Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 87, line 17, after "premises," to insert "on foot of the issue of a warrant issued by a judge of the District Court,".

We are back to the Committee Stage debate when I spoke about rights in respect of a person's home. A person's home and veterinary practice could be the same premises. Interestingly, the report of the Data Protection Commissioner was published yesterday, on which I called for a debate on this morning's Order of Business. I am concerned about the invasion of privacy that may occur as a result of legislation being slipped through. My first experience of this occurrence was in the context of the Competition Bill which gave rights to invade a person's premises in pursuit of information. I am concerned we are passing legislation without reminding ourselves that we are giving the right to somebody, other than a court of law, to invade a premises. While I understand why we do so in the context of drug, tax and competition offences, I am reluctant to allow somebody, other than a judge, to make that decision.

The amendment states "on foot of the issue of a warrant issued by a judge of the District Court," which is stated elsewhere in that if one wants to inspect another premises, one must go to court to get that right. However, in this case, one does not need to do that. The Minister will state that a veterinary premises is not somebody's home but it is possible that it could be. I express this concern that we may end up in a police state by allowing legislation to intrude on our private lives without a court order. I would like the Minister to put my mind at rest or to accept the amendment.