269 / 324
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