Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Dec 1925

Vol. 6 No. 5

THE ADJOURNMENT.

As far as I know, there is no occasion to meet in the near future. I understand that the Dáil is adjourning. I have received just now a letter from the Minister for Justice which I would like to read to the Seanad. The letter reads as follows:—

Department of Justice,

Dublin, 17th Dec., 1925.

Courts of Justice Bill, 1925.

A Dhuine Uasail,

With reference to the above Bill, which has passed through all its stages in the Dáil and was transmitted to the Seanad yesterday, I desire to explain that it is of paramount importance that it should become law before the 19th January, 1926, as will appear clear from the following circumstances.

Under the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, there are at present 39 persons in custody, charged with very serious offences, awaiting trial by a Court of the High Court Circuit. Before the trial of those persons by a Court of the High Court Circuit could properly proceed, certain rules would require to be made, but when the Judges were asked by me to draft such rules they decided in view of experience gained since the 1924 Act was passed that it would be better to abolish the High Court Circuit, and to leave all criminal trials by the High Court to the Central Criminal Court. The Chief Justice recommended that a Bill should be introduced at once to abolish the High Court Circuit and to make provision for the trial by the Central Criminal Court of accused persons who have been returned for trial to a Court of the High Court Circuit. The Courts of Justice Bill, 1925, was accordingly drafted, introduced and passed by the Dáil as quickly as circumstances permitted.

The next sitting of the Central Criminal Court has been fixed for the 19th January and succeeding days. It is desirable that all pending cases awaiting trial by the High Court should be brought before that sitting, but this cannot be done unless the present Bill becomes law before the 19th January. It will be observed in Section 6 that the words used are "the sitting of the Central Criminal Court next ensuing after the passing of this Act." To achieve what is desired it will be clear that the Bill must, in fact, be law before the 19th January, so that the sitting on the 19th January could be said to be the one next ensuing after the passing of the Act. As seven days must elapse after the passing of a Bill by both Houses of the Oireachtas before it can be presented for the assent, it would be necessary that the Courts of Justice Bill should have been passed by both Houses not later than the 10th January. In these circumstances, I assume that in the interests of the persons in custody, the Seanad will be prepared to arrange its sittings to permit of the Bill being law in the time indicated.

Mise, le meas agat,

(Signed) C. O hUIGIN,

Aire Dlí agus Cirt.

The Chairman (or Vice-Chairman), An Seanad.

We have to consider that this Bill could not be taken very speedily. I would not take on myself the responsibility of asking you to go through this Bill, but I think, as the Minister for Justice states, there are strong reasons for the Seanad deciding to meet in order to pass this Bill into law early in the new year. The Minister for Justice states that it should be passed into law on the 10th January. It will therefore be necessary to meet early in January.

The reading of this letter, it is possible, affects our privileges. I think this is the first time we have had a letter read from a Minister in the Seanad. I am not questioning the right to do so, but it is now opportune to raise the point lest the reading of letters in this manner should form a precedent. I do not think it is a desirable precedent to form in an assembly of this kind, where the proceedings should necessarily be very carefully regulated. I think we should have a ruling as to whether the reading of letters of this kind is to form a precedent or not.

This letter was handed to me at the very moment of the adjournment. You can take it as a precedent or not as you like. I as your Chairman thought it was wise to read the letter to you. It is for you to consider whether it is to be a precedent or not. I simply state the facts for the information of the Seanad. The letter was not in any way marked private, and I read it for you for your information. I read it for you in order to give the Seanad an idea as to the time when it would be necessary that we should meet in the new year. I consider that the information in the letter should be laid before the Seanad.

I for my part would say it is not desirable that the reading of letters from Ministers, or from anybody else, should be made a precedent by the Seanad. It never happened before, and in my opinion it would be a dangerous precedent. I know that Ministers find it inconvenient often to attend here, but I do not think that inconvenience can in any way be met by our receiving written communications like this.

Are you asking me to decide whether it will be a precedent or not? The Seanad can make it a precedent if it so desires. I will treat the question as to whether or not it should be considered a precedent as out of order.

When does the Seanad desire to meet to pass this Bill in the new year? That, of course, is a matter for the Seanad to consider. We are advised in this letter from the Minister that this Bill will have to pass into law by the 10th January.

I think you said it was for the Seanad to decide whether or not this letter would be a precedent.

It cannot be considered as a precedent until it is made one. You must have acumen enough to understand that, Senator. That is my decision.

Is it intended to call the Seanad together before Christmas?

I do not think that Senators desire to meet again before Christmas. I would ask the Seanad to assist me in regard to what day, early in the New Year, would be suitable for re-assembling on.

I move that we should meet on the 6th January.

I move that we adjourn to the 15th January. The 6th of January is much too soon. I think the time has come when we ought not rush the consideration of legislation. During the last three years we frequently did so against our own wishes because the circumstances were such that we could scarcely refuse to do it. Now I think we have come to the time when we ought calmly to consider every Bill brought before us, and we should not be rushed into considering a Bill before we have fully made up our minds how we should act. I think that the 15th January would be a suitable date, and it would be soon enough for the House to re-assemble after the holidays.

By meeting earlier we could easily avoid a rush of business and we could have a long interval afterwards.

The desired object would not be attained if we adjourned until the 15th January. The Minister has put before us the necessity for passing the Courts of Justice Bill. I put it to the Seanad that it might be desirable to meet the difficulties that have arisen. If Senator Linehan's amendment were carried, the object of meeting would vanish altogether, because we would be too late to meet the difficulty set out by the Minister, and we could easily postpone our meeting until a later date.

I do not know much about this. I have noticed in the newspapers that there was a great complaint that the Ministry of Justice did not issue these orders for the Courts. Great inconvenience has been caused to prisoners, judges and others in this matter. The Ministry waited, as they usually do, until the last moment, and then they chucked the Bill at us and write what is a rather impertinent letter asking us to do certain things which we have no business to do. All this has arisen because of their own fault. I would not be anxious to hold up business concerned with the Courts of Justice, but we are placed in a rather serious position by being let down in this way. The same is done every year. There is always a protest, but no further consideration is given.

They might have asked us to consider the measure to-day.

We could not have done it.

The Bill was introduced in the Dáil on the 11th November; the Second Stage was taken on the 17th November; the Committee Stage was taken on the 11th December and the Bill was passed on the 16th December. It was a considerable time before the Dáil. If we re-assemble on the 6th January, we will in the meantime have had an opportunity of considering the measure. I would suggest that the Seanad should meet on the 6th January.

As the House appears to be against my view, I do not mind withdrawing my proposal.

If we meet on the 6th January we will have ample time to consider the Bill.

I would suggest that we meet on the 7th or 8th January. The 6th January is a Catholic holyday and we should not set up the precedent of meeting on that day. I come from a place where the holyday is equivalent to a Sunday.

I will alter my motion to the 7th January.

Question put and agreed to.

I think some note should be taken of Senator Keane's protest and that note should be passed on to the proper authority. It is useless if this is not made known to the Minister. If the Senator desires, I shall support him in the suggestion that a note be taken of the protest against this letter-writing by the Minister.

I understood Senator Keane's protest was against my action in communicating the contents of the letter to the Seanad.

I understood it was really a protest against the Minister's letter and not against your reading of the letter.

I understood it was against my reading of it.

It was not entirely that; there was a bit of both. It was mainly a protest against receiving in that manner a written communication and against that manner of having communications sent to this House. It has never been done before and I suggest it is an undesirable practice. While it may well be done on this occasion— and I do not question your right to read it on this occasion—I suggest it is undesirable and it should not be repeated without full consideration being given to the matter and without its being made, possibly, a Standing Order.

This is nothing new. The Clerk advises me it has been done before.

I do not regard this letter as being a direction from the Minister to this House. It is merely a reminder about a certain measure and he asks us to assemble sufficiently early in the new year in order to permit the Bill to become law in time.

Quite so.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.55 p.m. until Thursday, 7th January, 1926.

Top
Share