Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

Unfortunately, I could not attend the Committee Stage debate because I was involved in an important committee sitting at the same time and my colleague, Deputy Burton, dealt with amendments for me. The Minister of State dealing with the Bill at the time undertook to consider the amendments and come back on Report Stage and has done so. What happens when one makes a coherent technical argument from the Opposition side of the House, never ceases to amaze me. One such argument was made with regard to, for example, in line 28, the deletion of the word "filed" and its replacement with the word "served". My colleague effectively argued on Committee Stage that the version in the original Bill is based on a misunderstanding of the procedure of the Supreme Court. It is based on a belief that one files the appeal first and then one serves it. In fact, the opposite is the case — the appeal is made when it is served. It is only after it has been served and a copy of it has been endorsed with the particulars of service that the Supreme Court will accept it for filing. That is the actual procedure. It would be extraordinary and unique if we were to decide that the mechanism for this Supreme Court appeal procedure was to be different. I have proposed the replacement of the word "filed" with the word "served" for that reason. When I win an argument on Committee Stage, I am always amazed on Report Stage to discover that the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment I propose as a consequence. In this case, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, proposes the insertion of the word "lodged" rather than the word "served", which I have suggested.

Amendment No. 5 proposes the deletion of the word "delivered" and its replacement with the word "perfected". This change is necessary so that the provisions of the Bill are in line with the procedure used in the Supreme Court. An order is not "delivered" by the Supreme Court. I am awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court on matters in which I have a direct interest. My understanding of the procedure of the Supreme Court is that it does not deliver an order to anybody. When the Supreme Court makes a decision, the registrar who draws up the "perfected" order after the judge has made the verbal announcement in the court administratively creates the order of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I have said, the order is not "delivered" by anyone. The parties to the action make a formal request for the order.

I have also learned that in all cases between parties, the time for appeal to the Supreme Court of a High Court decision does not begin until the order has been "perfected". The perfection of an order can take months in some instances. The advice I have received from my legal adviser is that the word "perfected" is the appropriate word in this instance. The word "delivered" has no meaning within the understanding of the manner in which the superior courts operate.

Amendment No. 6 states that notice of an appeal to the Supreme Court "shall be filed in the Office of the Supreme Court within 5 days" of the order being served by the court. It seems to me that the amendment is appropriate because service comes before filing. I consider that five days is an appropriate timeframe within which to operate. I have not heard the Minister of State give any reason for any resistance to the use of such a mechanism for handling appeals.

A coherent argument was made on Committee Stage for the amendments I have tabled on Report Stage. The Minister of State seems to have accepted the essence of the amendments but he has not, for reasons that may be regarded as perverse, accepted the words I have suggested. I have been advised that they are the appropriate legal words, but the Minister of State has chosen different words. I hope he has not chosen his alternative words for the sole reason that they are not the words offered by the Opposition. I await a coherent argument from the Minister of State in explanation of why the amendments tabled by Members on this side of the House do not propose words appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. I ask him to explain why his words are preferable.

See this speech in context