Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be discussed together.
SECTION 2.
Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Bill, 1968: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 1:
To add to paragraph (c) "not used for gain or reward".
I think the amendment which I have put down is to the same effect as that which the Minister has put down. The reason I put down amendment No. 1 was to ensure that the Act would apply to pleasure yachts which are engaged in trade, as the Minister's amendment puts it. The position as I understand it at the present time is that there are no regulations under any statute governing the safety of pleasure boats used round Dún Laoghaire Harbour or any other harbour in this country, and it seems to me that pleasure boats engaged in trade should come within the ambit of this Bill and that excluded from the Bill should be, as the amendment puts it, pleasure boats not used for gain or reward.
I wonder if the Minister and myself are on the same line with regard to this. My view is that all yachts, boats of any description, which are plying for hire should have some form of certification as to safety from some responsible authority, whether that is the Minister for Transport and Power or some other Department of State, and I am not happy that a situation should continue in which the public are unwittingly going on to or allowing their children to go on to yachts, pleasure boats which have not got some certification as to safety from the Minister for Transport and Power.
The amendment which I have put down should cover the position. When passengers are carried on a commercial vehicle or any small boat, including a pleasure yacht, to the number of 12 or more, the craft have to be certified under the Merchant Shipping Act, but if we add the words "not engaged in trade" it covers the situation very satisfactorily from the Senator's viewpoint. "Not engaged in trade" is using the phrase in the 1966 Convention. Quite possibly the actual expression may have somewhat wider scope and might be easier to apply. The Senator may be assured that what we are doing in the amendment is what he wishes to do in his amendment.
I quite agree. I think it is the most satisfactory method of keeping to the same wording. I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 2.
To add to paragraph (c) "not engaged in trade".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Government amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1), lines 49 and 50, to delete "10th day of June, 1948" and substitute "17th day of June, 1960".
This is purely a drafting amendment. Ireland has approved the 1960 Convention with regard to safety at sea which replaced the 1948 Convention on the same subject. It is necessary to update the time in this section.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In subsection (2), page 15, line 6, to delete "in pursuance of any such rules, or".
This is again a drafting agreement. The reference to the rules is incorrect and calls to be deleted.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Section 25 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
I understand that the object of subsection (1) is to enable the Government or the Minister to make an Order adopting the Act or any provisions in the Act for transitional purposes. Where an Order of such a kind is necessary—and we have had it in various Bills that have come before us, such as the Occupational Injuries Act, the Social Welfare Act of 1952 and a number of other statutes from time to time—it seems to me proper that where it is necessary to make an Order adapting the provisions of an Act of the Oireachtas, which is in effect modifying or amending the law passed by the Oireachtas, the Order should be laid in draft before each House and a copy of the draft approved. It is a simple and expeditious procedure but at the same time it ensures that where you are making any substantive change in the legislation itself that it should not be done merely by an Order or regulation which is laid before each House of the Oireachtas and which the Oireachtas have not an opportunity, or does not as a matter of practice avail itself of the opportunity, of passing judgment upon it. The regulation should be brought before each House and be specifically approved. In practice, the Minister would agree when such Orders adapting statutes or making substantive changes in the Act itself have been made and brought before the Oireachtas, there never has been any great difficulty or delay in having them passed. I think it is a better procedure to adopt than merely making an Order or surreptitiously—and that is what it amounts to I am afraid—amending legislation merely by an Order made by the Government or by the Minister. I think I am right in saying that is the effect of subsection (1) of the section.
I am afraid I cannot do more than what is provided for in section 29 (3) in which any Orders made under section 29 (1) or any regulations or rules made under this Bill are laid before each House of the Oireachtas and a resolution of either House, if passed within 21 sitting days, can result in its annulment or if there is no resolution it automatically becomes law. I am afraid it would be impossible to take any other course. I might say that this legislation for the safety of life at sea and all the legislation of this type has never been the subject of any difficulty of which I know; in other words any Orders or statutory instruments made have been found satisfactory and have never caused any difficulties in the House. There has been no protest of any kind because of the fact that there are 21 days in which to examine such instruments. I am afraid I could not go further than what is in the Bill.
If the Minister would look at the Order Paper and I suppose the Minister, not being a Member of the House, may not have it before him, he will see that No. 12 on the Order Paper is a motion to annul a statutory instrument made under the Trade Marks Act of 1963. That, of course, has not been dealt with by the House and I do not know when the Government will provide time to deal with it. I regard the provision contained in these statutes that the Oireachtas may annul a regulation as unsatisfactory. It is certainly a negative approach to legislation that if nobody sees what the Minister and the Government does then it surreptitiously becomes law. I can quite see that where the Oireachtas decides that for the implementation of the detail of any Act then the Minister may make regulations to implement the details and to provide for implementation in detail. Subsection (1) of section 29 is not in that category.
It contains power for the Government to make any Order or regulation which may be regarded as necessary for the transitional, incidental or supplementary operation of the Act. That, to my mind, amounts to an amendment of the statute. It is purely a question of principle as to whether or not the power of amending this Bill when it is an Act should lie with the Minister. That is a different kind of power to the power of implementing in detail the particular provisions of an Act. I do not take any exception to the powers that are contained, which are customary in all these modern statutes, to enable the Minister to make regulations. That is not what we are doing in subsection (1). It seems to me that we are giving the Government power to amend the provisions of this Act. Perhaps the Minister may be able to quite my fears on that if he can tell us what, indeed, is it anticipated the power contained in subsection (1) may be used for.
In reply to the Senator, as this Bill is putting into operation an international Convention the provisions of which we have followed very closely with some slight amendments for Irish registered ships in the sense that we have interpreted the Convention very strictly for Irish registered ships, there is nothing the Government could do of a drastic kind and they cannot depart from the general terms of the Convention. I can assure the Senator that this clause is not meant for the introduction of any serious amendment or change in the character of the regulations we are going to make. It is purely a little protective piece of legislation put in in order that if we have to do something of a minor character we can do it. That is the only purpose. We have to follow the Convention.
I think I am on record already as saying in this House that the legislation which is enacted by Order subsequent to the Act going through both Houses of the Oireachtas is something many times more voluminous than the substance of the Act itself. I am speaking with experience of having to carry out these Orders as an official of the Corporation of Dublin. I see even on the Order Paper today there are three Orders made under a previous Act—the Brucellosis in Cattle (Movement Control) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 1968, the Brucellosis in Cattle (Disease-Free Area) Order, 1968 and Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Regulations, 1968. Candidly, I intended to look at those in the Library today to see just from a point of interest what they are. However, I want to emphasise that undoubtedly down the years much legislation has been enacted by Order in sequence to the Acts of the Oireachtas and there is even a committee of this House to scrutinise and examine these things so I think the Senator has no reason to think that something extraordinary is happening here now because it is a democratic sequence of actions in the legislation of the country.
I do not wish to delay the House but I can assure Senator Ó Donnabháin that I have already read the Brucellosis in Cattle (Movement Control) Order, 1968 and all the other Orders that were made. I get these Orders sent to me direct.
That is because the Senator is a member of the committee.
No, because I am a Member of the Oireachtas.
I never get them.
I may say that I had great difficulty in making such arrangements but through the kind offices of the Office of the Cathaoirleach I was able to get them sent direct to me as they are made. Indeed, I had a look at the Road Traffic Regulations for County Kilkenny, but what I am concerned about, and I do not wish to delay the House on this, is that there is quite a difference in principle between a regulation implementing in detail the provisions of any Act and a regulation which amends the Act itself. What subsection (1) is designed to do is to give power to the Government by regulation to amend the Act. We have had this same kind of of power contained in the Social Welfare Act of 1952, and the Oireachtas in that kind of case because it was amending the substance of the Act requires that before the Order is made a draft of it is laid before each House of the Oireachtas. That is what I want to see applied here. I am not at all happy about leaving the details to be worked out in regulations which can be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
The Minister does not accept my view and I do not suppose there is very much use in proceeding with it at this stage. I would have thought that the Minister might be able, in order to get all Stages of the Bill today, to indicate what circumstances are envisaged in which it might be necessary to use this power. I know the Government must keep to the terms of the Convention of 1966 but there must be some apprehension on the part of the Minister that there will be circumstances in which the power under section 1 would be necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 30 and 32, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Next Stage?
If there is no objection we would like the remaining Stages now.
I reluctantly agree.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I think I am correct in raising this point now. It seems that there will be quite a volume of rules and regulations to be made by the Minister under this particular measure when it is law. I should like to ask the Minister to see to it as far as he can for as long as he is Minister for Transport and Power that those regulations will be made in some kind of manner which will be readily susceptible to understanding. This Bill is concerned with a great deal of technical detail but I hope when the regulations come to be made and in particular when regulations which are made come to be amended that they will be amended in such a fashion that people will not have to get scissors and paste in order to know what the law is at a particular time.
There are fairly drastic penalties and great inconvenience can be imposed on people for failure to comply with regulations under this Bill. I think an obligation rests on the Minister for Transport and Power, his Parliamentary draftsman and the advisers in his Department to see that those regulations and amendments to those regulations are made in such a way as to eliminate the kind of mumbo-jumbo we have in regard to regulations under the Road Traffic Acts and Social Welfare Acts at the present time. In addition to that we would hope from time to time as regulations are made which have to be amended that they are codified. There is nothing in the world to prevent any Minister from codifying regulations in his Department and regulations which are re-enacted or ordering that those shall be the regulations.
Finally, I would hope, as I am sure the Minister will, that he would provide some kind of an explanatory memorandum to accompany those various regulations when they are made so that people who have to implement them will be able to understand them quite clearly. There is a practice in some cases in some Departments to issue booklets from time to time. It may well be in this particular case that the Minister may say that the provision of such a booklet would not be warranted because the number of people who will have to deal with the regulations will not be very great, the number of ships and so on with which Irish citizens will be concerned will not be very great and the public, so to speak, using or having recourse to these regulations may not be very large and the expense involved would not be warranted. If that is so, then there is a clear case to have the regulations and in particular the amendment of them made all the more clear. I hope the Minister will give explicit directions in his Department for clarity of drafting and especially clarity of drafting of regulations amending existing regulations.
Senator O'Quigley's recommendation appeals to me from the practical point of view of ensuring that the regulations are carried out, but when a lawyer like Senator O'Quigley wants to have them spelled out in detail and explanatory memoranda on them supplied, I think it makes it very difficult for the Department concerned.
I do not think the regulations under the previous Convention gave any great trouble. They were prepared in the same careful way on this occasion. Many of them are highly technical and they relate to all sorts of technical considerations in relation to freeboard and load lines. They have to be phrased in such a way so that they can be understood by experts in the constructional marine field. I do not think the Senator need have any worries on this score. We have never had any trouble in the Department about the interpretation of those regulations.
Question put and agreed to.