I move amendment No. 40:

In page 55, subsection (2), to insert "or product" after "part" both in line 27 and in line 30.

Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 are consequential on No. 40.

Section 72 deals with the powers of the Garda and authorised officers in regard to suspected offences under the Bill relating to fauna and flora or parts of fauna and flora. The Committee will recall amendments Nos. 24 to 31 to the import and export provisions of Sections 52 and 53, respectively, in order to clarify that parts of fauna and flora extended to "products" of them. Those amendments were necessary to ensure that we would successfully implement the Washington Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 are consequential.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 55, subsection (3) (a), to insert “or product” after “part” in line 39.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 55, subsection (3) (c), line 53, to delete “fauna or flora” and substitute “any specimen of fauna or flora or any part or product of fauna or flora”.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 55, subsection (3) (c), line 56, to delete “fauna or flora” and substitute “specimen of fauna or flora or any part or product of fauna or flora”.

The purpose of this section, which is best read in conjunction with section 73 is to define the powers of the Garda and of specially authorised officers in regard to suspected offences under the Bill. The combined provisions are akin to those contained in the Game Preservation Act, 1930, relating to "game" offences, but differ from them in that they do not permit the search of a person and will permit the search either of a dwelling or of other premises only under warrant.

Would the Minister say who will these officers be who will operate these provisions?

Most likely officers of the Forest and Wildlife Service of the Department of Lands.

They will not be forestry workers?

Yes, they could be, employees of the Forest and Wildlife Section. They would have to be authorised.

And an ordinary forestry worker could be an authorised person?

Yes, or it might not be a forestry worker. It could be a person authorised by the Minister.

We would like to feel that there was some formality about the appointing of authorised persons, that it would not be done casually.

There would be.

To take up Deputy O'Leary's point, anybody who works for the Department in any capacity would not necessarily be an authorised officer?

No, the Minister would have to be satisfied that the person appointed is suitable.

And some process will be gone through?

Sub-section (1) empowers the Minister to appoint authorised persons for the purposes of the Bill. A formal warden service as such is not contemplated. Authorised persons will normally be drawn from the Department's local forester corps. It is possible that organised hunting and conservationists bodies will provide some suitable people for appointment as authorised persons to augment departmental officers. The position is that the onus of satisfying himself that the people are suitable will rest on the Minister and if he appoints people who are not suitable he will have to answer for that on his Estimate.

The point I would like to establish is that anybody who is in the employment of the Department will not automatically regard himself as an authorised officer, that some formal process will have to be gone through in appointing him.

The Deputy's point is quite right.

An authorised officer or garda may stop any person and seize the birds he may have and lay the onus on the person to prove that they were procured legally?

That is right if he suspects an offence has been committed.

Can he follow the person?

Yes, he can.

The authorised officer is also mentioned in section 68, where it says that he may inspect or survey land for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are fauna on the land which are in need of protection. I understand that this officer would also call frequently if the objectives indicated in the order are being attained. What happens if the objectives are not being attained?

I would have to reassess the situation and see if the order was justified or whether I should withdraw it.

What are the powers of the authorised person or the garda in that event?

I should like to clarify the position. There is no relation between section 68 and section 72. They could be totally different officers. Under section 68 he would simply report to the Minister on his inspection of land. Section 72 is a policing section.

Where the objective is not being attained?

There would be no question of prosecution under section 68.

These authorised persons are getting very wide powers, the sort of powers one would normally like to see restricted to the Garda. Subsection (3) indicates that any such authorised person, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence, may, according to paragraph (b), "open and examine any package, parcel, box or other container which he reasonably suspects is being so used,". These are very sweeping powers to give to people who are not gardaí.

They would ordinarily be people who are accustomed to looking after State property.

Also, under paragraph (b), he is entitled to seize and detain a document or anything else if it appears to him to be something that may be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under the Act. These are very wide powers to give to people who are just authorised officers with no technical or Garda training.

There is nothing new about this. This power was contained in section 29 of the Game Preservation Act of 1930. It has not been abused as far as we know.

But we are looking at all these things again. That is what we are here for and it reinforces my view that the Minister should be very restrictive.

We are excluding a search of the person. These authorised persons will not be entitled to search a house unless accompanied by a garda.

We are getting away from the bad old days when the landlords' bailiff could do anything he liked with poor peasants.

The Deputy was arguing the very opposite case in regard to letting the ordinary plebeians cross land, having the right of way to cross the land of the big house.

I am merely making the point that we cannot have any return to the type of landlord and bailiff activities. These are democratically appointed officials, appointed by us, the plain people of Ireland. We are investing them with certain statutory powers and all I want to say is that the Minister should be careful, restrictive and limited in the people he appoints because he is giving them wide powers.

I accept that and I am satisfied that the Minister will so act.

What power is the Minister seeking in subsection (3) (a), as regards stopping a vehicle, vessel or aircraft?

A garda or authorised person may, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence may search any vehicle, vessel or aircraft which he reasonably suspects is being used to transport, export or import any specimen of fauna or flora . . . Is that the one?

I was trying to visualise the situation where one could bring an aircraft to a stop.

I know some of the Ministers who would be quite capable of stopping an aircraft. A No. 6 shot would bring down—

I merely wondered if there was an easier way of stating the power which is required.

No. That is the draftsman's way of saying it. He is satisfied that covers what we have in mind.

Suppose it is a vessel, that he has boarded some vessel. What is the point in bringing it to a stop, say, three miles out of port?

I suppose he is largely talking about motor traffic, motor vehicles.

That is what I thought and if he is talking about them he should talk of it as it would be.

The Minister could stop a liner if he thought there was a pigeon on board.

Could the Minister bring it back to port? If we are being serious about this matter he should have the power to bring it back to port.

Sub-section (3) (c) reads: "Require the person who is for the time being in control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft . . ." In other words, if he thought there was a considerable amount of fauna or flora on an aircraft he would have the power to search it.

He could ask the control tower to bring the aircraft back. Should the last line of subsection (4) (b) not read ". . . to enter buildings or lands"?

It should be "enter on land".

The subsection reads ". . . a member of the Garda Síochána or an authorised person to enter buildings on land". I will look into this matter before Report Stage.