asked the Minister for Justice if he will make available to Members copies of the communications which have passed between him or the Government and the Statutory Body in relation to the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957, in respect of which notice of a motion was circulated to members on the 9th November.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will make available copies of all correspondence which passed since 1st May, 1957, between his Department and the Statutory Body appointed under the Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1881.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to give a single reply to Questions Nos. 54 and 55. Copies of the correspondence referred to have been placed in the Library.
Would the Minister say will copies be available for any Deputy who may want them?
They have been placed in the Library and will be available for any Deputy who wishes to see them there, I am sure.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will state why the motion relating to the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957, of which notice was circulated to Members on the 9th November, was withdrawn; whether it is the intenion of the Government to ask Dáil Éireann to discuss such a motion and, if so, when; whether, if it is not so intended, and if the Government propose to disallow the Order, he will state the statutory authority under which the Order may be disallowed by the Government without a decision on the matter being obtained in the Dáil.
The motion was withdrawn because the General Order to which it relates has since been disallowed.
The statutory authority for the disallowance of a General Order of the kind is sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, which, as adapted, provides for disallowance on a Resolution by either House of the Oireachtas.
Will the Minister say whether, in view of the terms of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1881, which are to the effect that if within any month a petition is made to the Queen by either House of Parliament it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by Order in Council to disallow the Order, and whether in view of the fact that the Minister is not constrained in any way by any action or by any request made by either House of Parliament to take the administrative action of disallowing the Order, he will say for what reason he disallows an Order in respect to which, the question having been put to the Seanad, no single member of the Seanad gave any reason or expression of opinion as to the grounds upon which the Order should be disallowed and why, in such circumstances, he adopts the extraordinary precedent of disallowing an Order without putting the matter for discussion to the Dáil?
I spoke for the people to whom the Deputy referred; I spoke on their behalf. I gave the reasons. I think that was satisfactory enough. The time, as the Deputy knows, was limited. If the members to whom the Deputy has referred were to have participated in the debate, it is possible that the discussion would have been prolonged to the following day which might — I do not say it would — have been outside the date on which the Order should operate.
In order to be clear as to the exact facts, I would ask the Minister this question: is it a fact that the Government has disallowed an Order that was made by a statutory body of the highest prestige and position that we have in our general scheme of Government and that it has done that without a single voice being raised in the Seanad——
It is undesirable to discuss the actions of the other House here.
I am relating it to the situation here.
It is undesirable that we should discuss the actions of the other House here.
Very good. Am I right in saying that the Government has disallowed an Order made by a very, very important statutory body, consisting of four representative members, two of whom are members of the Council of State, and that they have done that without referring the matter in any way to the Dáil and that they are basing their legal position in the matter on a Statute of 1881 which at that time left the matter open to the Queen of England not to take any action even if both houses of Parliament expressed an opinion?
Is the Minister now acting on this section, without having a single voice raised by a member of either House of the Oireachtas, and disallowing this Order without giving any opportunity to the Dáil to discuss it? If that is so, will the Minister say why he put the motion before the Dáil and then withdrew it?
Before the Minister replies might I ask one supplementary question for the purpose of clarification? Will the Minister please explain why a motion was moved in the Seanad to annul the Order while it was not felt necessary to move a similar motion in this House? Was that due to the fact that in between the meeting of the Seanad and the Dáil the Government discovered that they had some statutory power under an Act of Parliament to do what in fact they asked the Seanad to authorise them to do? Or what is the general position?
It was only necessary for either one or other of the Houses to disallow this Order, and one House having disallowed the Order the matter does not arise in the other House. That is the simple explanation. If any Deputy wants to know what the case was against the Order I would refer him to the Seanad debate where he can see my opening statement and my concluding statement and I think it will cover what any other member on either side of the House might have intended to say.
Then the Minister is taking action he is in no way statutorily bound to take?
Is the Deputy sure of that?
Absolutely certain.
I am not so sure of it.
Are we to understand that the Taoiseach is not clear on that point?
I am of this opinion, that when it was disallowed by one House it was the duty of the Government immediately to make the necessary Order.
Does the Taoiseach say he was constrained by the Act of 1881 to disallow the Order?
I say that when one House disallowed it, it was the duty of the Government to make that disallowing effective by making the necessary Order.
Is the Taoiseach advised by the Attorney-General that that is so?
I want to ask the Minister whether or not the correspondence referred to in Questions Nos. 54 and 55 was made available to the other House for the purpose of discussion on this motion?
I have just stated this correspondence has been laid on the Table of the House.
Was it available for the discussion?
It was not available for the discussion.
Does the Minister not think we should now have a discussion, when the correspondence is available?