons who do not address a doctor as "a dhoctúir". Or we will have some Minister like the Minister for Health refusing to reply to correspondence unless it begins with "A Aire".

Mr. Haughey

Is the Deputy sure he is talking on the right section?

Mr. Ryan

I am talking on the right section. This is merely an extension of the farce, fraud and make-believe of this disgusting attitude which is only building up disrespect for something for which we should have respect.

We are being asked to put a section in the Bill making it mandatory to address certain judges of the court in a particular manner. There is no point in doing this, it occurs to me, unless there is a sanction involved. I wonder where the sanction is involved? The purpose of the amendment is to leave things as they are. It is quite open to any person at the moment to address the court in Irish or to be heard in Irish and if the Irish movement had not been debased, demoralised and dragged into the gutter by a Party that endeavours to wrap the green flag around it for the good it imagines it can get as a consequence, then we would have people using Irish freely.

The Parliamentary Secretary, seeing that he has so little else to do, might be well occupied in going to the courts to ascertain the number of summonses, civil bills or civil processes issued through the medium of Irish. I think he would be a very dusty man before he comes across one of them except, perhaps, in the Gaeltacht areas. Knowing all that, we are now going to make it mandatory for people to address the court in a particular manner. It occurs to me that it is all so much hot air because practitioners in the court can choose to ignore it.

Mr. Haughey

Read the section you are talking about.

Mr. Ryan

Deputies who have regard to procedure here and in the courts know that they should address their remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Haughey

Read the section.

Mr. Ryan

We now have a complete explanation for it all——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is getting away from the section.

Mr. Ryan

The Parliamentary Secretary does not know the rules of procedure and has no respect for them and he is telling other people how they should address officers of the court. It is all a farce, as he well knows.

Mr. Haughey

It is very useful for us all that Deputy Ryan should have come in at this late stage to give us the benefit of his views. It would have been well if, before he began to talk, he had read the section. Subsection (2) (a) clearly gives both the Irish and English versions of the title of the Chief Justice.

Let me deal if I may with the more responsible argument put up from the Opposition Benches. It seems to me that the attack made by Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGilligan can be divided into two parts. In the first case, they were criticising the measure and the Government for introducing it, because of its implications on the revival of the language and, secondly, it is criticised because it is alleged that it is not in accordance with the Constitution. As regards the first case, I can only protest the sincerity of the Government in this matter. Deputy Dillon himself said to us that we should have regard to the spirit of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly envisages that our institutions of State should preferably be known by their Irish titles. That is not an unfair inference to draw from the various provisions of the Constitution, that in preference we should use the Irish forms for our national institutions. It is in pursuance of that spirit that the Government are doing this.

By using this form of words, we are endeavouring to place the emphasis on the Irish title of the Chief Justice. We make it absolutely clear in the section that the Chief Justice has two official titles, as it were. He is the Chief Justice and he is An Príomh-Bhreitheamh. That is enshrined in the section. By the manner in which we do it, we make it clear that we want the emphasis placed on the Irish form of the Chief Justice.

Mr. McGilligan

What about line 25?

Mr. Haughey

I reject completely——

Mr. McGilligan

You say the Supreme Court; why not An Chúirt Uachtarach?

Mr. Haughey

——that this is done because of political expediency. I do not think any reasonable member of the House would accept that argument. I could not imagine anybody getting a single vote, even at a local election, because of this Bill. As I say, I can only, in reply to the argument that this is doing a bad day's work for the Irish language——

Mr. McGilligan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Haughey

——protest that it is done in all sincerity and in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and for no other reason. The arguments regarding the constitutionality of what we are doing are the same as on the first amendment. There is no comparison at all between the situation here and that envisaged in Article 28, clause 5.

When it comes to deal with the Taoiseach or, as it says, An Príomh-Aire, the Constitution makes it clear that there is only one form of address, one title, the Irish form and no other. Therefore, if we were providing in an Act of the Oireachtas for anything to do with the Taoiseach, we would use only the one form, "Taoiseach," and we would refer to him throughout the Bill in the English and Irish version as "Taoiseach." When we come to Article 34 of the Constitution it clearly stipulates that the person who is president of the Court of Final Appeal or the Supreme Court, is to have a bilingual title.

Mr. McGilligan

It does not.

Mr. Haughey

You cannot ignore the Irish version. Does Deputy McGilligan deny that the Irish version is part of the Constitution?

Mr. McGilligan

No.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Irish version not clearly indicate that the man who is to preside over the deliberations of the Supreme Court is to be known as An Príomh-Bhreitheamh?

Mr. Dillon

The president shall be called the Chief Justice.

Mr. Haughey

Yes. The same thing. We are saying it in Irish and English. We are saying there is one office and it is to have an Irish name, An Príomh-Bhreitheamh and an English name, the Chief Justice. We are endeavouring to carry out the directions of that Article as closely as possible in establishing this office and we lay down in black and white in the Bill that the Supreme Court shall be constituted of the following judges——

Mr. McGilligan

Having just warned us we are to call it An Chúirt Uachtarach.

Mr. Haughey

——the president thereof, namely, An Príomh-Bhreitheamh—thus fulfilling the letter, the spirit and the general intention of the Constitution in every way.

Mr. Davern

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Deputy should say "Annso, annso."

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Ni Gaeilge é sin, a mhic—sin Béarlachas.

Mr. Haughey

I think that everything that can be said in this argument has now been said and it is absolutely crystal clear to me. Indeed I am a little shocked at the apparent lack of perspicacity on the other side of the House that Deputies do not see this simple proposition that the Constitution recognises two languages and, therefore, when you come along to establish an office of this sort it properly envisages that it should have an Irish title primarily, with a suitable English alternative. I, being a diligent servant of the Constitution, am doing nothing more or less than laying that down as closely as——

Mr. McGilligan

The Parliamentary Secretary had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Haughey

Then do not blame me for it.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not a fantastic position into which the Parliamentary Secretary has got himself? He has deliberately provided the appropriate title——

Mr. Haughey

Deputy McGilligan cannot have it both ways; he cannot attack me and, at the same time, say I had nothing to do with it. May I appeal to Deputy Dillon as the Leader of the Party——

Mr. Dillon

The Parliamentary Secretary must accept the burden which is so confidently forecast for him. If and when after the next general election, the unlikely burden devolves upon the Taoiseach of making him a Minister, he will find that is one of the burdens of Ministerial responsibility. He must take the blame and sometimes he will be denied the credit of the techniques of his performance. He should not let that worry him. I would imagine his skin is thick enough already——

Mr. Haughey

I am thinking of the respect of the Fine Gael Party and its reputation and I appeal——

Mr. Dillon

I think there is respect due to a Parliamentary Secretary. He is an officer of the Government. However, let us not pursue that at the moment. I want to drag him from the pit that looms before him. The Parliamentary Secretary has got himself into a mess by the extraordinary procedure he has laid down in the Bill. We are going to fall into this ludicrous situation repeatedly as a result of this effort to drag the language through the gutter of political expediency.

Subsection (1) reads: "On the commencement of this Act, the Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution, is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach..." We have adopted that. We divided the House on it.

Mr. McGilligan

That is that.

Mr. Dillon

We have been beaten and he has prevailed, and that is the title of the Supreme Court hereafter. Subsection (2) of the same section reads: "The Supreme Court shall be constituted of the following judges ...". Now may I say to the Parliamentary Secretary: "You cannot have it both ways." The hoi polloi shall call the Supreme Court An Chúirt Uachtarach; in Ireland we all belong to the hoi polloi and therefore their ruling must be deemed to be universal. If it is, what shall we say if the first person to make a breach in it is the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the Bill; if we are all to call the Supreme Court An Chúirt Uachtarach and the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that is the spirit, not to speak of the heart, of the Constitution? How come, if on the first occasion after that principle has been enunciated and defended in the Division Lobby by the Parliamentary Secretary, that he himself calls on Oireachtas Éireann individually and corporately to refer to this institution as the Supreme Court? Which is right?

Mr. Haughey

Both.

Mr. Dillon

This is a pretty situation. Have we not solemnly enacted "...the Court of Final Appeal which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach..."? Is not that correct?

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy cannot stop there.

Mr. Dillon

"...An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court)"—in brackets—"shall stand established".

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy can write his own Acts of Parliament but he should read what is in front of him.

Mr. Dillon

I shall read every syllable. "On the commencement of this Act, the Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court)"—in brackets—"shall stand established". Our argument has been that if the English text of this Bill is to follow the Constitution, the subsection should read: "On the commencement of this Act, the Court of Final Appeal, which in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution is to be called the Supreme Court, shall stand established", and that in the translation of the Bill the words "An Chúirt Uachtarach" should be used. We have been over-ruled on that and we are now directed by the majority decision of the House that we are to refer hereafter to the Supreme Court as An Chúirt Uachtarach. I cannot imagine that for evermore the Parliamentary Secretary expects us to refer to the Supreme Court as "An Chúirt Uachtarach, the Supreme Court in brackets". That cannot be his intention so, on his own subsection, we are to refer to it hereafter as An Chúirt Uachtarach.

Then we have the fantastic situation that in the next subsection which he asks us to consider in Dáil Éireann, he requires us to describe what is now to be known as An Chúirt Uachtarach as the Supreme Court. Can fantasy be carried further? Can absurdity be carried further? This is gross prostitution of the language to degrade the language and to degrade us until we are made to talk nonsense in our own legislation. Has there ever been tendered to this House before, a Bill which in subsection (2) of Section 1 contradicts subsection (1)? Has there ever been put before us a Bill which lays down a positive law in subsection (1) and violates it in subsection (2)? Not in my memory. That absurdity has been thrust upon us in the name of the Irish language.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary feel no embarrassment? If he does not, I should be glad if he would explain to me how he asks Oireachtas Éireann within one half-hour to be the first person in the State to ignore the provisions of its own legislation: In subsection (1) the Court of Final Appeal is to be known as "An Chúirt Uachtarach, the Supreme Court", in brackets, and in subsection (2) we read: "the Supreme Court shall be constituted of the following judges".

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Dillon as I have noticed from time to time is fairly adept at doing this. He attributes to me an argument which I did not make and very skilfully proceeds to tear the argument to shreds, knock it down and generally kick it around the floor of the House. I do not think anyone can say that at any stage in this debate I maintained that An Chúirt Uachtarach alone was to be the title of the Court of Final Appeal. I have repeated ad nauseam that this Court shall have two names or rather one name and a translation in accordance with the Constitution.

Mr. Dillon

One name and a translation?

Mr. Haughey

Two names.

Mr. Dillon

You would not use the translation in legislation.

Mr. Haughey

It has two names.

Mr. Dillon

You said it had one name and a translation.

Mr. Haughey

I accept Deputy Dillon's argument but I said earlier that it had two names. Deputy McGilligan said it has not two names, but a name and a translation. That is neither here nor there. The idea and the principle under the Constitution in any Act of Parliament of giving it a name and indicating that it has an alternative form to that name by putting the alternative form in brackets is not new. It occurs in the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. In one section we see: "A Supreme Court of Justice (Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach)" which clearly indicates that it has two names. That occurs in Section 5 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, and in Section 7 it speaks of "...owing to the illness of a judge of the Supreme Court".

Mr. Dillon

Exactly.

Mr. Haughey

It does not speak of: "...owing to the illness of a judge of An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach...". In Section 5 we see: "A Supreme Court of Justice (Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach)..." so there we have the idea of giving a name to a court and giving the alternative in brackets to indicate that the court has two alternative titles.

Mr. Dillon

We do not use the translation.

Mr. Haughey

Further down the Act speaks of: "A Circuit Court of Justice (An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais Chuarda)," giving the alternative title in brackets.

Mr. Dillon

You are reversing that.

Mr. Haughey

In Section 4 the Irish is in brackets and in Section 5 the Irish is in brackets. In Section 6 we see: "The President of the High Court shall be..." I want to emphasise that in this Bill there is a name and a translation of that name which is to be the alternative form. We want to put an emphasis on the fact that it is the Irish form that should take precedence or should more generally be used, if at all possible.

Mr. McGilligan

In subsection (1)?

Mr. Haughey

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

In subsection (1) but not elsewhere.

Mr. Haughey

Having made that clear in the establishment section, we proceed exactly in the way the framers of the 1924 Courts of Justice Act did. We speak from then on simply as we are dealing with it in the English text of the Bill which just mentions thereon the English title. The essential difference between subsection (1) and subsection (2) is this. Let me try to get this across to the Opposition. Subsection (1) is primarily the basic section that establishes the courts. It is well to write into that section the fact that this court has two names, an Irish and an English one with a preference and predilection for the Irish name. That is that job done.

Then we go on—this is the English text; the Irish text will be different— and right through the rest of the Bill simply using the English version.

Mr. McGilligan

Back to English.

Mr. Haughey

What could be more simple, more logical and more justifiable than that——

Mr. McGilligan

More stupid.

Mr. Haughey

——particularly when I find myself—and I did not know this until this debate started—reinforced by the precedent of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 which follows exactly the same line? Section 5 of that Act gives us an English title, an Irish translation in brackets and from then on proceeds to drop the translation and refer exclusively to the English version. There is no inconsistency and nothing to worry about. The provisions are perfectly simple, logical and straightforward, absolutely in accord with the letter and spirit of the Constitution and to me completely satisfying in every way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would it be possible to get back to the amendment in the name of Deputy McGilligan?

Mr. McGilligan

It has to be kept in the framework in which it is put. We are so fond of the Irish language and we must show such a predilection for it that we establish a Supreme Court and a Cúirt Uachtarach. We remember it has an English title and we put it in brackets. In fact, we forget the Irish business. Deputy Dillon referred to subsection (2) which deals with how the Supreme Court shall be constituted. May I just anticipate what will be said to-morrow ? Would the House have a look at subsection (3) which says:

The President of the High Court shall be ex officio an additional judge of the Supreme Court.

Subsection (4) refers to it as the Suppreme Court. The court is referred to always as the Supreme Court.

Mr. Haughey

And right through the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Although we are enjoined to call it an Chúirt Uachtarach.

Mr. McGilligan

We forget all about the brackets and An Chúirt Uachtarach. "Supreme Court" is mentioned once in subsection (3) and four times in subsection (4). We have established a court and we have called it "An Chúirt Uachtarach (Supreme Court)". We move on and forget all about the Cúirt Uachtarach; we forget about the brackets. It is just "the Supreme Court". My amendment is addressed to the Chief Justice and the President. This piece of legislation says "An Príomh-Bhreitheamh (The Chief Justice)". I want to take out the phrase "An Príomh-Bhreitheamh" and the brackets so that it will read: "the president thereof, namely, the Chief Justice" and why? Because Article 34, Section 4, subsection 2 of the Constitution says that "The President of the Supreme Court shall be called the Chief Justice". There are no brackets and there is no "Príomh-Bhreitheamh". I want it to be in accordance with the Constitution.

Mr. Dillon

Does that argument not make the Parliamentary Secretary realise the absurdity of the situation into which we are working ourselves?

Mr. Haughey

Have I not explained the reason? The explanation I gave was perfectly valid and simple.

Mr. Dillon

The Parliamentary Secretary seeks to draw a comparison with the Act of 1924. I would not regard that as final. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary need hasten back to every piece of legislation passed 40 years ago and say they did it then and that it is right to do it now. Even if they did and if the Parliamentary Secretary says he prefers to shelter under these precedents, he must search the Act of 1924 for any precedents that will justify what he now seeks to do. In the Act of 1924, they speak of a High Court of Justice (An Ard-Chúirt Bhreithiúnais) and a Supreme Court of Justice (Cúirt Bhreithiúnais Uachtarach) and thereafter they speak of the Supreme Court.

What the Parliamentary Secretary seeks to do in this Bill is the exact opposite of that. Instead of taking the words which are the dominant words and repeating them throughout his whole Bill, he takes the words out of the brackets and drops the dominant word which he says the whole purpose of the Bill is to make sacrosanct and of universal usage. Is it not fantastic to work himself into a passion to justify subsection (1) of this Bill if he himself is to be the first person to set it at nought and not only the first person to set it at nought but to require the whole of the Oireachtas to disregard it? Surely that breathes of the stink of fraud?

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary it is almost certain that the original draft of this Bill was the commencement of this Act and then somebody had a brainwave. The Minister for Defence says: "I will allow no promotions in the Army unless the man says: `Cé chaoi bhfuil tú ar maidin, a Aire.' " If he replies: `Tá mé go maith" and he is expected to say: "Buíochas le Dia" and does not say it, he is a second lieutenant for the rest of his life. In pursuance of that, they said: "Let us put in an amendment. It is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach"—Supreme Court in brackets.

Everybody said it was not a bad tag at all. The Deputy from Meath will campaign up and down county Meath like a madman as the Gael of Gaels on this grand new piece of legislation.

Mr. Haughey

He happens to be from Clare.

Mr. Dillon

I beg his pardon; it is Deputy Ó Ceallaigh from Contae an Chláir. He will thunder up through Corca Baiscínn saying how the Irish language was vindicated. That would be grand. It is forgotten that if there were to be this dramatic gesture to Deputy Ó Ceallaigh, certain consequential amendments should——

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Cad chuige nach mbíonn an Teachta macánta? Briseann an dúcas tré shúilibh an chait. Is fuath leis an Ghaeilge. Cad chuige nach mbíonn sé macánta nuair a labhrann sé i dtaobh na Gaeilge?

Mr. Dillon

Tá——

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Níor dhein mise tagairt don Teachta riamh.

Mr. Dillon

Bíodh an Teachta ciúin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Ba cheart deireadh a chur leis an gcaint seo.

Mr. Dillon

Abair gur——

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Ba cheart go mbeadh an Ghaeilge agatsa, a ghliogair mhóir.

Mr. McGilligan

The Parliamentary Secretary did not understand the Deputy.

Mr. Haughey

Tuigim gach focal atá á rá aige.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Is ar éigin a thuigeann an Teachta mé. Ní thuigfeadh seisean Gaeilge.

Mr. Dillon

Lig do scíth.

Mr. McGilligan

There was a time years ago when it was the policy to describe the Fianna Fáil Party with the phrase "Republican Party" in brackets. They took out the brackets.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the section.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Goilleann sin ar chroí an Teachta anois.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. Wednesday, 21st June, 1961