Tom Shehan (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and the Customs Bill 2014. I have several queries relating to conflicting provisions in the Bill, which I wish to flag.

Part 4, dealing with customs officers’ powers, provides them with powers to enter, inspect and patrol certain places without a court warrant. Another Part, however, provides officers with powers to enter and search specified premises or land under a search warrant issued by a judge of a District Court. Why are we allowing for powers to enter and search where a court warrant is needed and for other occasions when it is not needed? Will the Minister of State please define this provision?

One section provides for a customs officer in uniform but another section refers to somebody who is not a Revenue official. Is Revenue thinking of outsourcing? What comes to mind here is a Revenue Commissioner doing his or her job with, say, the Viper. As it stands, if a garda enters a house, he or she will not have Joe Bloggs with him or her. This provision, however, will allow a customs officer and other people Revenue sees fit to, say, enter a premises. What category of person does this involve?

Section 22 provides "that in civil or criminal cases where judgment is given against a Revenue official as the defendant on account of the seizing or detention of any thing, the plaintiff will not be entitled to any damages or costs, besides the thing seized or the value of such thing, and the defendant will not be liable to punishment or penalty, providing the court finds there was probable cause for the seizure or detention.” I would just be a bit cúramach that this could be abused. Writing into the legislation that an official “will not be liable to punishment or penalty, providing the court finds there was probable cause for the seizure or detention” is strong talk. I know it does not change the legislation but it is a measure with which we should be careful. It might be the language used that is the problem.

Section 23 provides that in proceedings under the Customs Acts, certain things may be presumed to be true until the contrary is proven. This allows cases to proceed without presentation of proof of certain specified matters, that is, that a person is or was a properly appointed and authorised officer of customs. Following on from my earlier question, what happens in cases regarding a person assisting a customs officer? If the Minister of State could clarify these issues, it would allay my fears.