We are on Section 4, Amendment 10,
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LIVE STOCK BREEDING BILL, 1924—COMMITTEE STAGE (RESUMED)
I think this matter has been discussed very fully under the previous section — Section 3. I do not think there is any use in discussing it further. I would ask the leave of the Dáil to withdraw the amendment. The amendment was "To delete paragraph (b)."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of Deputy Connor Hogan. It reads as follows:
After the word "kept," line 29, to insert the words "but nothing in this section shall be construed in the revocation of the licence aforesaid, as prohibiting the owner of any pedigree herd retaining a pure bred bull of identical breed for stud purposes with the herd aforesaid.
If the Deputy will read the amendment standing in the name of Deputy Duggan, which has been accepted, I think he will find that the purpose of Deputy Connor Hogan's amendment is met by that amendment. The Deputy will remember also that I gave an undertaking to Deputy Johnson that this section would be sub-divided on Report so that certain changes might be made which would make the position clearer. As the section stands at present, it is obvious that a licence would be refused in every case referred to in clause (c); that is, where the bull was affected by any contagious or infectious disease. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that the Minister should exercise discretion with regard to clause (b). The proposal is that the clause be changed so that it would run something like this: "The Minister may at any time suspend or revoke the licence if he is satisfied the bull to which such licence relates is not suitable for the district in which he is kept."
I think we are in agreement that there are certain districts into which it would be wrong to bring certain types of bulls. I instanced myself the Cahirciveen district of Kerry, and I said it would be wrong to let a Shorthorn bull in there. I think every Deputy will agree with me in that. It was then pointed out that in the case of a pure-bred bull, used exclusively by the owner for his own herd, there should be discretion on the part of the Minister to allow such a bull for, say, a Shorthorn or Hereford herd. As the section is altered, it is clear, in view of the amendment which is proposed to be inserted, that the Minister may license a half-bred bull kept exclusively for the use of such herd, even in a district like Cahirciveen. The object of that clause, which is causing a considerable amount of trouble, and which looks dangerous, is to prevent such a case as this arising, because it might very easily arise. Take the district I have mentioned, Cahirciveen, in Kerry, where there is a fine breed of Kerry cows, where people come in to buy, and where they would be absolutely certain they would get good Kerry cows. An owner there might want a Shorthorn bull. We can let him, if we have that discretion. But suppose every owner there wanted to be allowed to bring in a Shorthorn bull the effect would be that the breeders would say that the Kerry breed is being crossed in Cahirciveen, and they might say: "We cannot go there in future and buy Kerry cows," and so on. We must draw the line somewhere. I think Deputy Duggan's amendment, changing the section, makes it clear that we have discretion to do the right thing. I am afraid the Deputy will have to leave it to the Department and the Minister to do the right thing.
This matter has been discussed very fully now, and we went as far as putting it to a vote of the Dáil, on the last day. As I fully agree with the Minister in this case, seeing that he has taken power to allow the use of such a bull in certain circumstances, there is no use in pressing the amendment. I ask the leave of the Dáil to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move Amendment 12:—
To add at end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) 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 suspend or revoke the licence solely on the ground mentioned in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section."
This amendment is almost identical in words with Amendment 9 in Section 3, and the intention is the same.
Would it not be advisable to withdraw this amendment, and move it or embody it in the suggested amendment of the Minister, because it refers to paragraph (b) of the section which the Minister promised to amend and put in a new form?
We have inserted it in Section 3, which is an identical section. I have agreed to redraft that particular section. It would be necessary probably to redraft this section also. We might as well start redrafting them from the same position. It is just as well to make Section 4 conformable with Section 3, and then redraft both from that point. I have no particularly strong views one way or the other.
The point is that we are asked to pass an amendment to a section which is to be completely recast.
I do not think the sub-section which I am putting in will have to be recast; in fact, it will not be recast. This amendment deals not with the case that Deputy Heffernan put up, which has reference to the half-bred bull, but with the case of the pure-bred bull.
I am not dealing with the argument, but rather with the form. I think the Minister has made it clear that he is going to alter the form of the section, so that this amendment will have to be further amended.
With the leave of the Dáil I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I beg to move:— Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
"The Minister shall after consultation with such bodies and persons as he may consider representative of the interests concerned establish by order an advisory council in each administrative county for the purpose of giving advice to the Minister in connection with the administration of this Act in so far as paragraph (b) sub-section (1) of Section 3 and paragraph (b) of Section 4 are concerned.
"The said advisory councils shall consist of such persons as the Minister after such consultation as aforesaid shall from time to time appoint to be members thereof, each of whom shall, unless he previously dies or resigns, retain his membership of such county advisory council for two years from the date of his appointment, but shall be eligible for re-nomination.
"The said county advisory councils shall meet whenever summoned by the Minister, and also on such other occasions as the said county advisory councils shall from time to time determine.."
The idea of this amendment is that it should not lie with the Department to say what type of a bull should be kept in a district, but that a special advisory council should be set up in each county. I do not exactly stand by the wording of the amendment, or by the division of the country into sections, but I stand by the principle that an advisory council should be set up. It might be better, perhaps, to set up provincial advisory councils, or councils covering two or three counties where farming is more or less of the same character.
I stated that I was willing to insert an amendment, with the necessary charges, similar to Section 45 of the Dairy Produce Bill, which is as follows:—
"(1) The Minister shall, after consultation with such bodies and persons as he may consider most representative of the several interests concerned establish by order a consultative council for giving advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with any matter in relation to the making of regulations under, or otherwise carrying into execution of, the provisions of this Act, or any other matters affecting the dairying industry.
"(2) The said consultative council shall consist of such persons as the Minister after such consultation as aforesaid shall from time to time nominate to be members thereof, each of whom shall, unless he previously dies or resigns, retain his membership for two years only from the date of his nomination, but shall be eligible for re-nomination.
"(3) The said consultative council shall meet whenever summoned by the Minister, and also on such other occasions as the council may from time to time determine."
There is not very much difference between that section and this amendment. I would point out to the Deputy that his amendment does not establish the sort of body that he has defined in his speech. This is only a consultative or advisory council, and it could not have the last word. The Department of Agriculture will be responsible for the administration of this Bill, and will be held responsible for the results. That being so, the Department must have the last word, and must be in a position to turn down the advice of the consultative or advisory council — which ever you like to call it — if the Department thinks well. The real use of an advisory council is that you would have a number of men on it in touch with the industry itself — able men who know their business. The Department is anxious to administer this Bill, like the Dairy Bill, in consultation with the interests concerned. We realise that a council composed of men who know their business, and who have spent their lives in breeding, rearing, and dealing with live stock, could give really useful assistance and advice.
We propose to set up such a council. We shall not set it up for adornment. It is not to be a camouflaged body. We are going to ask its advice, but, if the Department thinks it right to refuse to act on the advice of such a body, the whole matter can be discussed in the Dáil. The Minister representing the Department will be under the necessity of defending in the Dáil, and before every Party, his action in refusing to act on the advice of such a body. That, I think, makes it absolutely certain that the body will have real functions. On the other hand, the Department must be judged by the results of this Bill. We will have the responsibility for the Bill, and must have the last word. You could not have a body of that sort actually administering. The reason I point that out is, that even the amendment refers to an advisory council, but the Deputy spoke as if it were to be an administrative council, which would make regulations and lay down the law that the Department would have to follow.
What is the Minister's intention with regard to the council? Is it to be a council for the whole of the Saorstát, or provincial councils, or councils for certain counties?
There is no reason that I can think of for having councils for counties. A council for each county is out of the question.
We do not want that.
There is no reason for having provincial councils. Why should you have provincial councils? The provinces were delimited for reasons which have nothing to do with the live-stock industry. You have different breeds of live-stock in each county. You have the same sort of stock in what we have left of Ulster as in Munster. You have the dairy industry in Ulster and in Munster; to a lesser extent in Connaught, and to a certain extent in Leinster. On the other hand, you have certain districts of certain counties where there are special breeds of cattle — such as Kerry — or districts where purely beef cattle are bred. These districts do not coincide in any way with the counties or rural districts.
In my opinion the council should be representative of the various interests. It should be representative of the dairying interests wherever they are, whether Munster, Ulster, Leinster or Connaught; of the store districts and of the beef districts. There should be representatives not only of the breeds of cattle, but of the particular uses to which these breeds are put. For instance, you have dairy Shorthorns and beef Shorthorns, you have breeders, feeders and farmers who should be represented. It is on these lines it is proposed to constitute the council.
There is no point in constituting such a council according to provinces. My own idea would be to consult the various associations and ask them to nominate members. I will not bind myself to this, as I have not thought it out in detail, but my idea at present is to ask the various associations to nominate certain men, leaving me a discretion to pick from within these nominations. It would be quite impossible to say to associations such as the Farmers' Union, the Kerry Cattle Association, and so on, "nominate so many representatives," and that they should automatically go on the council. I want a really good council composed of the best men in the trade. I think it is only in that way you will get them. Undoubtedly the associations should have a certain say as to the personnel and I propose to give them some influence by enabling them to nominate a certain number of members from which I would pick.
I would like to recommend Deputies in the Farmers' Party to scrutinise this whole transaction very closely. Otherwise, if I may respectfully say so, although they know their own business better than I do, I think they are going to be let down badly. I think that what is at the back of Deputy Heffernan's mind in connection with the amendment is that he wants an organisation set up which will, more or less, keep control apart from the Department. The Minister says, and I think very naturally, "No, hands off, farmers, I am going to do this job. I am going to nominate the Committee, and I am going to make it a little tail that I can wag any way I like!" This is a very big industry, and the whole trend of this Bill, as far as the farmers are concerned, is to put them in the halfpenny place. The whole trend of the Minister's thought is in the direction of keeping control over the industry. The weak point is that the farmers propose to let that go on. I respectfully submit that they will be sorry a little later on that they did any such thing. We all know what Government Departments are. They are inclined to be autocratic, bureaucratic, and certainly are not in the least inclined to take advice, if that advice does not suit them. This council under the Minister for Agriculture is going to be more or less of a farce unless the Farmers' Party assert themselves. I would deprecate very much any such line of action as is indicated here, as it is not in the interests of the industry as a whole.
If you had a live body with a solid backing of farmers I think it could be of great assistance to the Minister, but the moment this opinion comes into conflict with the opinion of the Department, if the Minister has the right and can ignore this body altogether, then I say to the farmers: "Better not set it up at all; it is going to do no good." Visualise the trend of things in connection with the farming industry under our worthy and respected Minister for Agriculture, who works on the lines that he hopes the model farms run by the Department will never by any chance make a profit, and I think Deputies will get their minds on a line with the progress of events that will develop, unless the Farmers' Party, or the farmers of the country, retain a reasonable amount of control of the policy that is going to be adopted by the Department in connection with this and other matters.
The Deputy has not finished his speech. He has made it quite clear that he objects to this section, that he objects to my view of the consultative council, but he has not said what he is going to put in its place. I would like him to develop that in detail. If he does not want a council, what does he want?
When I got up I made it clear that I was tendering advice to the Farmers' Party. I was not going to take their place and dictate what council should be set up. I was trying to warn them against the views of the Minister as to what the council should be. It was not constructive policy but criticism of the policy that the Minister adumbrates as being a likely adjunct to this section.
On the Second Reading of this Bill we asked for an advisory committee and the Minister has met us. We did not intend that it should be an administrative committee. The Minister took a wrong impression if he thought that. I asked the Minister previously to indicate how many members would constitute the committee and where they would be drawn from. We do not want a provincial committee. We believe that a committee drawn from all parts of the Saorstát will get the same attention as if it was composed of members from the provinces or from counties. We would like to know how many members have been allocated to the Twenty-Six Counties.
With regard to Deputy Hewat's remarks, our minds are more or less at ease on that question. The Minister has promised us this committee. We do not want it to be an administrative committee but we want an advisory committee. That being so, and as the Government are administering the Bill, we admit that it should have the last word. Any Government worthy of the name should have the last word. If the advice of that committee, which we might think right, is turned down by the Department, we have the Dáil in which to ventilate any complaint. Although there are only fifteen Deputies in the Farmers' Party we might have thirty or forty, perhaps fifty or sixty in the next Dáil. If my forecast is of any use it will be fifty next time.
Five.
At Deputy Davin's expense, too!
What is the betting?
Evens! When the Minister is replying I would like to know what is to be the number of this committee? We claim that the farmers' organisation should be represented on the council by one member from each county, or 26 altogether. I do not think that would be too much. I do not care what interests these representatives are concerned with. The Southern districts, where cattle are largely bred, would require larger representation than districts where cattle are fed only. We want more people from breeding districts than any other districts to tender advice. I would like if the Minister gave an outline of what is to be the personnel and the constitution of the Committee.
It seems to me that the line the discussion on Deputy Heffernan's amendment has taken shows that its ostensible supporters are really not supporting it. The Minister promised to set up an advisory council for advising on the administration of this particular Bill, and it is to be an advisory council representing all the interests concerned. There is another advisory council in respect of dairying, representing its various interests and advising the Minister. Presumably following that line there will be councils advising the Minister if he brings in a Bill relating to any other department of agriculture. I think it is right that the Minister should have advisory councils, if not any other kind of councils, but I suggest that when you are dealing with the cattle trade — or, rather, when you are thinking of a council representing the whole of the farmers' interests in relation to cattle breeding — you should have a council to deal with the whole of the cattle industry and not merely a council to advise in the administration of this particular Bill. The proposition of Deputy Heffernan, as it seems to me, is brought forward to meet the arguments used at an early stage. The Minister himself has instanced, to-day as previously, Cahirciveen district and the unwisdom of introducing Shorthorns amongst breeds of Kerry cattle. But if you have an advisory committee representing the whole country, there is at least a possibility that Shorthorn interests might predominate, and they would be just as likely to forget the particular interests of Kerry as the Minister without the advisory committee.
Now, the proposition in the amendment seemed to me to be sound in this sense, that it intended that the Minister, before introducing a particular character or breed of cattle into a particular district, would take the advice of the people in that district. I think that is sound, but the proposal which Deputy Gorey and Deputy Heffernan supports is to have an advisory council, representing cattle breeding interests over the whole country, which is entirely different from that in the amendment. I think it is sound to say that before issuing an order respecting the breeds of cattle in a particular district that the views of the people in that district should be sought, and that is what apparently was desired by Deputy Heffernan, when he was framing this amendment. I hope that idea will be embodied somehow in the Bill, whether the larger idea is embodied or not. It is quite a distinct one and, apart from the larger proposition which the Minister now supports, he should state his views in regard to the proposal for a local advisory committee in a particular area where peculiar characteristics among cattle are considered to be desirable.
The Deputy says "The views of the people in that district should be sought." That is the whole point. What district does the Deputy mean, and what does "that district" mean?
The Minister has given an illustration. He has spoken of Dingle peninsula and Kerry generally. He has also spoken at other times of Limerick and Tipperary, and that, to me, would indicate the necessity of having, shall I call them, "regional councils." There is no necessity of defining beforehand the region or the area from which the council shall be drawn, but before an Order of the Minister is made, in respect to any area, the advice of the people within that area, however large or small it might be, would be taken through a council of the kind. I think that is a sound proposition and if the Minister and his successors are discreet enough it is likely to be followed whether there is a council or not. When we are promised a council representing the whole country in respect of cattle breeding, there is even a greater probability perhaps that that council will advise against the interests of a particular locality, overlooking its peculiarities. A council of that kind, if a particular type of cattle interest were affected, might not be as discriminating as the Minister's own expert advisers would be, and I would urge that the proposition that is in the amendment should receive consideration apart from the other proposition. It is quite a distinct one and is, I think, a valuable suggestion. I do not think it is covered by this phraseology, but certainly the idea is one which I think should be embodied in the Bill.
Deputy Johnson has largely voiced my views with regard to this matter. I knew what I intended to convey when I put this amendment down. The Minister avoided that issue and went on to this matter of the general Consultative or Advisory Councils. I was glad to hear him say that he is willing to grant an Advisory Council for all Ireland, and I am perfectly willing to accept that suggestion. On this amendment Deputy Johnson has covered my views with regard to the matter. I call the Minister's attention to the fact that these councils would only be set up to deal with sub-section (b) of Section 3, and sub-section (b) of Section 4 — that is as regards the breed or type that was to be used in a particular district. I told the Minister I was not tied down to the question of a county, but I think there is something in Deputy Johnson's idea with regard to Regional Councils being set up. The Minister can easily understand that. He can get certain districts in which a Regional Council could be established — for example, parts of Limerick, South Tipperary and Cahirciveen, in County Kerry.
What are those regions?
Certain geographical regions which can be roughly drawn.
I mentioned two already — Limerick and South Tipperary. There is also Cahirciveen, in County Kerry, and surely nobody can know the business of the breeders in those districts better than the breeders themselves. Except the Minister makes his Committee very large and unwieldy he may, by accident or otherwise, get a Council, a majority of whom will favour particular breeds — men belonging, say, to the Aberdeen Angus or Shorthorn Breeders' Association. They will endeavour to force their ideas against the will of the people in those districts. My idea is that this Council should be set up to deal with the particular type. Once the Council has decided what type it is going to allow into those districts, its purpose would be fulfilled, and there would be no necessity for it to continue. I am quite willing to accept the Minister's suggestion with regard to a general Advisory Council——
Is this to be a consultative or an administrative council?
The Minister knows quite well that there would be no use in my putting forward a suggestion for an Administrative Council. He knows, and I know, that it would not be accepted. With our present ideas of administration, you cannot easily set up a nominated Council, which would take the administrative powers out of the hands of the Minister, and I am not going to ask for that. I simply mean an Advisory or Consultative Council.
It seems to be clear that this is to be a consultative council. With the exception of Deputy Hewat, nobody suggests that it should have administrative functions or that it should have the last word on any question of policy. I think that is generally agreed. Deputy Heffernan was careful to save himself by saying he did not put forward that idea because he was afraid I would not accept it. He kept in the recesses of his own mind his view of the merits of the proposition. We are all agreed, with the exception of Deputy Hewat, that this should be an advisory council.
Do not except me at all.
English is the only language I know. I have been listening to the Deputy for the last half hour. Deputy Hewat warned the farmers that if the Minister had the last word in this matter then they were done and would be completely controlled by the Department of Agriculture.
"Let down."
Yes, that unless they kept their tails up — I use his own expression — they were in for it. Deputy Hewat suffers from inability to think out his own propositions logically. If he would only just stop for a moment he would see exactly where the proposition he put forward a few moments ago is leading him. And he would not be so enthusiastic about it. His proposition, if it amounted to anything, amounted to this: that a body outside the Dáil, non-representative and responsible to nobody, should control the administration of the Department of Agriculture.
If I might contradict the Minister, I never said any such thing.
The Deputy says he never said any such thing. That is the very point I am making. But that is exactly where his proposition is leading him. He suggested a consultative council.
He has turned "Bolshie."
Then, I should go over to the Labour Benches.
The Deputy has turned "Bolshie" but he does not know it. I am warning him. He suggested that this council would be a real danger unless it was turned into a Soviet — except it was a body that would have some real control over the policy of the department. Beyond yea or nay he said that. What does that amount to? It amounts to this — and I put it in all seriousness, as a fellow-Conservative, to Deputy Hewat — that a body outside the Dáil and non-representative should control the policy of a Government Department. That may or may not be right. In any event, it means that the Dáil should be abolished. That is what it comes to. If Government Departments are not responsible to the Dáil, then the Dáil has no useful function. If Government Departments are to be subject, in their policy, to bodies outside the Dáil, then this Parliament is only a figurehead. I am surprised and grieved that Deputy Hewat should make such a suggestion.
Deputy Heffernan, after Deputy Johnson had spoken, told us that he said exactly what he himself had wanted to say. It is a pity the Deputy would not say what he wants to say when he stands up first.
I knew all the time.
If the Deputy did that, I would not be "evading the issue." I do not like that expression to be used except I am guilty of evading the issue — which is not outside the bounds of possibility. I did not evade the issue here. I met the exact issue which the Deputy put up in his amendment. Deputy Johnson suggests that there is something in the question of the regional council. That is one consideration. I suggest to him that we are liable to confuse this point by reason of the fact that one breed of cattle, called Kerry cattle, are, in fact, confined to Kerry. They are bred there only, but they are, of course, spread all over Ireland. The source of supply is Kerry. When Deputy Johnson suggested that people of that district should be consulted — Deputy Heffernan echoed him — I asked what district, and I was answered Kerry. Deputy Johnson went on to say Limerick and Tipperary, and Deputy Heffernan referred to Limerick. Kerry is one case and one case only. If Shorthorns were confined to certain counties, if dairy Shorthorns were confined to certain counties, if Aberdeen Angus cattle were confined to certain counties, if Herefords, or any other breeds, were confined to certain counties, you might talk of regional councils.
But remember you would be taking in exactly the same thing as I speak of when I say it should not be regional councils but one council representative of the various breeds, no matter what districts they come from. If, in fact, the various breeds come from separate, isolated districts, then the council, I suggest, will, in fact, be a regional council. It will be a regional council in so far as Kerry is concerned. There is one point I want to make on this question of a consultative council for twenty-six counties. It is in connection with the suggestion that certain interests would have the controlling power on this council. That point I will deal with later. What I want to insist on now is that the council will be regional so far as Kerry is concerned. The men who are on that council representing the Kerry Cattle Society will represent the interests whose cattle are confined to a certain district. The same applies to Shorthorns. We could not set up a separate council for, say, Limerick and Tipperary. Why not include part of Cavan for dairy Shorthorns, and why not include Cork? Why not include a part of Clare and a part of Laoighis and Offaly? You could not do it. You could not by any process I know, define any district and say "from that district dairy Shorthorns come, and we will have representatives, not of dairy Shorthorns, but of that particular district." It would be impossible to do that, and if you could do it there would be no point in it, because it is admitted that this is a consultative council, not an administrative council. I should say that twelve members should be sufficient for this council. You do not want twenty-six members representing one organisation alone. There will be certain people there because they can speak for the dairy Shorthorn; there will be certain people there because they can speak for beef cattle, and certain people representing Kerry cattle. It will be a consultative council. I do not believe that the particular case that Deputy Johnson quoted is likely to arise, because I think that every man in the trade will realise that it would be impossible to put dairy Shorthorns into Kerry and allow them to serve cows there. Other points of the same sort will arise.
Take it that there is only a Kerry interest affected; there may be only two members from Kerry, and representing that particular interest. They will fight it, and the Minister will be there, probably with the Secretary of the Department also, to listen, and he will have the last word. In that way there is not the slightest danger that the interests of one particular section that may be in the minority would be overridden by the majority. That is really the advantage of the Consultative Council. The Department will have the advantage of hearing every side of the question argued out by people who know their business, and whether the Department accepts the advice or rejects it, in 99 per cent. of the cases it will be extremely useful to the Department, or the Minister, who can accept the advice, to have it argued out on both sides with clashing interests. Deputy Johnson was right when he said that this would not be the last of these councils, and I do not say that this is an ideal way to build up advisory or consultative councils. The organisation may be wrong, and we may find afterwards that we will have to federate these councils, which may come to be subcommittees of a larger council. But I do say that it is safer to build up councils in that way, interest by interest, in rather an elastic way than to sit down with a piece of pencil and paper and to try to think out beforehand this whole question, this very complex question, of advisory councils for various agricultural interests. Let these councils be appointed and function for a bit. We will see the advantages and the disadvantages, and see where the weaknesses are. They will grow up gradually, but probably will be sounder for that reason, probably for the reason that they will not have been all that they should have been in the beginning.
I would like to clear up a misconception in the Minister's mind. The proposed council is to advise the Minister in respect of his proposal to refuse to grant a licence for a bull which he thinks to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is proposed to be kept. Let us take an entirely different illustration from that upon which he has been working. I recollect an attempt made to introduce the Galloway into Donegal and a rival attempt to introduce the Polled Angus. The Minister has suggested that this council will be representative of the Aberdeen Angus Society, and if there was a Galloway Society, the interests of the Galloway. They will, no doubt, be very keen upon presenting their case to the Minister, but the people of Donegal, taking this instance, have no particular society, have no particular breed. They are not thinking of a particular breed. They are thinking of the interests of the cattle trade in that area. The particular interests of the particular breeds may prevail over the Minister and impose upon Donegal the Galloway or the Aberdeen Angus, whereas the people of Donegal may say, having had experience of Kerries: "No, the kind of cattle that would suit this county is the Kerry; if we are going to have an improvement upon the existing breeds, the Kerry type will suit us better." But there are no local interests pushing the Kerry; there are particular interests pushing the Aberdeen Angus or the Galloway. I suggest that there is a need for an assurance to be given that the views of the locality in respect of their cattle-breeding interests will be properly considered and properly heard.
The case has been made on two or three occasions here, and many times for the last few years outside, that had the dairying interests in Limerick and Tipperary been consulted, they would not have approved of the introduction by the Department of the beef shorthorn in those districts. I am not questioning the wisdom, or unwisdom, of that view, but I am taking the idea that the local feeling and experience should have an assurance that it would be heard. It cannot be guaranteed by an All-Ireland council, especially if that council is going to be representative of particular breeds rather than areas. I think the Minister can readily see that when you are dealing with the question of refusing to license a bull because it is of a kind which is unsuitable for a particular area, that the opinions of the people in that area, and the reasons why it is believed to be suitable, should find expression. On your proposed council there is no guarantee of that, and the proposition of the amendment is that, in any area of the kind, before a decision is made to refuse to grant a licence because it is unsuitable, the views of the people concerned should be heard.
The Minister is taking power under this Bill to slaughter a large number of cattle, but before that he slaughters the whole doctrine of the Constitution. He attacked Deputy Hewat for having suggested that any council outside the Dáil should have any power over the Minister. Well, that is a sound, British constitutional doctrine; it may be, for all we know, a sound German constitutional doctrine, but it is not the doctrine laid down in the Constitution of the Saorstát. Article 45 says:
"The Oireachtas may provide for the establishment of Functional or Vocational Councils representing branches of the social and economic life of the nation. A law establishing any such Council shall determine its powers, rights and duties, and its relation to the Government of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann)."
And it goes on, in Article 56, to say that such councils may actually be of so much importance that not merely the Minister is to be responsible for them but that they may even nominate External Ministers.
Would you read that Article?
I will. "Every Minister who is not a member of the Executive Council shall be the responsible head of the Department or Departments under his charge and shall be individually responsible to Dáil Eireann alone for the administration of the Department or Departments of which he is the head." That is the responsibility; I agree with that. "Provided that should arrangements for Functional or Vocational Councils be made by the Oireachtas, these Ministers or any of them may, should the Oireachtas so decide, be members of, and be recommended to Dáil Eireann by such Councils." The Minister does not want me to go on about the term of office, does he?
No, you have read enough.
The council suggested by the Minister, representing all interests in breeding and so on, is precisely the kind of council that is contemplated by these two Articles of the Constitution. The only difference is that it should be established by a law, not merely by an amendment to a Bill dealing with another matter; it should have a definite statute to itself, and not merely an amendment, and when the Minister pours scorn on Deputy Hewat for suggesting any such arrangement, I say that what Deputy Hewat suggested is practically what was contemplated, that such councils coming into being might well be given the power contemplated here. In any event the doctrine laid down by the Minister as to Ministerial infallibility except as regards his responsibility to the Dáil is rather an extensive one. It may be so in regard to the case of the Minister for Agriculture; it is not so in the case of the Minister for Justice. If the Minister for Justice arrests me by mistake, I have it in my power to bring an action for false imprisonment, unless he safeguards himself under one of his recent Acts. If the Minister for Finance assesses me for income tax at too high a rate I have a certain statutory appeal left open to me.
The question is whether we should not lay down here some statutory appeal from the decision of the Minister as to whether a certain breed of cattle is suitable or unsuitable. That seems to me to be the whole question we have to decide; should there be an appeal of any kind and, if so, what form of appeal tribunal should you have? These are the two questions, and I must say that I have not yet heard from the Minister anything that shakes my opinion that the powers given in this Bill are so drastic that some form of appeal should not be provided.
The discussion on this matter has been based more or less on hypothetical statements or supposed cases which really do not exist. I wish to draw the attention of the Dáil to what is really in operation at the moment. In every county there is what is known as a Committee of Agriculture, and that particular committee recommends a certain type of bull to be used in that area. These committees are functioning at present, and as a consequence there is not this danger, which Deputy Johnson fears, of a district being forced to accept an animal which it does not require, because the Committee of Agriculture is there.
This Bill will supersede that.
It is a case of a special type of cattle and they are few and far between. You have to accept that idea. It is a fact there are only certain portions — one is the case of the Kerry cattle — where a certain type of cattle is bred for an area. There is no danger of any Minister or anybody forcing a particular type of cattle on the people unless the people wish, because they in the past have been keeping a particular type of cattle under the ægis of the Department which they considered suitable.
May I remind the Deputy that the proposition is rather the other way round? It is a prohibition of the use of an animal in a particular district in which the Ministry and his National Council thinks it unsuitable. It is not forcing a particular type on the people.
Deputy Johnson is supposing that the Ministry is going to be unreasonable, that they are going to force down the throats of the farmers this, that, and the other thing. I am taking it that they have a little more common sense. Although they have been electioneering, still, I think the Minister will go down to bedrock, and when he comes to a question of economic facts he will take reasonable action. I say there is no such danger. We hear exactly what it will be. You have not said a word about the British Holsteins. That could be one of the breeds turned down. Will you permit them to come on the consultative council? If the Minister will explain who and what interests would be on this consultative council, then we will know where we are.
Earlier I asked the Minister what the constitution would be, and how many members. He told me twelve. Earlier still he told us representatives of the different breeds would be on this Council. Well, if we have Holsteins, Frisian, Shorthorns, Galloway, Aberdeen-Angus, Dairy Shorthorn, Kerry, and probably a few other breeds, I would like to know where the rank and file of the breeders of the stock of the country come in. I do not view very favourably the introduction of representatives of each breed on this Advisory Committee. I do not view favourably the representatives of the Beef Shorthorn, the Aberdeen Angus, or the Galloway. All these have been in the country, and they have more or less proved themselves to the plain people. If I want a view on the relative merits of a particular breed, I prefer to take it from the users and not from the representatives of a particular breed. I think if all these breeders are on this council of 12 there will be very little room for the people who matter, the people who pay the piper and who should call the tune. As a matter of fact I would prefer all the representatives of the breeds should be off, because they are not disinterested. A man with money invested in any particular breed is not the best judge. His view point is dwarfed. He is speaking for a particular interest, and you cannot blame him.
If it is only going to be twelve, I say eight at least should be representatives of the people of the country who use the breeds, and there is a good deal in that regional viewpoint. I take it when the Minister is going to appoint this council, if the regional viewpoint is ever under consideration, as it will be, that the view expressed from that particular region will be the view the Minister will take, not the view of the breeders throughout the country in opposition to the regional view. It was said that if there was any fault to be found with the Department in the years gone by — twelve, fifteen, or twenty years ago — they could trace that fault to the influence of certain breeders in the councils of those days, and the influence of certain breeders in the department. I am not going into that question. There is no use kicking that old dog, but I say this consultative committee should be more representative of the people who use the animals than of the breeders. If the number is going to be twelve, then I say that we, the people who represent the breeders of live stock in the country, should have at least eight members. We do not object to four or five experts; we want eight of the twelve at least. We would be satisfied with that.
May I have another word on this matter? Deputy Heffernan has got an amendment down which is suggesting that an advisory council should be formed. I had the temerity to stand up to ask the farmers to think well and scrutinise closely the formation and the powers of this council. That has brought down upon me the wrath of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. I am a Bolshevik. I am everything else. I might even be one of the Minister's opponents in the election. What is my fault? Wherein have I erred? I gave our friends the farmers more or less of a tip. The farmers certainly turned it down, but that is their look out. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture said that I said "this council should have powers over the Government." I said nothing of the kind. Let us be clear upon what I did say, or at least upon what I intended to say. This advisory council proposed to be set up by Act of Parliament is, according to the Minister, to be under his thumb. He is going to select the personnel.
No.
I beg pardon. He is going to consult them when he likes and he is not going to consult them when he does not like. We have had a lot of discussion in the Dáil over this advisory council, and I venture to suggest the Minister for Lands and Agriculture has been forming his Committee as the discussion has gone on. He had not the haziest idea as to what lines he was going to put the advisory council upon when he came to the Dáil to-day. There is one thing clear. We know Government Departments, and I can visualise our Minister saying to one of his staff: "There is a crux about Galloways in Donegal. Do not you think it would be advisable that we should call this council together? Let us think — a little chat at Christmas, and if there is any disturbance we will put it on to the advisory council." On the other hand, if he thinks the advisory council is going to interfere in any way with his work in his Department he is not going to call them together of course.
May I point out to the Deputy that the council have power to call themselves together. They do not have to wait for the Department to call them together.
That may or may not be so.
It is in the amendment. Have you read the amendment?
At all events that would be for the farming community and, I presume, our experience of the farming community as a whole, and their representatives in the Dáil, would not encourage one to think that that course would be adopted by the advisory council set up. At all events, the main basis of my argument is, not that the council would override the Minister, but that the Minister would be free to ignore the council altogether.
It is laid down by Article 45 of the Constitution:—
"The Oireachtas may provide for the establishment of functional or vocational councils representing branches of the social and economic life of the nation. A law establishing any such council shall determine its powers, rights and duties, and its relations to the Government of the Irish Free State."
Is it in order when dealing with a Live Stock Bill to talk about the Constitution?
I make the suggestion that the Minister has taken Deputy Hewat too seriously upon this matter.
Article 56 reads:—
"Every Minister who is not a member of the Executive Council shall be the responsible head of the Department or Departments under his charge and shall be individually responsible to Dáil Eireann alone for the administration of the Department or Departments of which he is the head; Provided that should arrangements for Functional or Vocational Councils be made by the Oireachtas these Ministers or any of them may, should the Oireachtas so decide, be members of and be recommended to Dáil Eireann by such councils."
That absolutely, as Deputy Cooper knows, safeguards the sole responsibility of the Minister to the Dáil.
I know the Dáil is the final authority. I never suggested it was not.
Deputy Cooper suggested that my point was sound British law or perhaps sound German law, but that it offended his well-known ultra-Gaelic susceptibilities. It is in accordance with the Constitution. Any suggestion that an outside external non-representative body should control a Government Department, because that is what it amounts to, is absolutely at variance with the Constitution. The suggestion that it should not only forbid, but initiate regulations and control a Government Department is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. I think what Deputy Johnson wants is an assurance that certain regions, such as regions like Donegal, Mayo, Kerry, and North Tipperary should be represented. I agree that there are certain districts where special conditions prevail and where tradition and experience have shown that a special type of livestock is suitable. The only thing I am concerned with is to point out that these districts are not confined to a county. Exactly the same conditions apply to Donegal as to the coast of Kerry and Mayo, and exactly the same conditions apply to the mountainy areas all over Ireland. Deputy Gorey wished to know whether we were going to have representatives of the Aberdeen Angus, Hereford, Shorthorn, and Galloway, and if so, he suggested that there would be very little room for the ordinary farmer. Surely the ordinary County Limerick or County Cork farmer would be a first-class representative of the Dairy Shorthorn interest?
Quite right.
It does not follow for a moment because a man is an ordinary farmer that he is not well able to represent and give advice upon questions in connection with, let us say, Dairy Shorthorn herds, which is the main breed of the country. It does not follow either that we need go to somebody who breeds beef Shorthorns for a representative of the beef Shorthorn, which is also an extreme side of our live stock.
I do not pretend to have thought out the advisory council exhaustively and fully, and I go further in saying I am not in exactly the vague frame of mind which Deputy Hewat suggests. I do not want Deputies to jump to the conclusion that when I speak of representatives of various breeds I am going to the well-known breeders pure and simple.
Did not the Minister say he was going to the societies which consist almost entirely of breeders of pure bred cattle?
Yes. We say certainly, we have that desire.
Did he not say he would take three or four names so that he is bound to take one of the names suggested by the breeders?
I do not think I mentioned three or four. I may have. I said I would take one from each. We may find it necessary to get in people who can speak authoritatively on the question. This council is not to be purely representative of societies. I do not think I gave that impression, but perhaps I did. It will be representative of regions. We will nominate some men for the mountainy areas which are very large areas in the country, and they can speak also for the Galloway breed and the Aberdeen Angus and so on. I am not in a position to say exactly, at the present moment, what the constitution of this council is to be. I will try to give representation to the breeders pure and simple, and they are entitled to representation. The breeders are doing invaluable work for live stock and they must get representation. Ordinary farmers must get representation as well, and there will be representation of farmers in regional districts. We must make all this fit in, but that is different from having representation from each county. We have that already in the Council of Agriculture, and we will consult it and take its advice where necessary, but we can discuss all this again on that amendment.
The Minister has wandered away from the discussion of this amendment and from the general proposition relating to the Advisory Council. I want to nail him down to this particular amendment. If it were stated in the Bill that the County Committees of Agriculture would be consulted I would accept that, but it is not stated in the Bill and there is no indication whatever that they will be consulted. The people of a county are the people who are directly interested in the kind of breeds that are to be encouraged in that county, and it is for that reason I urge that the County Committees, which are representative of each county, should be consulted. It would be quite an easy thing to do. There would be no need to have regional areas defined, because it is quite an easy thing to define the bounds of a county. There is no body that could tell the people of a county the breed of cattle they want better than the people themselves. The Minister says that the same type of man would represent the mountainy breeds in the different parts of Ireland, such as Donegal, Kerry and Cork. That argument is not sound in my opinion. The mountainy breeds in Kerry are breeds in which a Kerry man would be particularly interested, and the same, of course, would apply in Galway in the case of the Galloways.
I think I made it abundantly clear that the Kerry breed was a special breed and was to be looked after specially.
Leaving out the Kerry breed altogether, there may be mountainy men interested in different kinds of mountainy breeds. The Minister talked about the fact that the different breeders will have to be represented.
I stated specifically that all the breeds could not be represented.
Why any breeders then?
I understood that the different breeds were to be represented, but if they are not it changes the aspect of the matter somewhat. I still think that it is not the breeders of the pure-bred cattle that should be consulted. You will have the Aberdeen-Angus man with a natural preference for that breed, the same with the Hereford man, and the same with the Shorthorn representative.
Is the Deputy's contention that none of the breeders of pure bred stock should be on the council?
Not one more than another. That is our contention. There are seven or eight different breeds, and not one of them should be on if they are not all on.
If you put on one representative of the pure-bred stock societies then you will have to put all on. The suggestion in the amendment is that a special committee should be set up in each county to deal with this, a Committee that could be consulted when required. I would expect when such a Committee is consulted that attention would be paid to its advice, and that decisions would not be left to the general council, consisting largely of men with axes to grind in regard to particular breeds of cattle. Each man on that Council will have special regard for his own particular breed. In that case, you might have the Ministry acting on a minority report. I would not like to see the Minister acting on such a report, but rather I would like to see him acting on the advice given to him by the consultative council. I would like to see that advice in most cases unanimous. I would also like to see the Minister take the advice which would be given to him by the local council, which I suggest should be set up. If the Minister will give an undertaking that at a later stage he will introduce an amendment to the effect that local committees will be consulted, it will meet my desires in regard to this amendment.
In the fifth Interim Report of the Commission on Agriculture there is the following paragraph, dealing with the licensing of bulls, in the sixth chapter. It is as follows:—
While we are of opinion that the inspection of the animals should be carried out by the Inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture, we feel that the administration of the scheme should, as far as possible, be carried out by the County Council, or the County Committees of Agriculture.
The whole inspiration of the scheme came from that particular report, and, therefore, I take it that the Minister would be bound by the chapter I have quoted just as he is bound by the general tenour of the whole report. If he gives that understanding I think we ought to be perfectly satisfied.
What understanding?
That the administration of the scheme shall be carried out as far as possible through the County Committees of Agriculture.
I do not think I ever heard such a proposition as that put forward by Deputy Heffernan, that the breeders of live stock should not be represented on the live stock council.
If the different breeders of live stock are going to be represented on this consultative council, the breeders of Aberdeen Angus, of Shorthorns, of Herefords and all the rest, then I wish the Minister luck in his advisory council. If these are the people who are going to advise the Minister, it will be interesting to see what the results will be.
I made it abundantly clear that representatives of the breeders were to be on this live stock council, but that there were to be others as well. That was clear, and no one could be under any misapprehension with regard to that. Deputy Heffernan's position is that representatives of the breeders should not be on the live stock council. Is that the position?
Not as breeders. It is possible that a man may be a breeder of a particular breed of live stock and yet that he might have other agricultural interests. He might be considered a suitable man. What I said was that the Committee should not be selected from the representatives of these particular societies. I rather suggest that they should be selected from good average farmers who might be carrying on a diversified system of farming.
On a point of order, I desire to point out that the amendment seeks to impose upon the Minister the duty of consulting with such bodies or persons representative of the interests concerned in certain administrative areas — in counties — by giving advice to the Minister in respect to the prohibition of licences where the breed is unsuitable for the district. Is it in order to discuss the whole question of national advisory councils in regard to carrying out this Bill on that amendment?
This proposal is certainly for local advisory Councils. The Minister, as is frequently done, was giving an alternative scheme in the hope that this proposal would be withdrawn. From that we have ranged into a discussion on the difference between local councils and councils for the whole of the country. It is difficult to prevent a discussion on the general question. We have been over an hour at it now, but we do not seem to be getting any nearer to a conclusion. I understand that Section 4 of the Bill, which has just been passed, is going to be divided into two parts and amended. The Minister speaks of a new section dealing with consultative councils. It may be simpler, when this discussion has gone so far, to postpone further discussion until the next stage to see what the Minister's proposal really is. If necessary, this proposal may be moved again as it stands, or some amendment may be moved to the Minister's proposal which would make it suitable to what Deputy Heffernan desires.
That would agree with my idea. We will see what the Minister intended, and we can put forward an amendment if necessary. I therefore ask leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
took the Chair.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
"In Sub-section (2) line 48, delete the word ‘ten' and substitute therefor the word ‘two.'"
This amendment is to reduce the penalty from £10 to £2. It is in conformity with the other amendments which I have already moved.
I am not accepting that amendment, and I will answer it by putting a hypothetical case for which all legislation is intended. I may say that I do not know what objection Deputies have to hypothetical cases. This section is intended to cover any case that may arise in the future. If Deputy Heffernan, for instance, brings a cow along to the owner of a bull and asks the owner for his licence, the owner may say, "it is all right, it is in the house," but he does not produce it. However, the cow proves to have contagious abortion in four or five months. Deputy Heffernan then finds that every cow from the same bull is suffering from the same malady. He may then hear from somebody that the owner has not got a licence and that it was refused. If, after another few months, Deputy Heffernan finds that all his cows have contagious abortion, and then acquaints the Department, and the Department takes proceedings and finds the man has no licence, would the Deputy in that case think that a penalty of £2 rather than £10 would be the proper one?
I will not argue this out. It is simply a matter of opinion.
What is your opinion?
My opinion is what is in the amendment. I would like to see this Bill taken up by the people in a wholehearted manner, and that would not be the case if there were severe penalties. I think that the penalties should be a matter of minor importance.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- David Hall.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Donnchadh O Guáire.
- Micheál O hIfearnáin.
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Maighréad Ni Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceoil.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Culacháin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Laidhin. Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Amendment declared lost.
Question: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) It shall be the duty of any person having custody of any bull to which this Act applies, if so required by an inspector or by any member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or of the Gárda Síochána, to give to such inspector or such member the name and address of the owner of such bull and of the person by whom such bull is kept, so far as the same are known to him.
(2) Every person who, knowing the name or address of the owner of a bull to which this Act applies or of the person by whom such bull is kept, refuses when so required to give such name or address to an inspector or to any member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or of the Gárda Síochána shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding two pounds.
I move:
"In sub-section (1), line 56, after the word ‘applies,' to insert the words ‘and of the owner or the person having the charge or management of the lands or premises on which any such bull is found.'"
The effect of the amendment is that the duty imposed upon the person who owns the bull shall also be imposed upon the owner or the person having charge or management of the lands on which the bull is found.
That amendment to the section is obviously necessary.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:
"To delete sub-section (2)."
In the sub-section the Minister retains the power of compelling any person to become a common informer by obliging him to give evidence under penalty. I think there is not the slightest necessity for the Minister retaining such power, and it will not get the effect desired by the Bill. I think the proposal in the sub-section is provocative and vexatious.
Amendment 16 proposes: "In sub-section (2), line 1, to delete the word ‘person' and substitute the words ‘such person as aforesaid.'" That may meet the Deputy's point.
That will meet my point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 16, which the Minister has accepted in advance.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Question —"That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
"(1) Save in the manner and to the extent authorised by this section licences and permits granted under this Act shall not be transferable.
"(2) Where the right to the possession of a bull in respect of which a licence or permit granted under this Act is in force passes from the holder of the licence or permit to another person (in this section called the transferee) either by a transfer or devolution of the property in the bull or by a loan, hire, or lease of the bull for a period exceeding one month, or by the cesser or surrender of any such loan, hiring, or lease, the Minister may, on the application of the transferee and on notice to the holder of the licence or permit or his personal representative, and on compliance with the prescribed conditions, transfer the licence or permit in the prescribed manner to the transferee.
"(3) On the death of the holder of a licence or permit, his personal representative may retain possession of the bull to which the licence relates for a period not exceeding three months from the death of the holder, or until the sooner determination of the licence or permit without obtaining a transfer to himself of the licence or permit."
I beg to move the following amendment:—
"In sub-section (1) to delete the word ‘not,' line 25."
In my opinion, if this section is not amended in the manner I suggest, the whole Bill will very likely break down. In dealing with a Bill of this sort we must bear in mind the different customs that exist in various parts of the country. In the South the season for bulls will be May and June, and if permits are not made transferable there will not be a free sale of bulls. Under the Bill as it stands, if a bull is sold or transferred, before the buyer can take possession, he must apply to the Minister for permission. In County Limerick the usual custom is for men to buy bulls early in May, hold them for about five weeks, and then sell them at auctions. The small farmer makes a practice of buying early in May, running the bull with his small herd, and then selling him again in late May or June. He might make a profit, or perhaps there would be a loss of a couple of pounds; if he held the bull over until July he might lose from £10 to £15.
Take the case of a man who breeds bull calves. An inspection will be held. That man would have five or six bulls, but under the Bill he would not be allowed to sell them without getting permission from the Minister to have the transfer of the permits belonging to the bulls. In my opinion the permits should be transferred in such a way that there would be a free exchange of bulls. Perhaps it would meet the point if there was a special marking on the horns or on the hooves. On the last day when this matter was debated the Minister stated it would be copying the system in vogue in connection with the Horse Breeding Scheme and Cow-testing Associations. If that system is useful in connection with the Horse Breeding Scheme and Cow-testing, it would be useful in this instance.
Unless the Minister agrees to amend this section, we cannot place much reliance on the Bill. You actually increase the value of the cow by copying the brand and by saying that the animal could produce 2,000 gallons of milk. On the other hand, a farmer would gain no material advantage from copying the brand of a bull which has been refused a permit. In the country a bull is bought on his merits whether it has a permit or not. In my opinion it will be impossible to work the Bill unless this section is amended. You must have a free sale of bulls, and you have not got that under the Bill. Before the licence is transferred we have to apply to the Department for permission if the period exceeds one month. As the season for bulls is only May and June, and probably part of July, it would upset the whole custom that we have in the South if this Bill is not amended. In the South we have practically 90 per cent. of the dairy cows of the country.
The Deputy is quite right. There is a contingency which needs to be covered in connection with the section. It is a fact that unless the bull is lent, hired or leased it cannot be used on sale. There is the case of a man who buys a bull and wishes to let it run with his cows immediately. At the same time, he is not the licensee. The bull is not licensed in his name, and he has no right to let it run with his cows. I will undertake to put in a provision on the Report Stage providing that it shall be legal for a man buying a bull to allow it to run with his cows for a reasonable period, a period in which he could apply to the Department and get his licence. That may not go the whole way to meet the Deputy, but it covers one particular point. We can put in an amendment which will provide for that contingency. The procedure will be that the bull can be sold. The licence holder, the seller, has, under Section 9, to acquaint the Department immediately, and arrangements may be made immediately to transfer that licence.
It is obvious that the Department must keep trace of bulls. The Department issues, or refuses to issue, licences. I hope the Deputy is clear on two points. There is nothing to prevent the bull being sold before the licence is transferred. He certainly may be sold. There is a catch in the Bill as it stands. The buyer cannot use the bull until he gets his licence. We propose now to cover that point on the Report Stage by introducing an amendment which will enable the buyer to run the bull with his cows for a certain reasonable period in which he will endeavour to get a licence. That will cover every case except the case where the Department eventually refuses a licence. If the Department does, of course, they cannot take proceedings against the man who purchased the bull. He is covered for that reasonable period, but the effect will be that he cannot use the bull in future.
What are the cases in which the Department would refuse a licence? There is only one case. It is agreed that we will not allow a certain type of bull into a certain district — the Kerry case again. It is agreed that the Department should have power to prevent certain bulls entering certain districts, such as the case of Cahirciveen, County Kerry. Therefore, we must safeguard that point in the Bill. The case in which a bull is unsuitable for a district, and in which an effort is made to transfer it from one district to another, is the only possible case in which the Department would refuse to give a licence to the transferee. That case would occur only once in a thousand times. At the same time we must know that the buyer is licensed and we must know where the bull is. I will give the undertaking I have referred to, and we will put on the buyer the onus of applying for a licence within a reasonable time.
Take the case where the bull is licensed at the age of nine or ten months and he goes up for sale at the age of twelve or fourteen months, accompanied by the licence or permit. Would it not be simpler if the purchaser of the bull would get the licence, and let it hold good? Of course, I agree that it is necessary to trace where the bull is.
And change the name?
Well, you have to send that to the Department.
How could you administer the Bill otherwise?
It seems to me the machinery is a little heavy, and too troublesome for the ordinary individual in the country.
What does the Deputy suggest?
That there should be somebody available within the county in some reasonable centre, without the need of sending to Dublin to obtain these permits. There should be some simpler method than having to post to Dublin.
The Minister has met my point in regard to the delay after the purchasing of a bull and before he could apply to the Department for permission to purchase the bull. But he has not met my point in regard to the other alternative, the suggestion that would enable the Bill to work smoothly. I would like to remind the Minister that the less clerical labour he puts on the farmer the smoother the Bill will work. The less he makes it incumbent on the farmers to be applying to Dublin for permission to licence a bull, the more cooperation he will have from the dairy farmers of the country. From what I know of the farmers all this red tape will not help the working of the Bill. A simpler method would be to have the bull branded on the horns with a special brand and to have special markings on the bull, and to allow of a free exchange of the bull and the licence to go with him on sale or transfer. It is very hard under the Bill as it at present stands to work it. I do not believe it will work. I believe it will break down, because I do not believe the Minister will have the cooperation of the dairy farmers in the working of the Act. I do not see what objection the Minister could have to the scheme that I am advocating about the branding of the bulls. This same scheme has been adopted already by the Department in the matter of branding mares. Under the system, as it stands, you can purchase a mare that has received the premium without applying to the Department for a licence. That mare is already branded on the hoof and the mark is on the premium.
I see the Deputy's point, which is really psychological. A farmer goes and sells a bull and another farmer buys him. In actual practice the farmer has not only to get the price of the bull but he has to arrange with the Department that the licence is to be transferred to the purchaser of the bull, and the purchaser of the bull has to see that he gets a licence. But is not that difficulty inherent in the Bill unless we allow the bull to be transferred to any district in Ireland? There are some circles that you cannot square.
Some?
Yes, some. I use the word advisedly. This is one of them in this country. We cannot possibly allow the bull to go from one district to another without some control. That is admitted. I think Deputy P.K. Hogan admits that himself.
I do not.
I did take it for granted that it was not wise to allow an Aberdeen Angus bull into Cahirciveen to use generally with Kerry cows. Is that agreed?
No, not with me, anyway.
Well, that is where we differ. Everybody else agrees. How could we allow a transfer if we agree that you cannot allow an Aberdeen-Angus bull to enter Cahirciveen? Surely the Deputy will agree that the Department of Agriculture should be notified of the transfer of the bull.
Why not allow notification to the local police?
Is it not as easy to notify the Department as to notify the police? There must be some case where we must prevent the transfer of a bull from one district to another. It will be found that these transfers take place automatically. There will be no immediate hardship because the farmer may run the bull with his herd the moment he gets it. It will be found then that the transfer will become almost automatic. In fact, this is the very provision that is in the Northern Bill, and it is not causing the slightest trouble.
They have not a County Limerick in the North.
If the Deputy will suggest some means of getting over the two difficulties which I put to him, and which I have been trying to solve, I will be glad to hear them, because I really believe there is a certain objection to this. Has the Deputy put forward anything to get over these difficulties:— (1) There are certain bulls that cannot be freely transferred from one district to another. For instance, a Jersey bull cannot be transferred to the County Limerick. And (2) the Department of Agriculture should be notified.
I suggest to the Minister that, when issuing the first licence for the bull, the Department should say: "This bull shall not be used for service in Kerry," and then it can be transferred anywhere else.
No, that would not suit. There are parts of Kerry that would correspond with West Limerick. It is only certain districts in Kerry into which you could not transfer a Shorthorn bull. It would meet the Minister's point if the bull were used only for the owner's cows. Of course, in some cases two or three farmers may join in the purchase of one bull which could be used only by the owners who were joined in the purchase. The bull would not be served out to other cows in the district.
The Minister did not seem to realise my meaning when I said there was no County Limerick in the North. I think the only district in the country where the practice that Deputy Hogan's amendment would be affected by, is the County Limerick and that district. But I think the practical suggestion for the consideration of the Minister might be that the certificate or permit issued with the bull in the first instance would be transferred to the new owner as the bull is transferred, and a condition imposed that in going into any new district it should be reported to the representative of the County Committee of Agriculture. Here is where the local administration comes in — practically to follow the policy that the Prisons Board and others of the kind carry through; that is a ticket-of-leave system. As the bull goes from one administrative area to another, the certificate should follow and be registered, and impose upon the local official the responsibility of communicating with the Department. I think that is a proposal worthy of consideration, and it would solve some of the difficulties the Deputy has raised.
My amendment would do away with "red tapeism." A County Limerick farmer rears six bull calves. The Inspector comes down and the farmer gets premiums for these bull calves. Under the Bill, the owner is liable to a penalty if he does not notify the Department that he has sold these calves, and, then, again, the buyers of the calves are liable to a penalty too. Because if the buyers do not apply to the Department for permission to purchase, they will not be licensed. Therefore, you have twelve letters going to the Department over the sale of these six calves. I would certainly do away with that in the Bill.
This is a magnificent example of the Department's "red tapeism." Here is a bull duly registered, and it, surely, requires that a licence be issued. And we are told that this is "red tapeism." If the owner of the bull is John Murphy, and it is sold to John Doyle, how is this Bill to be administered in such a way that you have a schedule there of the bulls that are licensed, should the bull happen to change hands two or three times? The bull was John Murphy's and it is now Deputy Gorey's, and this is "red tapeism."
It is red-tapeism to ask a farmer to sit down, put his licence in an envelope, and send it to the Department, with the name of the man to whom he sold the bull. That sort of red-tapeism is absolutely necessary if the Bill is to be administered. The only difference Deputy Johnson's point makes is that he would acquaint the local official. It means a letter in any case, and it is just as easy to acquaint the other. It should go direct to the live stock inspector and not to the agricultural instructor. Let us consider this matter on the Report Stage. Will the Deputy consider and tell me on the Report Stage that the Department should not be acquainted if the bull is transferred? If he does not go that far, will he tell me if it is too much to ask the owner who is transferring the bull simply to send a licence to the Department?
And the purchaser of the bull. He has the same liability.
I do not know that he has, as the Bill stands.
He must be licensed.
I agreed to introduce a section which would enable the purchaser to run a bull with his cows until the bull is licensed. As the Bill stands, the idea is, that after selling the bull the seller simply sends his licence to the Department. The amendment can be so drafted that we can put the onus on one of them, if Deputies like. Supposing we put in a section which safeguarded the purchaser anyhow, without putting any other duty on him, gave him the right to run a bull with his cows, leaving the onus on the seller to send up the licence with the name of the person to whom the bull was transferred, in 999 cases out of a thousand the Department would simply change the name. It would be only in the odd case I mentioned, that a Hereford bull, say, would go to a district where it is absolutely unsuited, that they would refuse. I can go so far as to say that the transfer would be automatic in every other case. In that one case out of a thousand it would mean that the Department would have to send down an inspector and withdraw the licence for that particular bull in that district. It would be rather unfair to the purchaser. If the Deputy thinks it is any good I will do that. I considered this for a long time, and I can see no way out. It is exactly the same in the Northern Bill. Deputy Johnson suggested that there was no County Limerick in the North. There is exactly the same trouble there. There is, if you like, the Jersey, Guernsey or Dexter bull going to the County Limerick.
The Minister has missed the point. In County Limerick for a couple of months in the year you have a very considerable transfer.
The same in the North.
Not to the same extent. I think the Minister will find that there is no county in the north with that practice in regard to the purchase, use, and sale of bulls as in Limerick.
I agree with regard to the extent, but it is there to some extent and would arise. I quite agree that there is no comparison in degree.
Supposing I am a farmer and go down to Kerry, purchase a number of Kerry heifers and bring them into the Limerick or Tipperary district. If the bull there is a Shorthorn one, is there any means of preventing me from using these Kerry heifers in connection with the Shorthorn bull? Would not that affect the result which this Bill proposes to prevent?
There is nothing whatever preventing the Deputy sending Kerry heifers to a Shorthorn bull. That would not affect the position. There are very few Kerry heifers in Tipperary, Limerick, or counties like that. There are some, but they are very limited in number. They are such a very small proportion of the whole that they would neither raise nor lower the standard. That is so, as a matter of practice.
We are of one mind as to the necessity for this. The only difference is with regard to simplifying the process. We, too, are interested in having it effective, but we think the method outlined in the Bill is too complicated and is more than the average farmer is likely to comply with. We accept the Minister's suggestion to think over the matter between this and the Report Stage, so as to try and have it amended. We are satisfied to do that, even to the extent of consulting with the Minister. Perhaps the local police might be utilised in the matter. The number of bulls is very large, and after the first licences are issued, if the matter is to be dealt with in Dublin, it will need a tremendous staff and a lot of trouble to many people. If there is a transfer of a bull for a period, and the seller and buyer have to comply with certain regulations, there will be a lot of correspondence necessary. It will be very expensive. If a simpler method, that will be equally effective, can be devised we are quite satisfied, and I am sure the Department will be satisfied. When we think over the matter, perhaps we will be able to put up some proposal to the Minister before the Report Stage.
Before I withdraw this amendment, I would like to see what I am going to get in its place. In the County Limerick we will be very hard hit. We will be hit more than any other county, because the County Limerick supplies a large number of half-bred Shorthorn bulls to other counties. During the months of May and June 40 or 50 auctions of bulls are held, and farmers in the counties of Cork, Kerry and Clare attend them. The County Limerick really is the breeding ground for Shorthorn bulls. There is such a sale for bulls that this Bill will very seriously affect free sales, and as a result interfere with the breeding of bulls. Farmers will not be able to comply with all the regulations, and if they neglect to comply there is a very heavy penalty. The result will be that they will not take the risk.
The undertaking I have given is, that I am willing to consult with Deputies with a view to any simplification of the procedure they wish, provided two things are safeguarded — (1) the right of the Department in the odd case to prevent the transfer of a bull from one district to another district for which it is unsuitable, and (2) the necessity for an immediate notification to the Department that the bull has changed ownership.
A notification from the owner will be sufficient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 18 not moved.
Question —"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Section 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I move to report progress.