The Gazette 1955-58

Tt might have been expected that the Minister would have •welcomed, indeed if necessary would even have sought, an opportunity of discussing any matter of common interest to his Department and the profession. We have had no previous experience of so chilling a reply to a request for an opportunity of expressing the Council's views. We regarded this letter as a clear intimation that the Minister had already made up his mind, without regard to the request for a dis cussion first made late in July and repeated in September. The Statutory Body met on 9th October. They had before them a letter written a few days previously by the Secretary of the Department addressed to their secretary. Having read it they unanimously decided to make the Order. The Order was signed on loth October and duly sent to the Dail and Seanad as required by the statute. On the same date the Body by their secretary sent a reply to the letter from the Department. The Order was signed by all four members of the Statutory Body after the fullest consideration of all material facts in cluding the letter from the Minister. It does not appear that the Department at any stage asked to be heard by the Statutory Body or that any communication was made by the Department between July and 9th October, while the draft Order was on the Departmental file, other than the letter to which we have referred. The Statutory Body authorised the President of the Society to inform the Council of the existence of the correspondence between the Department and the Body. At this stage the Statutory Body did not think it appropriate that copies should be supplied to the Society. We were, however, aware of the fact that the Government had made certain objections to the draft Order. Being convinced that the case for the Order had not been adequately presented we asked the Taoiseach to receive a deputation, which he did on 23rd October, accompanied by the Minister for Justice. The deputation consisted of Messrs. O'hUadhaigh, Cox, Walker, Overend and the Secretary. In the course of the discussion we offered certain undertakings to meet any possible objections. The Taoiseach said that he would make a report to the Government. On the following day An Taoiseach requested the deputation to give the undertakings to him in writing and enquired whether the deputation had authority to bind the Council. We replied in the affirmative and the undertaking signed by the four members of the Council and the Secretary was de livered to Government Buildings on 28th October. On receiving the document the Taoiseach asked us to make certain small verbal amendments. A fresh undertaking embodying these amendments was signed and submitted on 2gth October. By this document the Council undertook with the Govern ment through An Taoiseach (a) that if at any time after the expiration of twelve months injustice appeared from the operation of the order the Council would of their own motion or at the request of the Attorney General bring it before the Statutory Body for review and if necessary amendment or revocation as the Body might think fit ; (b) to make a regula tion under the Solicitors Act, 1954, requiring a solicitor furnishing a gross sum bill to draw the attention of the client to his rights under the Order. While An Taoiseach stated that the decision must rest with the Government we felt, and still believe, that when he asked for the second undertaking on 2gth October he attached great importance to its value and we felt that the Government would accept the undertaking. We were greatly surprised to learn on 8th November that we were mistaken. On Monday, nth November, we learned that a motion to disallow the Order was down for debate in the Seanad for the following Wednesday afternoon and although we had very little oppor tunity of approaching Senators to make our case, we did what

we could in the time at our disposal. There is no solicitor in the Seanad. If the motion had been put down in An Dail we would have had spokesmen there to present our case. The motion was taken at 3 o'clock, first on the Order Paper on Wednesday, I3th November. At the outset, several Senators protested at the shortness of the notice and pressed for an adjournment. This the Minister refused to allow. The Minister r ead a statement and was followed by eleven Senators opposing the motion in the strongest terms. They all pro tested against the extraordinary speed and absence of reason able notice. One Senator said that he had received no notice. The Senators asked the Minister to lay before the House the correspondence between the Department and the Statutory Body whose Order they were asked to quash, but this he refused to do on the plea that he had not the necessary per mission from the Statutory Body. There is on the file of the Incorporated Law Society a letter dated 28th October addressed to the Society by the Secretary of the Statutory Body stating that while they would not consider it appropriate themselves to supply the corres pondence to the Society they had no objection to the Minister's making it available to the Society, and that they had written to the Minister so informing him. On November I2th the Society referred to this permission and asked the Department for copies of the documents by the following day but the Minister did not see his way to acceding to this request. The Minister insisted on having the motion put without reading the documents. The terms of the motion were " That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order 1957 should be disallowed and requests the Government to disallow it ". It was carried by 23 votes to 21. None of those who voted for the motion expressed any opinions on it. The Minister's reported statement in the Seanad as to the effect of the Order on costs of leases and purchase of houses was completely inaccurate as the Order had no relation to such costs. This is not the place to argue the case for the order made by the Statutory Body. The Society made a detailed case and no attempt was made to answer it specifically either in dis cussions with the Society or the Statutory Body or in the debate in the Seanad. Most of the speakers in the debate pointed out that if the Minister had an arguable case against the Order he did not disclose it. The Order, made by a body which includes the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the senior ordinary Judge of the Supreme Court, has now been disallowed at the behest of the Minister by a majority of two after a debate in which no supporter of the motion spoke. We cannot but feel that the Society has been treated without consideration and the Statutory Body with little respect. It is, however, only right to say that at the interview which he accorded and in subsequent communications An Taoiseach personally showed great courtesy to the deputation. The official record of this debate is contained in volume 40, No. 9 of the Seanad Debates November I3th, columns 671 to 748, which may be bought at the Government Publications Sale Office for tenpence post free. We advise every member of the Society to read it. The Minister in his closing speech expressed the hope for good relations between his Department and the Society, and we should like to be able to feel that such good relations exist. If they are to be established a different attitude and approach must be discovered by the Department towards the Society and the statutory bodies which regulate professional matters. The Department must also be prepared to trust the Society and to show a better realisation of the fact that the Council are as anxious to serve the public as the governing bodies of other professions which have never been subject to restrictions which are still imposed on solicitors