Amendment No. 18 is an alternative to amendment No. 17. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 will be discussed together.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 17, subsection (4), to delete lines 37 to 41 and substitute the following:
"(4) If an authorised officer was reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed under the Act of 1982 or under this Act, and on production of his authorisation, he may—".
Having read the Minister's amendment, I will not press amendment No. 17.
I propose this amendment for a specific reason. The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven should be included in all legislation. The wording is: "If an authorised officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed" he may enter a premises. It should be a precondition that the authorised officer has reasonable grounds. The present wording of section 21 (4) is that an authorised officer may enter "for the purposes of obtaining any information which may be required". Although the Minister's amendment, which provides that information must be needed for the investigation helps, it is not as clear-cut as normally provided for in legislation, which is that an officer can enter if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence is being committed.
The present wording, even with the Minister's amendment, does not make it necessary to have reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence. All that is required under the law as proposed is that an authorised officer may, at reasonable times, enter any premises for the purposes of obtaining information which may be required to help with his investigation. It is rather heavy-handed to provide permission for entering any premises to assist in an investigation. The officer should have to demonstrate to some authority that he has reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence had been committed.
In an attempt to meet the concern expressed in the amendments tabled by Deputy Brennan and Deputy Molloy we have proposed amendment No. 18 which requires the officer to be entering a premises "in relation to the matter under investigation". This brings the Bill into line with the Consumer Credit Bill where the powers are stated in exactly the same way and goes a long way towards meeting the case made by the Deputy.
The Minister's amendment is a major improvement to the Bill and I am glad to hear it is a response to the amendments tabled by Deputy Brennan and myself. It was against the principles of natural justice, and possibly even unconstitutional, that the Bill as it stood provided that an officer could go in without giving any reason.
I am prepared to accept the Minister's amendment, under which the officer can only enter to pursue investigations under way on a certain matter. At least this is specific to a certain line of investigation. It was far too broad and loose in the way it was originally drafted. The Minister's amendment tightens this up; the officer can now enter only when he can indicate a reason relating to a specific investigation.
Section 21 (4) (a) provides that an authorised officer may at all reasonable times enter any premises, at which there are reasonable grounds to believe that any trade or business or any activity in connection with a trade or business is or has been carried on, or that records in relation to such trade, business or activities are kept. The officer must have reasonable grounds and it must relate to a specific investigation. On that understanding I am prepared to accept the Minister's amendment as an improvement and withdraw mine.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 17, subsection (4), line 38, after "required" to insert "in relation to the matter under investigation".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 19, subsection (2), between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"(c) if the package is one where the transport component of the package commences within the State to a destination within the State or Northern Ireland and the provider is the holder of a licence under the Act of 1982.".
A series of amendments consequential on this amendment will fall if the Minister does not accept it. We may deal with a number of amendments here, depending on the Minister's response to this one.
I am trying to remove the requirement on travel agents to take out a second bond. At present if an agent organises travels overseas he is bonded under the 1982 Act. If he is organising travel within the State or from a point outside the State to another point outside the State, he is not covered by the 1982 Act. Since the 1982 Act does not cover packages within the State I propose this amendment to the provisions of that Act so the existing bond held for travel to and from the State can be enlarged or augmented to cover packages within the State.
I agree that packages within the State should be bonded; that argument is well made, the trade expects it and consumers are entitled to that protection. It can be argued that a new second bond is necessary under this legislation; my problem is with the methodology rather than the substantive issue. A better way is to amend the 1982 Act so the existing bond covers them, rather than forcing them to take out a second bond.
The 1982 Act only covers overseas travel, as has been said. The bonding arrangements entered into for the purpose of obtaining a licence under that Act are on the basis of projected annual turnover for overseas travel. The licensing and bonding regime under the 1982 Act will continue to be separate from the additional requirement for domestic travel under this Bill so I do not propose to accept the amendment.
The effect of amendment No. 19 would be that a travel agent or tour operator, who is already licensed and bonded under the 1982 Act, would not be obliged to get a separate bond for domestic travel under this Bill. This would not be practicable because bonds are administered by the Minister under the 1982 Act but bonds for domestic packages under this Bill will be administered by bodies to be approved by the Minister under regulations which will be made after the enactment of the Bill.
In any case, in the interests of transparency and of the travel agent, it is necessary that bonding arrangements for foreign travel under the 1982 Act for domestic travel under this Bill will be kept separate. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment. If there was a single bonding system it could also give rise to a requirement for licences being issued for domestic travel on a broad scale, which is not intended. That is the danger of the Deputy's suggestion. Whereas if they are separate — the authorised body is in charge of the group for domestic travel and the Minister for foreign travel — the requirement for licensing in the domestic area does not arise.
I was concerned the requirement for a new bond would act as a disincentive for retailers engaged in selling domestic holidays and mitigate against the domestic holiday market. I understand the Minister's point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 22 to 26, inclusive agreed to.