Haughey, Charles J.Wednesday, 2 August 1961 |
Dáil Eireann Debate
Page of 52
|
Committee on Finance. - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill, 1959—Report Stage.
As Deputy McGilligan has pointed out, this matter has been discussed fairly fully on the Committee Stage. On that Stage, I expressed the view that the provision was quite satisfactory. On re-examinat...
I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, line 32, after “the Constitution” to insert “or a question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of the Constitution.” The object of the amendme...
I am opposed to this amendment because this is one of the important and valuable changes which the Bill makes in the law. As I pointed out on Committee Stage, this sort of thing has always been inher...
I wonder if the Deputy is in order?
At the beginning, I would explain to the House that this sub-section is, of course, devised purely for purposes of facilitating the administration of justice. The object would be to make litigation ...
A person might be having recourse to our courts who would not be a citizen.
It was never envisaged that non-citizens would not have recourse to our courts. This is dealing with the general administration of the courts. Apart altogether from any Constitutional cases, these r...
Surely there are some other restrictions?
Until I rescued it.
The Leader of the Opposition will pardon me if I point out one little thing, that is that the Kingsmill Moore judgment incorporates the phrase “in a profound way”. I think that is the essence of the j...
I did not at any stage indicate that I was relying on that word. I merely pointed that out because I thought Deputy McGilligan had adopted the Kingsmill Moore judgment holus-bolus.
Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill, 1959—Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
I move amendment No. 2: In page 13, line 16, after “Act” to insert “or any other enactment”.
I move amendment No. 3: In page 16, to delete lines 50 to 52.
These amendments deal with the question of the right to transfer cases.
The House will recall that this matter was discussed on Committee Stage. I have been considering the matters which were raised in this regard on Committee Stage. The proposal was that we would put c...
I move amendment No. 4: In page 17, line 5, to delete “or subsection (2)”.
Yes.
The whole thing will have to be put in proper form.
Yes.
That is correct, yes. Amendment agreed to. Amendment No. 4a not moved.
I move amendment No. 5: In page 19, to delete lines 36 to 43.
Yes.
Yes. We are going completely back to the old position.
Yes. Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6: In page 19, between lines 55 and 56, to insert the following paragraph: “(b) A person who is qualified for appointment as a justice of the District Court shall be qualified fo...
On the Committee Stage I indicated that the first President of the District Court should be appointed from among the existing district court justices. As the Bill is framed at the moment all Presiden...
Not for the Deputy or me.
Precisely.
What is the Deputy attempting to say?
That is what we are proposing.
We are not leaving them out. We are putting them in.
We will be.
We will have to be.
This will be done long before there is any question of a new Government.
I am only concerned that the Deputy would not mislead Deputy Sherwin as he is attempting to do.
This was argued on the Committee Stage when I endeavoured to point out that these meetings can be of very considerable value to the district justices themselves and indeed it is in that spirit that we...
Either these discussions can be of value or they cannot. If Deputy McGilligan is prepared to say: “Let them have those discussions”, he must mean he thinks they are of some value. I think they can be...
Deputy Dr. Browne did not even bother to come in to move that amendment.
Do we not stipulate by statute where and when they should sit in court?
We stipulate that the High Court shall sit——
That is what it is.
It is the same in principle.
May I ask the Leader of the Opposition would not one of these district justices to which he refers, read law books, reports of cases and so on?
For what purpose?
Is that not all that is involved here?
And that is an argument in favour of compulsion.
And that procedure has failed.
The machinery was there and they never did that.
And that is the purpose of the meeting.
The Deputy admits it is desirable they should meet.
Suppose the district justice refused to come to the conference?
Suppose his colleague does not come.
If the man he particularly wants to talk to does not come, is not the conference of no value?
He will not be there ten minutes when he will realise the value of the conference.
Let the Deputy not flaunt his legal experience in my face at this stage.
The latter assumption is just the Deputy's assumption. No reasonable man will refuse to come to a conference like that.
He will soon realise the value of the conference.
If there is an odd recalcitrant who will not come in then he must be made come in. If there is an odd justice on whom pressure must be brought to bear, then the pressure will be there in the law.
Ultimately, yes.
Are we not discussing both together?
No matter what the Deputy says they will misinterpret him.
I never said that.
The Deputy knows that is nonsense.
I think he said they should be removed for misbehaviour.
And we want to help them.
Deputy Dillon moved it.
I presume Deputy McGilligan is addressing the Chair in his usual orderly fashion. I merely want to rise in order to defend Deputy Sherwin and to ensure that what he said will not be twisted unduly. D...
I know whom I would flog.
Keep your good humour.
Keep your good humour.
Keep your good humour. Do not be personal.
Has the Deputy read the amendment?
Have you read your own amendment now?
You have inserted words in it which are not in it as we got it.
The Deputy is reading in after the word “administration” additional words which are not there.
Will the Deputy read his amendment correctly?
The Deputy is inserting into his amendment words which are not there.
Anyway it does not mean anything. It is all nonsense.
I do not propose to accept this amendment because it is in fact nonsensical, an example of the type of thing which we have begun to associate with Deputy McGilligan. The section proposes to prescribe...
I move amendment No. 7: In page 22, to delete lines 5 to 9 and insert the following subsections: “(2) The cases prescribed by subsection (1) of this section shall be in addition to any other cases pr...
Paragraphs (e) and (f) will go and (a) to (d) will become subsection (1) and the remainder subsections (2) and (3).
That is the effect of the amendment.
The mechanics of parliamentary procedure take care of that.
I move amendment No. 8: In page 22, to delete lines 10 to 15. I indicated on Committee Stage that I proposed to move on Report to delete Section 47. The House will recall that I then gave the history...
Do not give credit either way — abuse for putting it in and abuse for withdrawing it.
First, I want to rebut emphatically any suggestion that I made any sort of deal with anybody with regard to the debate that would take place here on this matter. That is, of course, completely false....
The Deputy's only trouble is that he is never on it and never will be.
I move amendment No. 9: In page 23, line 50, to delete “1959” and substitute “1961”. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 may be taken together. They are purely drafting amendments. They refer to the citation o...
I move amendment No. 10: In page 23, line 51, to delete “1951” and substitute “1961”. Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11: In page 25, after line 9, to insert the following subsection:— “(10) (a) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1961 shall not be taken to refer to a perso...
I have explained what it means.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
When all the amendments are inserted the proper number for that amendment will also be inserted.
It is only when all the amendments have been incorporated that we will see exactly what number this will be. It is perfectly normal procedure.
It will be Section 57 or 58. It will probably be Section 58.
I move amendment No. 12: In page 25, lines 59 and 60, to delete “but adjudicate only on the question of sentence” and substitute “except to such extent as shall be necessary to enable the court to adj...
I move amendment No. 13: In page 28, to delete lines 25 to 39 and substitute the following sections: (1) Where—
I think they are fully aware of the position.
We will do that. Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14: In page 30, opposite “No. 10 of 1924”, in column (3), to delete from “7 and 8” to “sections 11” and substitute “7, 8, 11”. Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15: In pages 30 and 31, opposite “No. 10 of 1924”, in column (3), to delete from “section 30” to “sections 41” and substitute “sections 30, 37, 41”. Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16: In page 31, opposite “No. 10 of 1924”, in column (3), to delete “54”.
Mainly No. 3. This is where I graciously accepted the Deputy's amendment about the transfer of trial.
I move amendment No. 17: In page 32, opposite “No. 25 of 1945,”, in column (3), before “7” to insert “4, 5,”. This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 13. It proposes to repeal Sections 4 and...
For this relief, much thanks. Question put and agreed to.
Defamation Bill, 1961 — Report and Final Stages.
The reason is as I indicated on the Committee Stage. It is a form of words meant to denote, in the first instance, a proprietor as sole proprietor and, secondly, people who own a newspaper in partner...
No.
No.
Any one share.
It does not include the others.
If it said “includes” the Deputy would be right.
That means it excludes everybody else.
The word “means” is vital. “Proprietor” means the persons who own any share. That restricts it to those persons. It excludes all the others. In order to cover them you must bring in the second par...
We have to cover all the persons.
I disagree.
First of all let me mention a question Deputy Costello raised on the Committee Stage, the question of reciprocity. He asked to have it checked that in the matter of newspapers the British had not giv...
I understand he is a retired civil servant.
It is a very technical thing and reasonable man that I am, I shall accept the amendment.
Not a very good book.
First of all, I think a lot of the confusion here has arisen over a phrase which I used in a very particular and restricted context on Committee Stage. This Bill sets out in the Second Schedule two d...
Yes; it covers both. It is a general provision in Section 24 in fact. For convenience, in order to try to make the thing clear, I used the phrase “absolutely privileged”. I used that in connection w...
Provided there is no malice. There is privilege unless there is malice.
That is not so. It can be defeated with malice but there is this difference between that and Part II——
If they are published maliciously there is no privilege but there is this difference between that and the Second Part that there is no duty on the publisher in regard to the matter in the First Part t...
What is that?
Will you please accept that I meant that in relation to the First Part of the Schedule and my “absolutely” there referred to matters being privileged without explanation or contradiction having to be ...
If you will not accept a reasonable explanation, I can do nothing about it.
What are you trying to do? Are you trying to improve the Bill or to embarrass me?
Tell him to have a bit of sense.
The Deputy is trying to give a lecture which he should hold for University College, Dublin. Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3a: On page 9, line 17, after the word “State” to insert the words “or in Northern Ireland”. As a result of my acceptance of Deputy McGilligan's amendment earlier, it would be onl...
I am not prepared to pronounce on that but if the Deputy reads the paragraph fully he will see it includes “subordinate or federal legislatures”.
I am not prepared to say.
It does.
Yes, of course. Question put and agreed to. Question “that the Bill do now pass” put and agreed to.
| Last Updated: 15/09/2010 12:05:06 |
Page of 52
|