I move amendment No. 28:

In page 40, subsection (1) (b), line 54, to delete “, carcase or any other part” and substitute “or the carcase”.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 40, subsection (1), between lines 56 and 57, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(c) any part, other than the carcase, or any product of a wild animal or wild bird which is a part or product so specified,".

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 41, subsection (1) (e), line 4, to delete ", roots or other part" and substitute "or roots".

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 41, subsection (1), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following new paragraph:

"() any part, other than the flowers or roots, or any product of such plant which is a part or product so specified.".

This section extends the export control provisions of the Game Preservation Act, 1930, to all wild fauna, dead or alive, and flora protected under the Bill. It is similar in its main provisions to the import requirements in section 52 in that (a) it will operate by way of regulations, (b) these regulations involve prior consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and (c) it provides a "saver" for the latter's similar export control functions under the statutes mentioned in subsection (5), but, whereas the import section is directed at fauna and flora, the export provisions are confined to protected species.

With regard to the overlapping with other legislation, will a licence to export seed potatoes be sufficient without going under the terms of this section?

I understand they would not be protected.

We are an agricultural country and we should not allow this to infringe on the legitimate export business.

We must keep firmly before our minds that this Wildlife Bill only applies to wild fauna and flora not to domestic fauna and flora.

I appreciate that but we must keep in mind, in order to ensure exports of fauna and flora are legitimate, other things must be subject to examination. I know people who make a living from exporting Hawthorn Whites. They will have to prove that this is legitimate. It must cause a certain amount of difficulty for them because they can be subject to examination to ascertain if they are in fact what they are claiming to be otherwise the provisions of this section would be inoperable. I am concerned that we do not necessarily infringe on the legitimate export business.

We do not intend to.

It is easy to say that but someday there might be some other less scrupulous Minister or official who who could, if he wished, make it difficult. When we pass legislation it is on the Statute Book for all time.

If the Deputy refers to subsection (5) he will see that it says:

Nothing in this section shall restrict, prejudice or affect the functions of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries under the Agricultural and Fishery Products (Regulation of Export) Act, 1947, or functions which are for the time being transferred to and vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce by an order under section 5 of that Act.

The sort of individual the Deputy has in mind will only come under scrutiny if there is suspicion that he is abusing his legitimate trading activities by exporting things he should not export.

The point I was trying to make is that the licence already required for legitimate export should be accepted as sufficient without being subject to the provisions of this section.

I am sure that he is already subject to inspection to see that he is not exporting something that he has nothing to do with.

That would apply to customs regulations.

There is nothing new in this.

I am thinking of the hazards we can introduce which are covered by the general terms of red tape which make it difficult for people who are legitimately involved in the export business.

The officers enforcing this type of legislation know the type of transaction they should investigate and the type of transaction which is quite harmless. It may be that sometimes an offender gets away with it but it is better than having too rigid regulations.

It take it, as we had in earlier sections, that provision will be made with regard to what we described as scientific and educational purposes?

That is provided for, subject to licence.

There is one particular area in Ireland which will greatly benefit from this section. It is in Deputy Daly's and Deputy Taylor's constituency—the Burren, County Clare, which has been pillaged. There is another area in Deputy Brennan's constituency where this has also started. Some people are exporting species from those areas in a cruel way and doing considerable damage.

Subsection (4) states:

Any officer of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may detain and examine and if necessary open for that purpose any postal packet. . . .

Would that person be qualified to decide he would have to open the packet?

I am told that that is taken verbatim from the 1930 Act. I am sure if that was being done the expert would be looked for.

It does not say here that he has to look for the expert. He can decide for himself.

I assume, if there is a suspect package, that it is despatched to a certain section.

It is disposed of by the instructions of the Minister.

It states in the Bill that the Minister may make regulations after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries prohibiting the export of this, that and the other thing save under licence. I am satisfied that that is as far as one can go. After that one really depends on common sense to preclude unnecessary action being taken which sometimes can result in delay so that some products arrive in an unfit state.

The point made by Deputy Daly is a very valid one having regard to the operations of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as we know them. We should stipulate that the officer who will detain a parcel should be the senior officer at least. As we have it here we are giving power to any officer of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to detain a parcel. He could be a temporary sorter.

No. This is operated under departmental regulations. For example, certain officers of various Departments are authorised to sign documents or letters. Officers do not do this unless they are authorised by the Minister to do it. Some similar provision like that applies here. Certain officers of the Department will do this.

The legislation is saying we are authorising any officer.

I will have a look at it, Deputy, but I do not think that is necessary because if I were to do that I would be reaching into another Department and telling another Minister how to run his Department.

I think the Minister would accept that it would be in accordance with his wishes, because obviously it would cause embarrassment to him if some unauthorised officer were to do it. The Minister might appreciate your drawing attention to the fact that correctly speaking it should be an authorised officer.

I will certainly direct the attention of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to this when the Bill becomes law, that only authorised officers of standing should be enabled to examine any package.

We are guarding here against malpractice. We could envisage a situation where somebody involved in unauthorised dealing could chat with a very junior officer in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and suggest to him that for one reason or another he could make an exception in certain circumstances.

Those powers are already there. It is really an extension of section 27 of the Game Preservation Act, 1930. I take it we have to put up with some type of inspection now.