Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Forcible Entry Legislation.Thursday, 4 May 1972 |
Dáil Eireann Debate
Page of 95
|
Mr. Desmond:
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.
Mr. O'Malley:
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 [1743] would be foreign to the nature and context of the Bill.
Dr. FitzGerald:
Could the Minister say what the force of that objection is, bearing in mind that we get rather heterogeneous Bills before us, including aesthetics?
Mr. O'Malley:
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.
Dr. FitzGerald:
It was not that it would be untidy?
Mr. O'Malley:
It would not be. The amendment would be foreign to the nature and context of that Bill.
Dr. FitzGerald:
What binding force would that have?
Mr. O'Malley:
If the Attorney General gives me legal advice I would be very slow not to accept it.
Dr. FitzGerald:
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?
Mr. O'Malley:
I said that the proposed provision should not go into the Courts Bill.
Dr. FitzGerald:
That is better. It took a bit to get that.
| Last Updated: 15/09/2010 02:34:18 |
Page of 95
|