Court Officers Bill, 1945—Report and Fifth Stages.

Mr. Sweetman

I move the amendment on the Order Paper:—

In page 2 to add to Section 3 a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) If there shall be any inconsistency between the immediately preceding sub-section and Section 65 of the Principal Act, the latter section shall prevail.

The purpose of this amendment is obvious. Section 5 and Section 65 were in the original Act of 1926. It is well established that, where any inconsistency arises between two Acts, the later enactment is to prevail. In this Bill, the wording is, as the Minister correctly states, taken from Section 5 of the original Act. I suggest that, if there was any inconsistency in the original Act, Section 5 would have been covered by Section 65. Now, the 1945 Act will be a later one and it might, perhaps, be taken to govern Section 65. It is not really in connection with that question of legal interpretation that I raise this matter. I appreciate the Minister's point that he has taken the wording from the 1926 Act but, in all legislation recently, I think that there has been too much variation in phraseology where the same thing was intended. In various powers given to Ministers, we have different wording. If we look at the records, we shall see that if a Minister wants to grant a butter, meat or potato export licence, the word used is "may". If you pass on to aerodromes, you will find in the Act that "the Minister may if he is satisfied that a licence is expedient...". In the case of a lorry licence "the Minister may, if he considers it desirable in the special circumstances..." while in the case of cement "the Minister may in his discretion...". All those variations make it extraordinarily difficult to interpret Acts of the Oireachtas. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that he should, as soon as possible, ensure that standard phraseology be used—that, wherever possible, the same phraseology be used in all similar circumstances. I fully appreciate that, in this case, he was merely adopting the wording of the 1926 Act but, if the 1926 Act was not precisely consistent, we should not enact another inconsistency. So far as the amendment itself is concerned, it is purely a question of legal interpretation. If the Minister tells me that the Parliamentary draftsman is quite satisfied that Section 65 will still remain the paramount section, I shall be satisfied.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

As regards the drafting, we are in the hands of the Parliamentary draftsman. I had the same opinion as Senator Sweetman, but we have to accept the phraseology used by the Parliamentary draftsman. I am not re-enacting a provision which was unsatisfactory. I am quite satisfied that the section in the original Act covered all the points which it was intended to cover. This amendment is not necessary. There is a clear distinction between the powers of the Minister and the powers of the President of the High Court in Section 3. What the Minister has to do with are matters of general administration, including such things as control of staff, appointments, applications for sick leave and so on, and anything dealing with the judicial end is reserved in the same section to the President of the High Court.

In Section 3 there is only one officer referred to. That is the officer who may take the place of the present Master, whereas in Section 65 the President of the High Court has control over officers of the courts, not one officer alone but any officer. This amendment is unnecessary, and, therefore, I am not inclined to accept it. There is no danger. There has never been any question in the past when it came to the functions of the Master and President of the High Court in their respective powers regarding the management of the staff. No occasion for disagreement has ever arisen and it is not likely to arise. I considered the matter very carefully and I am satisfied that is the position.

Mr. Sweetman

Might I ask the Minister a question? The question which he has answered is not the question I put to him. I asked him if there should be inconsistencies between the two sections, which one would prevail?

Mr. Boland

The different spheres are so clear that there is no likelihood of it. It is not likely to arise. I do not think that the judges want to be bothered with questions of promotion, recruitment of staff, holidays or anything of that kind. Even if they did, these are matters for the Minister for Finance. In matters of finance, the Minister for Finance must have control, but when it comes to ordering staffs to do work in the courts, that will be done by the President of the High Court, and I cannot conceive of any difficulty arising. It has never arisen. I am not prepared to discuss a hypothetical case like that suggested, because I am perfectly satisfied it will not arise when the two spheres are so different.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil without amendment.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 19 Jul 1945