Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 38, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:“(5) The power conferred on an authorised officer under subsection (4)(a) and (b) may only be exercised by an inspector of the Minister.”.

Certain functions are proposed in section 38(4) relating to circumstances in which an authorised officer has reasonable grounds for believing that there is a risk of disease or a disease or disease agent is or may be present on any land or premises. We have avoided over-prescribing what qualifications an authorised officer should have. In the case of disease, it is reasonable to suggest that the power conferred on an authorised officer under subsection (4)(a) and (b) may only be exercised by an inspector of the Minister. It seems to me that an authorised officer would not be capable of determining whether a disease was present.

The beginning of section 42 refers to circumstances in which an authorised officer is of the opinion that a contravention of the Act, an EU measure or animal health and welfare regulations may have taken place or may be taking place or where an animal, animal product or animal feed, land or premises is, or may be, affected with disease or a disease agent. This comes back to the question of how an authorised officer who is not an expert can determine everything about a disease without consulting a veterinary practitioner, particularly if he is not an inspector of the Department. Therefore, I believe both amendments are realistic and sensible in the context of the Bill. They ensure that only a person with the competence to make a judgment on disease is authorised to do so and that such a person should have the qualification to make a judgment as well.

See this speech in context