asked the Minister for Justice when he intends to introduce the amendments to the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act, 1971 as promised by him.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Forcible Entry Legislation.
67.
For the record, I should like to point out that what we are concerned with here is a single amendment involving the substitution of the word "incites" for the phrase "encourages or advocates" in section 4 of the Act mentioned.
I hope to provide for such an amendment in the next appropriate Bill to be introduced by me. I may say that I considered whether the amendment could be made in the Courts Bill that was enacted before Christmas, but the Attorney General advised that this would not be appropriate as the amendment would be foreign to the nature and context of the Bill.
Could the Minister say what the force of that objection is, bearing in mind that we get rather heterogeneous Bills before us, including aesthetics?
All I know is that I have to follow the advice of the Attorney General on a matter such as this and he advised me in an opinion that it could not go into the Courts Bill, when I asked him if it could.
It was not that it would be untidy?
It would not be. The amendment would be foreign to the nature and context of that Bill.
What binding force would that have?
If the Attorney General gives me legal advice I would be very slow not to accept it.
Would the Minister agree that he did not give advice that he could not do it—that it is a matter of aesthetic judgment rather than a binding force?
I said that the proposed provision should not go into the Courts Bill.
That is better. It took a bit to get that.