I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, after subsection (3), to add to the section the following new subsection:
"( ) An offence under this Act may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister as prosecutor."
Committee on Finance. - Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1964: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Through what machinery would the Minister conduct a prosecution, except the Attorney General?
Through the ordinary machinery of the law.
That is a very bland reply, but it does not conceal the fact that the Minister does not know. I am in great sympathy with the Minister, if he does not know. What is the ordinary machinery of the law for suit at the instance of the Minister?
We have to go through the Attorney General's office. It is felt wise administratively that the Minister should initiate the prosecution.
I do not know what the administrative reason is. I know there is a general principle that prosecutions at the instance of the Government are conducted by the Attorney General and, as we all know, he is supposed to be the custodian of civil rights, utterly independent of the administrative control of the Government for the time being. The Minister is part of the Executive. On the question of a prosecution, the case is reported to the Attorney General and, on the facts set out, he determines whether or not a prosecution should be initiated. Not infrequently the view of the Attorney General is at variance with the view of the Executive, either in determining that a prosecution should take place or should not take place. Is there any grave reason why we should depart from that practice? It seems to me to be a rather casual explanation to say it is very convenient administratively. This is a departure from the normal, is it not?
No. In the case of other aviation legislation—the 1950 Air Navigation and Transport Act and the 1936 and 1946 Acts; and as the Deputy knows, there have been amendments to the 1946 Act—there is a similar provision that prosecutions are undertaken at the suit of the Minister. This is not going out of line with practice. It is bringing this machinery into line with civil aviation and navigation legislation.
What puzzles me is, if that is the ordinary procedure, why was it not put into the Bill?
There is nothing sinister in the amendment.
It was just an oversight?
Yes.
Even Homer nods.
This is giving effect to an international agreement and an international document, and surely if an offence is committed, the Attorney General should decide whether or not to prosecute? I do not accept that it is the same as another Minister prosecuting someone for not putting on warble fly dressing, or something like that. This is a different matter, and it is a matter in which there are serious issues of principle at stake. Does it mean the Minister can employ solicitor and counsel to act in his name? What exactly are we establishing here?
The Chief State Solicitor acts for the Minister in this matter in a general way as in the case of many other prosecutions.
Surely the Minister should have said that right off the reel. Does it mean that the Chief State Solicitor, having prepared a brief, can employ any counsel he wishes, and the Attorney General has no say at all as to who is to hold the brief? I am more or less shocked by the easy manner in which the Minister approaches such a serious matter. He should have given us more information.
This is the implementation of an international Convention and surely there is a precedent. Is this the way in which it is dealt with in other countries? If it is, the problem is simple.
It would have been put in the Bill if it were.
Perhaps it would be simple if——
This comes of the Minister not doing his homework. By the time Deputy de Valera has teased it out, he will be in trouble.
I think what the Minister has told us is that it is desirable that it should be dealt with by the Minister rather than by the Attorney General. I do not think this is an unique case by any means. I am open to correction on that. It is hard not to use the same type of words as Deputy Dillon used but they do not mean a lot, and I am trying to look for words that mean something. I take it that in the past there have been occasions when this procedure has been used. There are also common form cases brought at the suit of the Attorney General, but there are special circumstances that bring this into the category which is brought at the suit of the Minister. I do not think there is anything extraordinary about it at all.
I do not think there is anything extraordinary about it, either. It is a common method of procedure for a Minister to prosecute through the Chief State Solicitor's Office in minor matters.
The astonishing thing is, if it is the normal procedure, why is is not in the Bill?
It was just forgotten.
Coming from a Minister who constitutes part of a Government who are constantly distributing advice to all Parties in the Opposition to do their homework, it seems a little bit of an anachronism that these zealots for homework are obliged to say: "We just forgot." All I can say is that hereafter they should do their homework. I suspect that the Minister rambled into the House with a Bill thrust into his hand, read his brief, and rambled out again. He rambles in again now with two amendments, not realising the astonishing appearance he presents. He has just forgotten. One of his colleagues rambled in here with a Succession Bill and told us it was the beloved of his soul. He read his brief and the whole House blew up, and he has been shedding lumps of the Succession Bill all over the country since. The reason was that he had not done his homework. He just read his brief and he did not realise, until his attention had been directed to it, that no sane Legislature in the world would enact the legislation he had brought forward.
This time the Minister's dilemma is not that he has introduced a revolutionary principle, but that he has simply forgotten to mention in the text of the Bill presented to the House something which he says is quite common form, and which he meant to have in the Bill. All I can say is that the Minister should do his homework, because unlike us—I do not mean this in any offensive sense; I think every Minister of State should be adequately remunerated—he is remunerated for doing his homework. We in the Opposition receive appropriate remuneration but we do not get special remuneration for doing our homework. We think our Ministers should do their homework, and I think it right to deprecate the practice of Ministers rambling in with Bills, reading briefs which they have not adequately studied, and galloping in later to say they want to put into the Bill, by amendment, something which was forgotten when the Bill was being drafted. They might forget their homework occasionally but it should not be a normal occurrence.
I think the Deputy is exaggerating. I spent hours trying to master this very complicated piece of legislation in which there are references to previous Acts and Conventions in order to understand it and it is quite possible to make an error or omission like that when one is dealing with legislation referring back to other legislation.
We are glad to repair the Minister's error.
I did not come in without having studied the brief. The Deputy should not say I did not study it.
It does not concern me very much whether the Minister studied it or not. However, we will repair the Minister's error.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
The references in subsections (1) and (2) of section 62 of the Principal Act to that Act shall be construed as including references to this Act.
This is another legal matter, and again the amendment is put down simply with the object of inserting a new section amending section 62 of the 1936 Act which makes provision in regard to the jurisdiction of offences committed under that Act. Section 62 provides (a) that offences under the Act will be regarded as having been committed in the place in which the offender may, for the time being, be. Ordinarily, jurisdiction is limited either territorially or in relation to the type of offence. For example, a district court will deal with summary offences committed within its own district. In the case of aircraft offences, greater flexibility is necessary and the effect of section 62 (1) is that the court, having jurisdiction at the place where the offender is apprehended, will have jurisdiction over his offence, regardless of where it was committed. It is obviously necessary to have some kind of arrangement like this for matters relating to air services and to offences under this Bill.
There is the further matter that the Minister for Justice may, by order, provide as to the courts in which proceedings may be taken for enforcing any claim under the Act and may, in particular, provide for conferring jurisdiction in such proceedings on courts exercising Admiralty jurisdiction and applying to such proceedings the rules of practice and procedure applicable to proceedings in Admiralty. Admiralty jurisdiction in Ireland is vested in the High Court, except in Cork where the Circuit Court may act in such cases. The Admiralty was originally a branch of the Courts specialising in transport law and certain judges of the High Court still specialise in this law. This provision means that the Minister for Justice can consider claims under the Act as special cases and, as such, refer them to the High Court where they will be dealt with by judges with specialised knowledge of the laws applicable.
The Minister for Justice can also revoke any orders under this section and in the usual way, I understand, he confers with the Chief Justice before making any order under the section so that the Chief Justice's views may be ascertained before any change is made in the area of jurisdiction of any court. The effect of the new section will be to extend the rules outlined above to cover also the jurisdiction of offences under the present Bill. I am afraid it was another case of having omitted to apply certain legal provisions to the provisions of the new Bill.
The Minister might have put it briefly by saying: "This is another error of omission." The fact is that he has discovered that he had forgotten to make the appropriate clauses of the Principal Act applicable to matters provided for in this Bill. All I can say to him, through the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is: pray, do your homework hereafter but, in the circumstances, we are prepared to repair your error of omission.
With great respect to my leader, I object to this. This again is legislation by reference. There is no reason why the Bill should not have said that such and such a section of the 1936 Act "is hereby repealed and the following section substituted." Every Deputy heard the Minister's long statement setting out the consequences of this amendment and we now find this important amendment is brought in by simply saying: "The references in subsections (1) and (2) of section 62 of the Principal Act shall be construed as including references to this Act." It is as clear as mud. One must get the other Act and re-read it.
I object to this procedure completely. I have objected, since I came into the House, no matter what Government were in office, to legislation by reference. It is completely wrong. Yet, they expect ordinary citizens or people affected by the measure to do their homework and when an offence is committed, they will refer you to such and such a section where it is set out. The Minister has said what the effect of this will be in a fairly elaborate way but I think this business of legislation by reference is unfair, unreasonable and unparliamentary.
I am afraid it is extremely common practice if one goes back on the past 20 years but I agree with the Deputy that it would be better if one could avoid it.
Would the Minister not think of repealing the section on Report Stage and bringing in a completely new section?
I think, in all the circumstances, we shall leave it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Sections 14 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 2, line 11, to delete "SIGNED" and to substitute "DONE".
This is purely a drafting amendment. We have to say that the convention was "done" rather than "signed" at Guadalajara because in fact we were not present at that Convention.
On that we shall make no comment.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96 (3) I am to report specifically to the Dáil that the Committee has amended the title to read as follows:
An Act to enable effect to be given to the Convention, Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Performed by a Person Other than the Contracting Carrier signed at Guadalajara, Mexico, on the 18th day of September, 1961, to make further provision in relation to the control and regulation of air services to, from, within and over the territory of the State and of rates and fares charged on air services to, from and within the territory of the State, for those and other purposes to amend and extend the Air Navigation and Transport Acts, 1936 to 1963, and to provide for matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
In all your long experience, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, did you ever have to read that Standing Order before?
The Minister is making a series of records here today, all for the want of doing a little homework.
Does that show lack of homework?
Report Stage?
Could we have it now?
The sooner we get this out of public memory the better.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Ordered: "That the Bill be sent to Seanad Éireann."
I hope it will not come back with any more amendments.
The Deputy is exaggerating in his customary manner. I have seen plenty of amendments of this kind.
It is well for the Minister that he has a constructive, industrious Opposition.
If Deputy Dillon's Party were in power, I could see plenty of amendments of this kind being put in without apology or anything.