On this question about who is responsible or who gets credit or lack of credit for anything, I want to make the position, as far as I understand it, clear. This body of legislation was drafted by the late Mr. Gerald McCarthy who had been put into a special office which he filled in a way that everybody who knew his reputation would expect him to fill it until the date of his untimely death. When all this legislation was drafted, the first version I saw of it was one that bore the date—I am not absolutely certain of this—of 1953. I saw it in 1954 and certainly there was a date on it which indicated that it had reached a second draft earlier than the year in which I got it taken out of a safe in a particular office in Government Buildings. I have a feeling that the first version went back as far as 1950. There is no doubt the bulk of this work, all this amazing repeal of statutes and all that, was peculiarly the type of work the late Mr. Gerald McCarthy was efficient at and it is his hallmark that is on all this.
What Deputy Dillon and I complain of is that that very good piece of work was taken hold of and rather messed up by this pretence of favouring the Irish language. It is to that that we take exception. I say "pretence" and I have used the word "pretence" and I have used the words that a substantially good draft of legislation has been somewhat spoiled by this effort at pretence of favouring the Irish language.
What do we do with regard to the Irish language? The Parliamentary Secretary says now that we have established the courts and have given them Irish names. We do not give them Irish names. We give them a double name. The Irish name comes, as far as the first piece of legislation is concerned, in the first place, and there is a translation in English, but the English part is put in brackets and that is the translation. The Parliamentary Secretary's enthusiasm for the Irish language is at fever heat in the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Bill, so that he takes the Irish phrase out of brackets and gives it precedence and puts the English phrase into them. That glow vanishes when you come to this legislation. We then forget all about the Irish language. We have done our duty, so to speak, by the Irish language in using Irish phrases in the titles of certain courts, in respect of certain personnel, and then forget all about it, put it aside and come back here and say: "Now, we know where we are. We are going to speak of `justices'."
Look at line 41 on page 5:
"the Supreme Court" means the Court established by section 1 of the Principal Act.
I turn to Section 1 of the Principal Act. We have established the Court of Final Appeal and "in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution it is to be called An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court)." Of course, as was pointed out yesterday, it is not in pursuance of Article 34 that the title "An Chúirt Uachtarach" has been put upon the Court of Final Appeal. That is completely wrong but still we have accepted it and in the first Bill, we have then established An Chúirt Uachtarach translated in brackets (The Supreme Court). But then, on that matter, having done our duty by the Irish language, let us forget all about it when we come to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill, 1959 and say:
"the Supreme Court" means the Court established by section 1 of the Principal Act.
I think that is a pretence. I would not mind if the pretence had been carried forward and if it said "An Chúirt Uachtarach (The Supreme Court) is the court established by Section 1 of the Principal Act". We drop the whole folly once we come into this particular piece of legislation and we simply say: "justice of the District Court" may include the President of the District Court and "the Supreme Court" means the Court established by section 1 of the Principal Act.
The only other point that has been raised is in regard to the President of the High Court, that if I want to insist on calling him a judge, I should say "the judge known as the President of the High Court", which would be better probably, but, in any event, there is no disparaging effect in the use of the words "President of the High Court". There is when you have established people as judges of the district court and then you suddenly turn around and say all the way that the phrase "justice of the district court" means or includes some individual. There is something derogatory in the use of the word "justice" as opposed to the word "judge". It is taking away from his status. Saying that a person is a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court does not take away from his status; it is an addition to it.