I move amendment No. 73:

In page 110, subsection (1), line 39, after "times," to insert "on production of the authorisation of the officer if so requested by any person affected,".

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 110, subsection (1) (a), line 43, to delete "excisable products" and substitute "product referred to in section 80 (1) (a)".

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 111, subsection (1), line 6, to delete "excisable products" and substitute "product referred to in section 80 (1) (a)".

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 111, subsection (1), line 8, to delete "excisable products" and substitute "such a product".

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 111, subsection (2), line 30, to delete "excisable products" and substitute "product referred to in section 80 (1) (a)".

Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 are related and can be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 111, subsection (2), line 32, to delete "excisable products are" and substitute "such a product is".

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 111, subsection (2), lines 35 and 36, to delete "vehicles or excisable products" and substitute "vehicle or product".

Section 81 restates, clarifies and updates the powers of an officer to enter and search premises, take samples, examine or remove records and question persons.

Where an officer reasonably suspects that excisable goods are kept or concealed in a premises, he may obtain a search warrant from a District Court Justice and seize or detain anything liable to forfeiture which is found therein. Any person failing to co-operate is liable to a penalty of £1,000 on summary conviction.

Am I right in saying section 81(1) allows an officer to enter any premises, which is not a dwelling, that qualifies under the section without a warrant?

Amendment No. 73 states:

In page 110, subsection (1), line 39, after "times," to insert "on production of the authorisation of the officer if so requested by any person affected,".

Yes, but it seems to allow a revenue officer to go into and search any premises anywhere in the country where any excisable activity is going on and to require production of all records.

That is an existing power which, I gather, is being confirmed.

He does not even need to have any suspicion when he goes into a premises. He can search any premises for any document without any suspicion that a crime has been committed. He can root around anywhere.

He has to have a reasonable suspicion.

Of what, though? That is what the section does not say.

Has the officer to give notice in writing or does he come out of the blue?

I imagine, if he wants to be effective, he would want to come out of the blue.

If he comes out of the blue and shows his card——

What does he show his identification for?

To root around.

He would show his authorisation as an officer of the Customs and Excise to show that he is the person he purports to be. In the course of enforcing law where excisable products are being held or stored and where he has reason to believe the law is not being complied with——

That is not in the section. For instance, an accountant who has records related to a business which has an excise element to it, could have his premises searched by an excise officer without even a suspicion that a crime is being committed under this section. Section 81 is draconian and, if the existing law is the same under the Custom (Consolidation Act), 1876 I am not impressed by it either. It seems section 81(1)(a), lines 45 to 47, states that an ordinary accountant, who has the records of a business on his premises, can be visited by an excise officer wanting to see all the records of the business.

Could I suggest that Deputy McDowell draft an amendment along those lines for Report Stage?

I will.

It seems a reasonable point.

It is a reasonable point. I will take further briefing on it. It is part and parcel of a consolidation. We are not increasing powers from ones I referred to earlier that have been in existence since 1992.