I do not know what can be intended here. The commander of a ship may take certain goods or merchandise on it that he is not authorised to take or to receive on board, and this section makes him guilty of an offence. It would be better if the section were worded that he took in goods or merchandise contrary to orders. If he takes in something that he has no specific authority to take, he commits an offence, whereas I think the offence would be in taking on board something that he is forbidden to take on board—the positive as against the negative.
SECTION 149.
Amendment No. 189 not moved.
Question proposed: " That Section 149 stand part of the Bill."
No doubt the Deputy appreciates what the object of the section is. It is to prevent loss of revenue and to prevent smuggling by sea or air.
While I could see that that is the object of the section, nevertheless, on the precise wording of it, if he takes anything on board that he is not authorised to take, he is guilty of an offence whereas, if he were forbidden to take in, say, dutiable goods, as he ought to be forbidden to do, then clearly he would be guilty of an offence if he brought them in, and could be properly convicted. It is just the distinction between the positive and the negative. That is the only point.
If the Deputy wants something more positive, of course we can do it, but I think he is safeguarded. The people involved here are air and naval personnel. If an airman or naval officer is sent on a mission abroad and brings back something which he should not take on board, he will come under this particularsection. If the Deputy wants it to be more positive, we can do that.
I would prefer the section to be in the state that he commits an offence if he takes in something that he is forbidden by order or something else, or even by the law of the country, to take in. A person may innocently take something in that is not a customed article, but still he is not authorised to take it in, and he could be punished. If the Minister looks into it I think he will agree that it is better to put it in the way I suggest—if he takes anything that he is forbidden to take, he is guilty of an offence.
You see the words here " that he is not authorised ".
Supposing he brought in a box of matches he would be committing an offence because he is not authorised specifically to take in the box of matches. That is why I say it is a bad way to put the section. If he brings in something contrary to orders or contrary to the law of the country then he commits an offence for which he can be dealt with by court-martial.
The section is necessary because State ships and aircraft would be exempt from the usual custom examinations and, if the aim of the section is purely to supply that fiscal need, perhaps the Minister will consider it.
I will look into it.
Question put, and agreed to.