I wish to propose the amendment standing in my name:—In Sub-section (2), line 20, to delete the word "twenty" and substitute the word "ten." I need not amplify the idea. The idea is that the penalty is too high. I think the same thing prevails throughout the Bill. The penalties have been made very high. We, on these benches, think there is no necessity for such a high penalty.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LIVE STOCK BREEDING BILL, 1924. THIRD STAGE.
SECTION 1.
(1) On and after the appointed day it shall not be lawful for any person to keep or have in his possession any bull to which this Act applies save in so far as such keeping or possession is authorised by a licence or permit granted to such person under this Act and for the time being in force.
(2) Every person who shall keep or have in his possession any bull to which this Act applies in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.
(3) In any prosecution for an offence under this section the burden of proof that a licence or permit has been granted under this Act in respect of the bull and was in force shall lie on the person prosecuted and unless and until the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that no such licence or permit had been granted or that if such licence or permit had been granted it was no longer in force on the day on which the offence was alleged to have been committed.
(4) For the purpose of a prosecution for an offence under this section a bull shall be deemed to be kept by and to be in the possession of each and every of the following persons, that is to say—
(a) the owner of the bull, and
(b) the owner of the lands or premises on which the bull was when the offence was alleged to have been committed, and
(c) the person having the charge or management of the lands or premises aforesaid.
I support the amendment on the ground that these heavy penalties in the Bill will defeat the object that the Minister has in view. He will get up the backs of the dairy farmers without whose co-operation it will be impossible to get the full effect of the Bill. I think the Minister ought to bear in mind that the dairy farmer in the country views with great uneasiness the penalties to be imposed under this Bill in connection with his business, which certainly ought not to be made more uninviting than it is at present.
I also desire to be associated with the amendment. I think that the principle involved in the Bill is to deter people from keeping bad bulls rather than to show a spirit of vindictiveness. I think that a permissive fine of up to £20 is too high. £10 meets the case fairly well. I know it will be argued that this fine is permissive, that the District Justice need only impose a shilling, but at the present time many of these District Justices are more or less martinets. They have got into the habit of imposing rather severe fines. I think then, the Dáil at the outset, ought to limit their powers of fining to £10, which in the circumstances is a pretty stiff fine. For every day a person keeps a bull without a licence the maximum fine can be imposed. Under all the circumstances I think a fine of £10 meets the case adequately.
I object to the amendment for this reason. There has been a necessity in the country for this Bill for a great many years, and this Dáil approves of the Bill. If you are going to make the Bill effective you have to take steps to see that all to whom it applies comply with the regulations. We are aware of steps that have been taken to enforce the law in certain matters in this country, and we are aware that numbers of people evaded the law because they found that it paid them better to evade it, the fine being so small. That applies to several cases that I have knowledge of, and that other Deputies in this Dáil have knowledge of. They were fined a nominal 30/-, and in one case I know of they saved about £8 or £10 in wages. In other cases they may be selling stuff that is wrong and the profit was treble the amount of the fine. I say there is a necessity for this Bill, and I think the Dáil and the Department of Agriculture ought to make it clear that they are determined to enforce it. I believe the Bill will not be put into force until the country is ready for it. The appointed day is a matter that I think the Minister for Agriculture and his Department will consider very carefully and I am quite certain they are not going to make the appointed day next March, before the farmers of the country are ready for it. They will not be ready for such a Bill next March. There is very little possibility that anyone will be fined the maximum fine. The odds are that it is the minimum fine that will be imposed. Those who will be dealing with offences will consider the merits of the case and they will have the option as to what fine they are to impose. Where it may be a hardship to impose such a fine as £20 they will impose perhaps a fine of £2 or £3. But there are certain people who will be determined to make this law valueless. It is for those people that the £20 fine is intended. The farmers generally will recognise that it is to their own interest to comply with the regulations. I feel certain that the Department will not use their power in an arbitrary way. I would much prefer to let the maximum penalty stand and let the District Justices use their discretion, taking each case on its merits. There will be very few who will deserve the maximum penalty and what Deputy Connor Hogan wants will be really carried out. In nine cases out of ten it will be the minimum fine that will be inflicted.
I would ask the Minister not to be influenced by some of the arguments put forward. We say that a minimum of £10 ought to be sufficient to meet any offence that is likely to occur. It is not a case where an offence against the regulation will mean huge profits. The profits that Deputy D'Alton referred to will not apply in this case. In the case of the beast that the Bill claims to get rid of, the profits may be put down as nil. As a matter of fact, £20 which is put down as a maximum penalty might be the value of two of these bulls. £10, perhaps, would be the value of the offending beast.
As Deputy Hogan says, you want the co-operation of the people of the country. It is the people of the country that matter. You want the enthusiasm of the people of the country to act as one with the Ministry. I say that this penalty of £20 is too high as a maximum. In my opinion, £10 would be sufficient for a maximum. That penalty would be sufficient to achieve the object aimed at. I could not conceive an offence sufficiently grave to merit a fine of £20, and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
I intend to oppose this amendment strenuously. I ask Deputy P.K. Hogan and Deputy Gorey this question: Supposing a man were found, for the third time, keeping, without a licence, a bull that was spreading contagious abortion in the district, would this penalty of £20 be too much to impose on him?
That applies to what you call a bull let out for hire, but this penalty applies to a man who keeps a bull for the use of his own herd.
I would draw the Minister's attention to Section 4 of this Bill, under which the Minister may revoke the licence held by the owner of any such animal as he alludes to. If the Minister takes power, as he does, to revoke the licence held by the owner of such an animal, why is there any necessity for him to argue that a fine ought to be imposed on the owner of that animal? If a man keeps such an animal, then the thing for the Minister to do is to revoke the licence. It will be sufficient penalty on the owner of the animal to have the licence revoked.
I would like an answer to the question I put to Deputy Hogan, of Limerick, and Deputy Gorey. I would like to have an answer to that question for the benefit of farmers. Deputy Hogan stated that farmers generally will object very strenuously to the penalty of £20. The section reads: "Every person who shall keep or have in his possession any bull to which this Act...." That applies not only to the man who keeps a bull for the use of his own herd, but also to the man who keeps a bull for the use of the herds in the neighbourhood. The question I asked, and to which, so far, I have received no answer, is this: If a man is found for the third time keeping a bull which is spreading contagious abortion in the district, does Deputy Hogan of Limerick think that £20 is too big a fine to inflict on such a man, or does he think that the owner of the animal ought to be put in jail? Does he imagine that the dairy farmers of Limerick will think that a fine of £20 is too big— these men who realise what contagious abortion getting into a herd means?
Will the Minister explain what he means by the third time? Does he mean the third time in one season?
You can have it any way you like. The third time in one season, or the third time in different seasons. Does Deputy Baxter think that in the case of a man who has been keeping, without a licence, a bull that is spreading contagious abortion in the district, it would be a sufficient penalty to revoke the licence of such a man and say to him: "You are not to do that again"? Would that be fair to the farmers of Cavan?
The Minister is quoting an impossible case, to begin with. I think that if the Act is administered properly, the obvious thing for the administrator to do in a case like that would be to revoke the licence. I do not think it possible that an individual, after paying a fine of £10, and after having his licence revoked, could be induced to invest in another such animal. You will not get any sensible farmer to do that.
I desire to ask the Minister if he thinks it likely that a man who has been fined the maximum penalty of, say, £10, is going to commit a third offence. My objection is to the principle of these high penalties which the Minister has always shown a tendency to impose in his Bills. This Bill will not be received with open arms by a lot of people in the country, but we want to coax the people to take it and work it. I think it is by acquiring the goodwill of the people rather than by making an example of one man by imposing a fine of £20 that we can make this Bill acceptable. I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments regarding his proposed maximum penalty of £20.
I think it is a fair assumption to make that the Minister's defence for the retention of this penalty of £20 is based more or less on the hypothetical case of a man keeping a bull which is suffering from contagious abortion—of a man who has been summoned three times for such an offence. The Minister must forget the provision of Section 12 of his own Bill, which orders the slaughtering of such an animal. Does the Minister propose to have the animal left alive until a third offence has been committed or suggest that such a bull should not come under the operations of Section 12 and not be destroyed?
Does the Minister contend that a bull suffering from contagious abortion cannot be cured within a fortnight?
I could not answer that question.
I want someone from the Minister's Department to answer it—someone who perhaps knows more about it than the Minister. Is the Minister's argument now, that a bull which contracts this disease is to be slaughtered without treatment? The argument, apparently, is that the disease cannot be cured and I want to know if that is one of the reasons why this penalty of £20 is introduced?
Deputy Gorey knows quite well that that is not the point as far as this amendment is concerned. Whether contagious abortion can be cured in a fortnight or not has got nothing to do with the particular point that we are arguing.
Why do you introduce it, then?
Deputy P.K. Hogan equally knows that it is quite possible for a person who wished to evade the Bill to keep a bull and allow that bull serve cows, not having intimated to the Department that he was keeping a bull suffering from contagious abortion. The harm would have been done and would have gone through 3 or 4, 6 or 7 or perhaps 20 herds in the district. I am talking of the possibility of keeping a bull suffering from contagious abortion without the owner intimating that he was keeping such a bull and it is quite possible that before the Civic Guard or somebody else would have discovered that the bull was suffering from this disease he would have served 20 or 30 cows and introduced abortion into the herds. Deputy Heffernan seems to think that it would be a mild offence if it only happened twice. I ask Deputy Heffernan—I have asked two questions already and both of them have been evaded, because possibly Deputies know what the farmers would think of them if they answered in the negative—if a man deliberately keeps without licence a bull that spreads contagious abortion is a penalty of £20 too much?
I answered that question by saying that £10 is enough for an ordinary case.
Do not mind an ordinary case.
Then I say for all cases.
Does the Deputy think that a penalty of £20 is too much for a man who deliberately keeps a bull, unknown to the Department, without getting a licence—because he knows that the Department would refuse it— which bull spreads contagious abortion in 10 or 12 herds?
It is hardly fair for the Minister to put a hypothetical case of that kind. The Minister knows that there is not one man in a thousand who would be found to do such a thing.
Not one man in a million.
It would be very hard for a man to keep a bull suffering from contagious abortion, because the neighbours would know all about it. He might spread the disease in one or two herds, but it is very unlikely, apart from the question of fines, that the disease could be spread amongst five or six herds without the neighbours getting to know it.
The Minister is talking absolute nonsense and what he knows to be absolutely impossible. He knows that every owner of a bull must take him to be inspected. There is no owner of a bull who is not well known to the Gárda, and no man could keep such an animal without its being known. If this measure is properly administered, there will be no possibility of a case such as the Minister indicated.
The Deputy is very innocent. The suggestion is that it is impossible for anyone in Ireland to keep a bull for a limited period without a licence. Then, if it is impossible for any man to keep a bull without a licence, why this amendment? This amendment is to delete the figures £20 and to substitute therefor £10. Surely if Deputy Baxter's contention is correct, the proper amendment would be to delete the section. There is no use for it. It is quite impossible that anyone could keep a bull without a licence. If that is so, why this argument between £10 and £20? Deputy Heffernan speaks of an average case; the penalty of £20 is not for an average case. It is a maximum penalty for a few unique cases. I am now meeting the direct point at issue whether the maximum penalty should be put so high. I thought everybody knew the possibility of a man keeping a bull without a licence and spreading contagious disease.
The point was made by Deputy Baxter and others that there was very little possibility of this contagious abortion spreading——
We did not maintain any such thing. We know that contagious abortion can be spread.
And Deputy Gorey said it could be cured in a fortnight. I have known of cases—and I have an intimate knowledge of the district for which I speak for the past forty years, and an altogether greater knowledge than some people who have not lived in the country for forty months—where these animals have been disinfected. I know where one cow was brought to an animal from another herd. This cow had aborted and the bull took the disease and spread it. It was passed from herd to herd in four or five herds, and two dairy farms in my own district had to give up business altogether because the cattle were not disinfected. I am speaking of what I know and not merely of what I heard.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Connor Hogan.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Sir James Craig.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Síoghaird.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich. Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Ghaillimh).
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
Amendment declared lost.
I believe that it is the intention of Deputy Hogan to withdraw amendment No. 2, and if it is withdrawn I think my amendment will be in order.
I am perfectly favourable to that course, because Deputy Heffernan's amendment goes to the root of mine, and in addition he is putting in an amendment with which I am in agreement on principle, so that with the leave of the House I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move:
To delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following sub-section:—
"In any prosecution for an offence under this section the burden of proof that a licence or permit has been granted under this Act in respect of the bull and was in force, shall lie with the Department for Lands and Agriculture."
As the Bill stands, the burden of proof is thrown altogether on the owner of the bull. I should say that when this Bill comes into working order and when the machinery is set up, it will be necessary for the Department to keep a register, and I should say that on that register they will have the names of the owners of every bull, and a record of the identification marks of every bull, and I think that in a prosecution the onus of proof should rest rather on the Department of Agriculture than on the farmer. The Department will have experts who will keep records, and they will have evidence for the purpose. The farmer might possibly lose his licence or the record in connection with the bull, and I think the natural thing should be that the Department should have the onus thrown upon them of proving the case.
I am unable to accept this amendment, and I will explain why. I think it is well established as a general principle that where the subject matter of a party's allegation, whether affirmative or negative, is peculiarly within the knowledge of his opponent, it lies upon the latter to rebut such an allegation. I depend upon that well-founded general principle. It is nothing new; the same principle has been adopted in other Acts of Parliament. Of course the Department will have to keep a register—that is certain—a register showing the names and addresses of everybody to whom they issue licences, and the sort of bulls for which they get the licences. In addition they will mark the bull; they will tattoo his ear with a special number. But it is quite conceivable that a man would have a red bull, or a roan bull, licensed this year. Something might happen that bull and he would buy another red or roan bull. The officer of the Department of Agriculture would be morally certain that it was not the same bull, would have absolute information completely convincing him that it was not the same bull, but he would not have the kind of information that would be admissable as evidence in a court of law. That could quite conceivably happen. It is no hardship in such a case to put the onus on the defendant to go into the witness box and simply swear that it is the same bull. If we did not do that, if we had not such a provision as this, the Inspector of the Department of Agriculture would go to the court and all he could say, when all is said and done, even if he was absolutely certain that it was not the same bull, is that he thought it was not the same bull, which is not evidence. If the owner knows that it is the same bull and is prepared to swear it, that finishes the matter. I do not say that that would cover every case, but at least it puts the onus on the owner of going into the witness-box and swearing that it is the bull. Otherwise the position would be impossible. There would be a good many roan bulls followed by other roan bulls, red bulls followed by other red bulls, and the licence for the first bull would be used for the second. The officer of the Department, in a great many cases would be, perhaps, absolutely certain and have confidential information that it was not the same bull, but after all that is not evidence, and he could not swear it. It is not asking too much of the owner to go into the witness box, pull out his licence and say: "That is the licence of the bull that is the subject of this prosecution," and that finishes it. It is not a question of asking the farmer to keep a register; we are asking him to keep a licence, which is his authority.
When the Department licences the bull they give a licence to the owner of the bull. He has that licence in his possession; if he loses it he can get another in respect of the same bull. All that he has to do is to go into the witness box, produce the licence, and say that that licence belongs to that bull. The onus is on the Department to prove it, but in order to put the matter in form, in order to avoid an obvious irregularity of that sort, it would be necessary to put the onus on the defendant, the farmer, to produce his licence and to say that that is the licence held in respect of the bull which is the subject of the prosecution. What harm does it do the farmer? It does not force him to keep books; it forces him to keep nothing except the little slip of paper which is the licence he gets. If farmers generally agree that this Bill has been sought for a great many years when voluntary methods have failed; if they agree also—and I took some trouble to give figures on the Second Reading in connection with this Bill—that the possibilities of profit to the farmers are so immense, why should they oppose such a simple regulation as this, that will make it easier for the Department of Agriculture to administer the Bill, and that will not cause the slightest hardship on any farmer who will not be trying to evade the Act?
I should like to know the authority from which the Minister quoted, because I think the opinion expressed was rather unique. It was a rather solitary voice altogether, for it is in conflict with all established principles of law. After all, although such an offence is not a criminal one, it is what you might call a misdemeanour, and I contend that the principle that prevails in criminal prosecutions should prevail here also. In criminal prosecutions the onus of proof is thrown on the prosecution—proof of the crime or offence—and I fail to see why there should be a difference in this case, because there is a common principle between the two. The Minister put up another hypothetical case, that it would not be easy for the Inspectors to identify a bull. Is it not a wellknown fact that when the Department registers, for instance, cows on the Dairy Register, they put an identification mark as well on the beast?
That can be copied. There is a tattoo mark that can be copied easily. Every Cow Testing Association has a tattooing instrument.
That does not dispose of the case—that it can be copied. Does the Minister assume that human nature is so perverse that men would go out and place an order for all these instruments?
They have them already.
The Department of Agriculture can have a special one for itself. What is to prevent them getting a patent, if they wish, in the manufacture of it? I submit that the principle that the Minister has put in this sub-section is altogether wrong, and I ask the Dáil not to agree with him, but to maintain the important principle that the onus of proof is thrown on the prosecution.
On a point of order, or explanation, I am a little troubled as to the effect of this amendment. The amendment that has been circulated says "the burden of proof that a licence or permit has been granted..." Is that the way it is intended?
I think it is a misprint.
Am I to understand that the proposal of the Deputy is that we should substitute "in any prosecution for an offence under the section"—that is to say, that after the appointed day it shall not be lawful to keep a bull without a licence, and in every prosecution for that offence the burden of proof that a licence has been granted——
"Has not," I should have said. It is my fault, or else it is a misprint.
I would like to know how any officer of the Department of Agriculture is to know the exact age of a bull—and remember that it comes under this amendment—say between six months and eighteen months.
I quite see, from some little experience I have had, that this amendment would be impossible. First of all, it would entail the Department of Agriculture keeping on more officials than should be necessary. It would mean a photographic staff and several other things. Certain matters have come under my notice in my own county in connection with the question of premiums. These may be within the knowledge of some other Deputies. A premium bull died in the possession of a certain individual, who substituted another bull and continued drawing the premium. If this bull had not been of a distinctly different colour from the previous bull, he would have been able to carry on the fraud. This is what this class of individual would do, and it would be absolutely impossible to expect the Department to get all the proof. I appeal to the Deputy who put the amendment to withdraw it because I happen to know there is this class of individual, perhaps, to be faced. There is certainly one of them which I mentioned where this fraud was sought to be perpetrated, and it was only found out when it had been six or eight months practised.
The amendment is wrongly drawn and the fault is mine. In putting this amendment, I was not so certain about the effect of it myself and I must say I have been rather convinced by the Minister. The only thing I would say is that I am not convinced by this argument in regard to the tattooing. I would say that might be got over by making it a penal offence to keep a tattoo mark which ought to be rightly kept by the Department of Agriculture. I think if the suggestion is thrown out that the tattoo marks used by cow-testing associations can be copied it is a very serious thing, and I hope if they are copied it will be made a penal offence. Apart from that, in view of the statements made by Deputy Gorey and the Minister, I am willing to withdraw this amendment. I ask permission of the Dáil to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move the following amendment:—
"In sub-section (3), line 23, after the word ‘force' to insert the words ‘and (where the age of the bull is in issue) the burden of proof of the age of the bull.'"
The effect of the amendment is to put the onus of proving the age of the bull on an owner who is prosecuted.
I think everyone will agree that this amendment is necessary. It is impossible for anybody, except the owner, to say the exact age of a calf until about eighteen months, when it gets its teeth.
Would the Minister tell me how this amendment is going to be put in force? I am, of course, speaking subject to correction from the legal gentlemen on the Government benches, but is it not a fact that the simple oath of an owner of a bull would not in law be sufficient proof? If a calf comes into the world the farmer will have to collect a witness to prove that it was born on such and such a date. That is a rather fantastic proposition. I should be glad to be corrected if I am wrong.
The Deputy's trouble is to know whether, in the case of a prosecution, the farmer will have to produce a witness to prove that a bull is a certain age?
Yes.
Yes, that is the position. There is no way out of it, and no officer of the Department can contradict him. No one can say what the age is until eighteen months, when he generally gets his first incisors. We are at the mercy of the owner of the bull as regards the age, but we want him to go into the witness-box and swear on oath as to the age. It would be open to the Department to summon such a man's herd and ask him questions as to the age of the bull, and we might be able to prove that the owner was not stating facts. We must, at least, put him on his proof.
But will his own statement in the witness-box be accepted as sufficient proof? I think it would be desirable to amend this on the Report Stage and to make the position clear, because I think the oath of a party directly concerned is not considered sufficient proof. I do not want to have a farmer, when a cow is about to calve, shout upstairs to his wife: "Mary, come down and be ready to see what time the calf is born." That would be a preposterous proposition. Would the Minister consider inserting such words as "the statement on oath of the owner of the bull, being present at the birth of the bull," being accepted as sufficient evidence?
Is it intended that this is to meet a situation in which every man must give the exact age of the bull to within a week or a day?
Only in the case of a prosecution. Suppose, for instance, an officer of the Department of Agriculture takes proceedings against Deputy Cooper for keeping a bull without a licence. We all turn up in court. The bull, let us say, looks like a yearling or, say, nine, ten or fourteen months old—it all depends on how Deputy Cooper treated him after he was born. The officer of the Department is not in a position to go into the witness box and say: "I examined the bull's teeth and swear that it is fourteen months old," the licensing age being, say, ten or twelve months. He cannot say that. The bull's teeth will not show it. Nobody could tell the age of a bull until about eighteen months after birth. The owner, of course, could tell, and we want to put the onus on, say, Deputy Cooper, by putting him into the witness box and getting him to swear as to the age. When a cow is calving we do not want the owner to call down his wife or herd, but we want to put the owner in the witness box and have his oath for the age. There is a possibility, for instance, that Deputy Cooper's herd would be an honester man than himself and that he would say to us: "This bull was born four months ago; I can prove it." We will put up the herd in that case in the witness box. We want to make it quite clear in cases where the owner only is in a position to give evidence that he shall be coerced to go into the witness box.
Will the Minister explain how this amendment can possibly come into operation? The sub-section refers to any prosecution for an offence under this section. What would be the position of a bull which has not been licensed? Will the licence be given to any bull unless the age of the bull has been confirmed and unless the licensee has satisfied himself that the bull is of a certain age? Once the licence has been granted I cannot imagine that the age of the bull could be questioned.
Sub-section (1) says:
"On and after the appointed day it shall not be lawful for any person to keep or have in his possession any bull to which this Act applies."
That raises the question of what our regulations will be like. What we intend to do is, to say, when the Act is in operation, that no calf born in spring shall be licensed before the following spring, and that the autumn calf shall not be licensed before the following autumn. We will issue regulations to that effect. Supposing these regulations are issued next year, and we hold the spring inspection in 1926 for calves born in the spring of 1925, and suppose after that a calf has been born somewhere in Limerick and it is submitted for inspection but it is not licensed, in that case we prosecute the owner and he says that the calf was born in August and need not be submitted for inspection before the following autumn.
Then the interpretation would depend on the regulations?
Yes, but if Deputies think that it would be wise to put into this Bill, and make it a hard and fast rule, that all spring calves should be licensed before the following spring and that all autumn calves should be licensed before the following autumn, we can do so, but I think we should make it elastic. Experience may prove that we should have three inspections in the year.
This is the most pathetic instance of professional feeling, or obsession, I have ever seen. Does the Minister think that a man who sets out deliberately to perpetrate a swindle on the Department would break down in his attempt because the Minister could put him into the witness box and examine him?
I was too long solicitor to think so.
That was the basis of the argument—that unless you put a witness into the box and examine him you cannot establish proof. An offence of this kind, is hypothetical, just as the case of my calves which are entered in the stud book was. It is easier to find out the age of my calves than that of old age pensioners.
Surely not of all your calves.
In most cases. Their ages are an asset, and a desirable asset. It really carries belief in the efficacy of the law courts to an insane degree to think that a man who intends deliberately to swindle the country and the Government by trying to get a licence he has no right to, will be deterred by reason of the fact that he may be put into the witness-box and cross-examined by a solicitor, instructed by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture.
I would like to support the Minister. Some men may not be deterred from swearing what is false, but the fact is that a good many will be deterred. The section provides the only protection the Department can have.
That is obvious. There are a good many farmers who would not perjure themselves for the sake of getting the licence.
In a case where a farmer has bought a calf, will it be necessary for that man, if prosecuted, to produce the man from whom he bought the calf to prove its age? There is nothing to prevent a man from buying a calf, as far as I see. The purchaser is told the calf is a certain age, and if he swears that the age he has been told is the age, will that be sufficient, or will he have to produce the breeder of that calf to prove the age? That may happen with regard to every second calf, because a man will breed more bulls than one, and dispose of them. Does the section put on the owner the proof of age, if his calves are not in the stud book like Deputy Cooper's calves?
I think, if it were possible, a return of the number of calves in each district should be supplied to the Gárda Síochána. That would be very useful. The calving season is principally from February to May. If a return of the number of calves kept by a farmer were given to the Gárda, it would be a useful record. You cannot keep a stud book for half-bred cattle, any more than for half-bred horses. Until you do something of the sort I have suggested, I think the clause as it stands will have to remain.
The owner will go into the witness box, and, having satisfied himself of the age of the calf, will prove its age.
Mr. DOYLE
I am quite satisfied.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) The Minister may, subject to the provisions of this Act and on payment of such fee (not exceeding five shillings) as may be prescribed, grant to any person a licence to keep and have in his possession a specified bull to which this Act applies.
(2) Every application for a licence under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed time.
(3) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, including payment of such additional fee (not exceeding five pounds) as may be prescribed, grant a licence under this section notwithstanding that the application therefor is made at a time other than the prescribed time.
(4) Where the Minister is satisfied that a licence granted under this section has been lost or destroyed he may, subject to the prescribed conditions and on payment of the prescribed fee, issue to the holder of such licence a duplicate thereof, and such duplicate licence shall for all purposes have the same force and effect as the original licence, and all the provisions of this Act with respect to a licence granted under this Act shall apply to a duplicate licence issued under this section.
I move—
In sub-section (1) line 40, to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "three."
I consider that five shillings is too high a fee and that it will bear heavily on the farmer who rears five or six bull calves, wants to put them up for sale, and who has not taken out a licence for them. I think those are the farmers you should encourage—men who go to the cost of rearing bull calves and holding them over for fourteen or sixteen months.
I would like to hear Deputy Doyle and Deputy Johnson on that. They were both members of the Agricultural Commission.
Mr. DOYLE
I disagree with the Deputy. The expense of running this scheme will be much in excess of the fees received.
I think a bull is worth more than a dog.
What price a bull dog?
I would like to support Deputy Hogan. Money is scarce with the farmers, and 5/- is a consideration. We want the farmers to take this Bill up whole-heartedly and make it a success. I believe there will be a good deal of resentment at the 5/- fee, and putting this on them in addition to what they have to pay for inspection of the creameries. They are paying money all the time. We are promised by the Minister that we will get results to the value of millions. I hope we will. We are working for good results, and trying to get the people to follow the lead that has been given here, but we think that by putting on high penalties and charges they will obstruct the Bill. It would be better to reduce the fee.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:
"In sub-section (3), line 48, to delete the word ‘five' and substitute the word ‘one.'"
My reason for putting forward this amendment is, as I have already explained, that I think the penalty is too high.
I am opposing the amendment.
Is that all you have to say? What exactly does this five shillings fee mean?
It is really an endeavour to save the State, and incidentally the farmers, from a series of inspections. Two inspections will cost £5,000. Why should the farmer who is careless and who deliberately refuses to bring his bull for inspection, refuse to pay this penalty? Is it to the interests of the other farmers to pay extra taxation for his negligence?
Is this the minimum penalty?
It is the maximum.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) The Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of any bull which appears to him—
(a) to be calculated to beget defective or inferior progeny, or
(b) to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept or is proposed to be kept, or
(c) to be affected by any contagious or infectious disease, or
(d) to be affected by any other disease or defect prescribed as a disease or defect rendering a bull unsuitable for breeding purposes, or
(e) to have been inadequately prolific.
(2) The Minister may for the purposes of this section cause an inspection and examination to be made of any bull in respect of which an application for a licence under this Act has been made.
I move: "To delete sub-section (1) (b)." My primary reason for putting down this amendment was to endeavour to discover the intentions and policy of the Ministry with regard to the cattle schemes.
You will observe that in this section the Minister may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any bull which appears to him to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept or is proposed to be kept. It seems to me that the Minister in Dublin is more or less taking upon himself very large powers under this section. I am at the moment wondering whether, for instance, an Aberdeen Angus beast would be precluded or vetoed by the Minister under this section.
In a dairying district. I had almost mentioned that. I can foresee certain eventualities, and I can foresee where, in a dairying district, an Aberdeen-Angus would be considered of the highest possible importance. I say that you should have in the same area a pedigree Dairy Shorthorn bull and, in addition a Cow-testing Association, and that you should have the Aberdeen-Angus and the Dairy Shorthorn bull working more or less in couples. The best milch cows could be brought for service to the Dairy Shorthorn bull, and the inferior ones could be brought to the Aberdeen-Angus. That would be, perhaps, the most economical solution of some of our agricultural questions. I will admit you should insist that all the progeny of the Aberdeen-Angus should be fattened and sold. It would be well to have such a policy that the people could, under the Department, get heifers through the Dairy Shorthorn bull. I want to find out what is the attitude of the Ministry in this respect. Apart from that, does it not appear to be rather far-fetched that a Minister in Dublin should say what type of bull should be put in a certain locality? He would be running more or less counter to the experience of men in their own districts, men who, from practical experience, know their own needs. I think better results would be attained if this clause were deleted. I am open still to conviction, and if the Minister can explain satisfactorily why the clause should be put in, I am quite agreeable to withdraw the amendment.
Sub-section (b) in this section is one of the sub-sections that needs considerable explanation. It cannot get too much publicity. In its bald form here it means that considerable powers will be given to the Minister, some of which may be necessary. It is necessary to know in what direction those powers are to be employed, and what are the particular types of animal that are to be selected for various districts. The matter requires very full explanation, and it was mainly for that reason that this amendment was put down. There is a section in the Bill that will enable breeders to carry out experiments amongst their own herds. That, I take it, will be distinct from public service. To the ordinary breeder in the country, this is a matter that requires very elaborate explanation, and I hope the Press will take particular note of the Minister's statement.
I agree with Deputies that the whole Bill requires very particular explanation.
This sub-section does.
This particular sub-section does. I agree further that the Bill has to be administered very carefully and sensibly and with full knowledge of the needs of each district in the country. The sub-section reads:—
"The Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of any bull which appears to him to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept or is proposed to be kept."
There is an amendment proposed by Deputy Duggan which reads as follows:—
"In the case of a pure-bred bull the property of one person and used exclusively for the service of cows the property of that person, the Minister shall not refuse to grant a licence under this Act solely on the ground mentioned in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section."
I think that goes some way.
Yes, it goes some way.
It goes some way to meet the fears and the apprehensions that very naturally would be excited by sub-section (b). The fact is we could not possibly allow a Galloway bull to be taken to Limerick. I think Deputy Hogan from Limerick will agree that that would be a wrong thing to do.
Would you allow an Aberdeen Angus into Limerick?
Certainly.
What is the difference between the two?
I think you ought to ask that question of Deputy Hogan. The Farmer Deputies will agree that we could not possibly allow a Galloway bull into Limerick; it would be wrong to do so. It would be also wrong to allow a shorthorn bull into Cahirciveen, where there is already an excellent herd of Kerry cattle, carefully looked after, and watched over for a long time by the Department.
Would you allow a high-class dairy shorthorn bull into any part of Kerry?
Would you allow one into Cahirciveen?
I do not think so. The clause which I have inserted safeguards the right of any person in taking a pure bred bull for his own purpose. I am talking of the service of bulls for cows generally. As regards the Kerry breed, it has turned out to be a very valuable one, too valuable to allow even a pure-bred shorthorn bull into that district. Possibly that might be a debatable case. Anyway, you will agree that you could not allow a Galloway bull to be taken to Limerick, or a Jersey bull either.
You are discriminating between a Galloway bull and an Aberdeen Angus.
I do not know what the Deputy is at. I know the farmers are not going to make any extreme permutations or combinations. We must have power to deal with those cases that are coming up at the moment. We must have power to prevent a Jersey bull from going to Limerick or to the South for service with Shorthorn cows. It is quite possible that we would prevent a beef Shorthorn bull going to Cahirciveen, in County Kerry. I could enumerate those examples at greater length, but I think I have said enough to persuade Deputies that there is a necessity for some control in these matters.
The suggestion I would make is this: the Minister should change his amendment and take out the word "pure-bred." We acknowledge he is going a great distance in this regard, and, to a certain extent, we will support him. It is set out that a private owner of a herd cannot get a bull for the use of his own cows unless it is pure-bred. If the Department's officials object, he cannot have a bull. The officials are getting a tremendous amount of power under this Bill, perhaps more than the Dáil is justified in giving them. In any case, I would ask the Minister to consider the deletion of the word "pure-bred." That would meet our case.
In listening to the Minister one would imagine that the Department was infallible. That is the impression it would leave in the mind of anybody who would not know the Department. Now, if I know anything about the Department of Agriculture, I know they made some of the most awful messes in the country. It is within the knowledge of most people here that the Department of Agriculture ruined the Connemara pony. And they did that by doing what the Minister proposes to do now in regard to cattle. They did not consider that the Connemara stallion was suitable for Connemara and they brought hackney stallions from London. According to the Department, none of the unfortunate farmers in Connemara knew anything at all about the requirements of their district in the matter of horses. The Department knew it all.
Now, after having ruined the Connemara ponies they started out to ruin the milking qualities of Irish cows. They are trying to do the same thing with the cattle by bringing in Dairy Shorthorns which produce at the best about 600 gallons of milk per annum. Now that I see that the Minister is inclined to accept this amendment of Deputy Duggan's and acknowledge the error of his ways, I would be inclined to accept it also if he would rule out the word "exclusive." The farmers know their own business. As the Bill stands at the present moment, and as all these sections and sub-sections stand. a clerk here in Dublin can regulate the affairs of any farmer down in the country by saying: "This bull is not suitable for this country." Just as they did in the case of the Connemara ponies, and in the case of the Shorthorns, they are now doing by the introduction of the so-called Dairy Shorthorn which is really more of a beef animal than a dairy animal. Really, I would ask the Minister to reconsider the business and try and meet the reasonable objection of the farmers, great and small, throughout the country.
This is one of the most flagrant cases of legislating for what might happen. It seems to be the object of the Minister to provide for every conceivable contingency that might accrue, and as usual it has been defended by a flock of hypothetical cases. If the Royal Dublin Society would start a competition for hypothetical cases, the Minister, I am sure, would take the prize as being prolific. On the Second Reading we had the hypothetical case of the Jersey bull in the County Limerick. Has there ever been a Jersey bull kept in the County Limerick?
There has.
Very well. Now we have a definite case. Has that bull produced very evil results?
It has.
I thought you knew that.
Very well. Then the case is made through the Farmers' Party. I wonder why they put this amendment down. I believe that these things adjust themselves. Devon cattle, which are a thoroughly bad and useless breed, are not being brought into the country. It would be the same as if somebody would start a camel stallion for service at the Curragh in order to produce long-distance racers. I do not think that we should legislate for every contingency, and, if we are going to try to do so, it becomes more urgent and more important to provide some power of appeal from the Minister's decision. I raised that matter on the Second Reading. There is no amendment put down giving any appeal whatever from the Minister's decision. If the old Council of Agriculture were in existence that would be a suitable body. I dare say the Agricultural Committee of the Royal Dublin Society would not be unsuitable as an Appeal Board. He might set up an ad hoc body. At present there is no appeal under this at all. The only appeal you get is to get a referee down and he says: “You are quite wrong. This is not an Aberdeen-Angus; it is a Shorthorn.” So that unless the Minister will indicate some intention to give an effective and useful appeal from his arbitrary decision, or the arbitrary decision of any of his successors, I would recommend Deputy Connor Hogan, on the Report Stage, to press this to a division.
This very point has been debated at great length amongst the farmers in West Wicklow, and they would agree to accept the Bill as it stands, provided a local committee of men selected by a society like the Farmers' Union would be set up as a sort of Appeal Board to decide whether the bull was of a suitable type for that locality or not. These men know their business better than any man in the Department.
I doubt it.
Well, they know the possibilities of the particular area, and they are not going to do anything that will be detrimental to their own interests, and they are entitled to the right of discharging their own business and deciding what they consider is for their own betterment. If a society like the Farmers' Union were allowed to appoint a number of farmers to be an Appeal Board in their own area, they would be quite satisfied.
I was going to ask the Minister to explain a few points. I feel myself rather in the position of Deputy Connor Hogan. I think that the Dáil and the people of the country are not quite clear on some points in this Bill. I think there is no objection whatever to a pure-bred bull being sent into a district. I make that statement because I want the matter gone into clearly here. There is no objection to a pure-bred bull being sent into any district. There is no objection perhaps to a pure-bred Hereford bull being sent to the County Limerick or a pure-bred Polled-Angus bull being sent there. But I understand that the calves bred by these bulls with the usual County Limerick cattle, which are a mixture of Shorthorn with some registered dairy cattle would not be registered; that the progeny of a cross between the pure-bred Herefords and the Polled-Angus would not be registered, whereas on the other hand a cross between a pure-bred Shorthorn and a cow of a milking strain was considered of sufficient merit to be registered. These are the sort of cattle, as Deputy Hogan knows, that are principally through the County Limerick, Tipperary and even Kilkenny and Wexford. That is the point that some people are worrying their minds about. The way I read it is that there is no objection whatever to a pure-bred bull being sent to those districts, but the Department after such a consultation as our friend Deputy Wilson suggests, with the farmers in each district who know the needs of their own districts well, and who are members of a Committee of Agriculture and of the Farmers' Societies could easily decide. I am quite sure that the Department will consult with these men. The bull that I understand will not be registered will be a bull that is not suitable for a particular district, and, perhaps, not suitable at all, because we know that the second strain of these cattle is deteriorating right away. A pure-bred Hereford or Polled-Angus would be registered, but I take it that the cross-breds would not be registered, because it has been proved by farmers, who have tried it, that in a year or two the progeny of the cross-breed are a failure, with the exception of the Shorthorn. I think it would be well if the Minister made that clear to some of us at least.
The point I was going to raise is, first in respect of the section. It says that the Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of any bull which appears to him to be under (a), (b), (c), (d), (e). It is, therefore, optional for the Minister to grant a licence for any bull, even though he may be subject to these defects. I would have thought that if we are going to lay down in this Bill any of the conditions under which the bull should be granted a licence, we should at least have made it obligatory that it should be submitted to certain qualifications at any rate.
The "may" here should be a "shall." In the case, for instance, of a bull that is calculated to beget defective or inferior progeny, or be affected by any contagious or infectious disease, there should be no option at all. In respect of the amendment and Deputy Bryan Cooper's point regarding the referee, referees are provided for in the Bill, but it does not seem to be provided for that the referee shall have any function with respect to the suitability of a breed or type for a certain district. The referee is not prevented from dealing with such a matter, but the general phraseology of Section 14 suggests that his business would be rather to consider only the qualities of the bull as a getter of progeny and matters of a veterinary kind. We are dealing, in this amendment, with matters of general policy, policy with respect to the types of cattle that should be bred in an area. Is it the intention of the Minister to leave that question to a referee, subject only to his final decision? I think it is important that we should understand what the intentions of the Minister are in that respect, and whether the Bill fulfils that intention.
In connection with this particular part of the Bill, I would suggest to the Minister the necessity of having an extensive Advisory Committee, inasmuch as the needs of two or three counties would be similar and the needs of another part of the country would be absolutely dissimilar. I should say that this is one of the things that an Advisory Committee would be very useful for, and the Minister would be very wise to take into consultation representative men from different counties. An Advisory Committee in connection with this matter would be of the greatest importance.
I think the Minister is inclined to accept my amendment with regard to the deletion of "pure bred."
There are so many points raised that I hope I will remember them all. First of all, with regard to Deputy D'Alton's point, it is not intended, of course, to register a crossbred. I think everyone will agree that that would be wrong. Let us take the section from the beginning: "The Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of any bull which appears to him— (a) to be calculated to beget defective or inferior progeny, or (b) to be of a breed or type unsuitable to the district"— remember now, "may," as Deputy Johnson drew attention to—"(c) to be affected by any contagious or infectious disease, or (d) to be affected by any other disease." We are inserting an amendment: "In the case of a pure bred bull the property of one person and used exclusively for the service of cows the property of that person, the Minister shall not refuse to grant a licence under this Act solely on the ground mentioned in paragraph 3 of sub-section (1) of this section." That is to say, solely on the ground that it is a breed or type unsuitable for the district. The section itself leads to discrimination. The word "may" and not "shall" is used. The Minister may grant the licence or refuse a licence. The amendment we are inserting makes it mandatory on the Minister to grant a licence if the bull is pure bred and suitable for the district. "The Minister shall not refuse to grant a licence" because of (b).
"Solely on the ground" of (b).
It is mandatory so far as (b) is concerned. I do not say it goes very far. Deputy Heffernan suggested that he would be quite satisfied if we took out the adjective "pure bred" and left in "bull." Just think what that would mean. Look at the large number of farmers in Ireland who keep bulls exclusively for their own cows, dairy bulls out of registered cows and by, perhaps, pedigree bulls. All these people would be keeping bulls and they would be supposed to be for their own cows, pure and simple.
Do you mean to say you will exclude a bull bred from a registered dairy cow which is a pure bred bull? Is that the implication of what you said?
No, I have said the contrary about ten times. I say that a lot of people in the country keep their own bulls. They keep no pedigree bulls, but bulls out of registered cows, exclusively for their own cows. If you did not insert the word "pure-bred" there it would mean that anybody who wanted to obey the Act could simply say he was keeping this half-bred bull for his own cows, and he could use the bull for the service of the whole country, and no matter how bad-looking or how wrong that bull was as regards shape, we would have to agree.
That does not apply. You have power to forbid the issue of a licence for a bull according to Clause 8. My idea is, if the bull is of a good type.
Even if he was a wrong type for the district you would have to issue a licence.
Yes.
People could say we are keeping those bulls for our own cows and they could evade the whole Act. I take it that Deputies will agree that it would be wrong to allow shorthorn bulls in the breeding districts of Kerry. The Department of Agriculture, for a great many years, have been developing the Kerry cow, which is a very valuable cow.
Would the Minister think it would be wrong to introduce a Polled Angus that was of a good quality into Tipperary?
That is altogether another question. I am trying to give an example of the effects of the Deputy's amendment. It would be wrong for the Department of Agriculture to allow a Shorthorn bull to be kept in the breeding districts of Kerry. For a great many years the Department of Agriculture has succeeded in developing the Kerry cow, and has made a very valuable cow of her, a cow giving over a thousand gallons of milk a year and very easily fed, an ideal cow for certain parts of this country and an ideal cow for certain parts of other countries. It is not at all impossible that there is going to be a big demand from other countries, where the conditions are suitable for Kerry cows, to restock their lands with these cows. You have that breed of cow now all over Kerry as a result of the very good Kerry bulls. The ordinary farmer owns that Kerry cow. It is not the big pedigree breeder, but the ordinary farmer. The Kerry cow has been improved by the bulls put in by the Department. There is the nucleus of a very valuable stock that is spreading into other districts in Ireland and which possibly will provide cows for other countries, where conditions are such that you require a cow of that type which is easily fed and is a good milker and so on. Surely it would be wrong at this stage to allow a Shorthorn bull down there. A cross between a Shorthorn and a Kerry is not very much good, for beef or anything else. It would be wrong. That is what I want to avoid. If we do not have some such provision as Section (b) we cannot avoid it. On the other hand, if we take out the word "pure-bred," anyone could say "I want this bull for my own cows." It would be impossible for any inspection, no matter how rigid, no matter how careful, to prevent the bull serving other cows, and that process could go on, and your whole scheme would be rendered useless. Either this Bill is necessary or it is not.
I would prefer that the farmers in this country did this work for themselves, through their associations. That would be more natural. Any development from the bottom up is much more satisfactory and more likely to suit conditions than development in other directions. The fact is we are waiting for this Bill for years, and the fact is, the milk producing qualities of our cows have been deteriorating for years. Failing the efforts of the farmers' organisations it was necessary for the State to step in. The principle of the Bill was welcomed and farmers admitted that it was necessary for the State to step in to do work which Irish farmers should be doing for themselves. Accordingly you cannot blame us for taking the necessary precautions to see that the Bill is made effective. If the farmers were so enlightened and so up-to-date that they would not take in a wrong sort of bull in, say, Kerry, where a valuable and a special breed of cattle is being developed for a long time, there would be no occasion for this Bill. There is occasion for the Bill and the fact that there is, means that we must take the necessary steps to administer it, and take responsibility for what we are doing in the Bill.
In connection with what Deputy MacBride said, the Department of Agriculture put no hackney ponies into Connemara. Another body, now defunct, did it. The Department of Agriculture never put any hackney ponies into Connemara. That is one of the fables that passes as criticism.
Were the Congested Districts Board and the Department two distinct Boards at that time?
They were. Does the Deputy not know that?
I did not. I like to have it officially.
All the talk about the schemes of the Department of Agriculture injuring the quality of our pure-bred cows is so much nonsense, and at this hour of the day how any farmer would have sufficient cheek to say so, is more than I can understand. I said before, on the Second Reading, that not more than 2 per cent. of the bulls were Department bulls, and that 98 per cent. belonged to the farmers themselves. That statement was challenged by Deputy Gorey. Has he taken the trouble to look up the figures?
Has the Minister?
I have. I was wrong. I stated it too high. I state that here deliberately. The bulls have been increasing for the past few years, but, in the past, not more than two per cent. of the bulls of the country were sent out by the Department.
What statistics is the Minister quoting to show that there were any other bulls but Department bulls in the country?
I hope that is recorded, the admission of the Minister for Agriculture that he was wrong.
Wrong in the right direction. We have statistics showing the number of bulls sent out.
Have you statistics of all the other bulls in the country?
We have statistics showing the number of bulls sent out in connection with the County Committees since 1921. We have also statistics showing the number of bulls in the country for most of that period. The Deputy is a farmer, and knows, for instance, that within a period of three years the bull population does not change very much. What I stated on the last occasion was a slight overstatement, and was slightly against myself, that not more than 2 per cent. of the bulls of the country were Department bulls. Yet, Deputies come along with this helpless point of view at the end of the day and say that it was Department bulls spoiled the cows of the country; while 98 per cent. of the bulls belonging to farmers were operating the whole time. These very people never took the slightest trouble to concentrate on their own business, to improve their cows in milk yield and beef. While they admit the possibilities in the situation, measured in money value, is just as I put them, no one has said I overstated the case. I deliberately made this statement on the Second Reading to give the farmer Deputies a chance of agreeing or disagreeing with me, or of saying that they would co-operate, so that the results would be brought about early.
With regard to the Advisory Committee I am willing to consider between now and the Report Stage the question of setting up an Advisory Committee in connection with the administration of this Bill, but it must be an Advisory Committee. It is not going to be an administrative Committee. The Department of Agriculture had to take the responsibility as the farmers did not do it for themselves. If the Department has the responsibility it must have control. I am quite willing to introduce an amendment, much on the same lines as that introduced in the Dairy Bill, providing for the setting up of an Advisory Committee.
May I suggest to the Minister that he would save a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to this section if he would split it up. As it stands at present all the various factors which would warrant the refusal of a licence are placed on a level. For instance the Minister may refuse a licence in respect of a bull which is affected by contagious or infectious disease. That is put on the same level as a bull that would be unsuitable for a district. I suggest that the Minister would probably make his intentions much more clear if he would say that the Minister shall refuse to grant a licence, or that no licence shall be granted in respect of a bull which appears to be defective, and then retain power, where it seems to him that a breed or type is unsuitable to a district, to refuse to grant a licence for such a bull. In one case it would be optional and in the other case it would be mandatory.
I think that is a good suggestion. Clearly it should be quite plain that the Department of Agriculture would have no power to issue licences in cases where bulls are suffering from infectious disease. I will consider the necessary change before the Report Stage.
Would the Minister, having considered the figures about 98 per cent. and 2 per cent. of the bulls, kindly give us the date at which the Department of Agriculture was forced by members of the Council of Agriculture to adopt the dairy shorthorn bull? Would the Minister give the name of the founder of the Farmers' Union who actually had for years to force the Department to adopt that? Will the Minister tell us how many of the 98 per cent. were the direct progeny in the first or second generation of the crook shanked Shorthorn sent out previous to the dairy Shorthorn being accepted by the Department?
How many premiums were given to dairy Shorthorn bulls seven years ago, how many ten years ago, and how many to-day. These are figures that would be of more interest than some of the figures the Minister has been licking up.
I will try to get the figures.
I ask the leave of the Dáil to withdraw amendment 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
took the Chair.
I move to report Progress.
Question put and agreed to.