Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997

SECTION 79.

Question proposed: "That section 79 stand part of the Bill."

There is an opinion that this section would be inoperable because of the difficulty in distinguishing between wild and farmed fish, and that it might jeopardise the implementation of the proposals of the salmon management task force with respect to carcase tagging. What is the Minister of State's opinion?

I propose to retain the section but not to commence it in advance of the implementation of the proposals on the salmon management task force and further consideration in that context of the views of the fisheries boards and the aquaculture industry. The task force has recommended a system of carcase tagging and a balance needs to be struck between the need to control the sale of wild salmon in the interests of conservation and the need to ensure that unnecessarily bureaucratic procedures are not placed on dealers handling farm salmon. I, therefore, propose not to commence this section until the arrangements recommended by the task force regarding carcase tagging are put in place.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 80 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 39, before section 81, to insert the following new section:

"81.—(1) A person employed by the Marine Institute may be appointed as an authorised officer under the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1995, as amended by this Act, for any of the purposes for which an officer of the Minister may be appointed as an authorised officer under those Acts.

(2) In addition to any other powers he or she may have under the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1995, as amended by this Act, a member of the Garda Síochána, or an officer of the Minister or a person employed by the Marine Institute and appointed as an authorised officer under those Acts, may, for the purposes of determining whether a provision of this Act, or a regulation made under this Act, relating to aquaculture, or a condition to which an aquaculture licence or trial licence is subject, is being or has been complied with

(a) enter any place or waters the subject of an aquaculture licence or trial licence or on or in which he or she believes, on reasonable grounds, aquaculture is being or has been carried on, or any building or structure used in connection with such place, waters or aquaculture,

(b) inspect anything found on or in such a place, waters or building or structure he or she believes may be evidence of such aquaculture,

(c) require production of any

(i) licence, or

(ii) book or other document he or she believes on reasonable grounds to be evidence of the carrying on of aquaculture on or in the place or waters, and inspect and take copies of any such licence, books or other documents, and

(d) do all such other acts or things as he or she is authorised to do by or under the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1995, as amended by this Act.".

The reference to dumping at sea legislation is now superfluous because the Dumping at Sea Act, 1996, has already provided for the appointment of Marine Institute staff as authorised officers under that legislation. In addition, it is proposed to provide for explicit powers for the gardaí or authorised officers to enter on an aquaculture site or buildings associated with aquaculture for the purpose of ensuring compliance with aquaculture licenses and regulations. These powers are in addition to existing powers of authorised officers under the Fisheries Acts.

With regard to fish culture licence holders whose offices may be in their private home, the person employed by the Marine Institute who may be appointed as an authorised officer for the purpose of inspection and overseeing the implementation of the provisions of licences has the right under this section to enter any building or structure. Presumably this amendment seeks to give him authority to enter the homes of fish farm or shell fish farm operators to inspect books which he may consider relevant to his obligations under the licence. There is concern in the industry about this. Has the Minister of State taken that into account and what are his views?

I have checked into this matter. Under existing legislation, which has been in place since 1959, authorised officers have wide ranging powers for the enforcement of the Fisheries Acts. I am not aware that this has presented significant problems along the lines described by Deputy Molloy. The power to enter a premises, including a family home, is not unconstitutional. Similar provisions exist in legislation relating to the enforcement of social welfare, health, firearms and finance legislation. As with all aspects of the Bill, this provision has been vetted from a legal perspective.

How does the Minister of State see this operating in practice? Can an authorised officer of the Marine Institute inspect books which are located in a private house? What identification will he have? Will it contain his photograph to indicate his authorisation to the householder or company? Surely such empowerment represents a major intrusion into the privacy of a person's home? Whatever about the constitutional aspect, such a provision would be undesirable. Should they not be required to give notification?

There is nothing new in this. We are appointing the staff of the Marine Institute as authorised officers and are also providing explicit powers for the gardaí to have a role. These powers exist under existing fisheries legislation in operation since 1959. The officers concerned carry warrants under the Fisheries Acts. I am not aware of any complaints about the indiscriminate or insensitive use of their powers in this regard. In any event in practice, the inspection work involved here will be undertaken on the site of the operation. Most operations have offices where documents may be consulted. One would expect the officers concerned to use their discretion and judgment in carrying out their functions; that has been the case hitherto and I see no reason for it to change.

I have not heard of any complaints and,to my knowledge, fisheries officers have always acted in a proper manner. Nevertheless, fears exist because this request has come from the industry. Would it not be appropriate that the officer's photograph be included in his authorisation? In recent legislation on illegal substances in the agriculture industry, the Minister agreed to accept an amendment from the Opposition requiring the appropriate officer to produce an authorisation showing his photograph on the warrant.

I have no difficulty with a direction or regulation requiring the officer concerned to carry identification which would include a photograph. The conditions of the fish farm licence will provide that the operator will be required to produce papers and documents when requested to do so.

Does this power include forcible entry into a premises or residence?

That has never arisen. Most of the information sought and most of the work done will be on site. I am not aware of forcible entry or insensitive investigations by fishery officers. They undertake their functions in accordance with the law and with sensitivity and judgment.

We are making law here.

We are not making new law.

It is new law.

Amendment agreed to.

Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 81 of the Bill.

Section 81 deleted.

Top
Share