Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 1993

Vol. 431 No. 1

Animal Remedies Bill, 1993: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete ", except in the definition of ‘substance' and section 11 (1) (e),”.

In the definition of animal the Bill states: "except in the definition of "substance" and section 11 (1) (e), means any animal in relation to which this Act applies by virtue of section 2". Why is the phrase "except in the definition of "substance" and section 11 (1) (e)" included? In defining substance the Bill states that substance means any matter irrespective of origin, whether such matter is of human origin, animal origin, vegetable origin, chemical origin, any other substance or any combination of the foregoing. I do not know how animal can be defined as being any of these things. Section 11 (1) (e), which is the greatest load of gobbledegook, states: "in, on, under or from any land or premises or in, on or from any vehicle, there is or was any animal of any species to which an animal remedy is being or has been administered or there is or was any food derived from such an animal or any carcase of such an animal." That is accepted as not coming under the heading of "animal". I am not surprised as I would never suspect for one minute that it concerned the defintion of an animal. Section 1 says:

"animal", except in the definition of "substance"...means any animal in relation to which this Act applies by virtue of section 2.

Section 2 (2) (a) defines animals very clearly as being a domestic animal, a wild animal in captivity, or any other wild animal; and subsection (1) lists birds, fish, reptiles, etc. I would like to know the reason those with expertise in the draftsman's office inserted the word "except" in the definition of "animal".

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. Hyland)

Deputy Browne will be aware that the phraseology used in formulating Bills is often technical from the point of their contents. He will also be aware of the importance of having a Bill drafted in a manner which will stand the test of time in our courts and elsewhere. When he refers to gobbledegook I do not think he meant it in the context of being critical of those who drafted the Bill. The phraseology used in Bills has to be such as to ensure they are legally sound. That is the background to the question raised by the Deputy. I will endeavour to the best of my ability to sort out the confusion to which he referred.

If accepted, this amendment would limit the scope of the Animal Remedies Bill to which the Act applies. The definition of "substance" in the Bill uses the term "animal" in its unrestricted and widest sense and is in line with the European Communities definition in legislation relating to animal remedies. The amendment, if accepted in relation to section 11 (1) (e) which empowers authorised officers to examine animals of any species, would limit their powers to examining those animals covered in the Bill. It is possible that evidence relating to prohibited animal remedies might be obtained from examining animals other than those covered by the Bill. Therefore I propose leaving the subsection as it stands. It allows the maximum flexibility to cover every eventuality. The use of the word "substance" in the context of the Bill is far more effective in terms of the objective we want to achieve under this provision. It may appear confusing; nonetheless, all the advice available to me clearly indicates that the word "substance" covers a wider range of possibilities and eventualities. I hope the Deputy will accept that the best legal advice available to me suggests that, from the point of view of section 1, the word "substance" is preferable to the word "animal".

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): When I referred to gobbledegook I did not intend to be offensive to anyone who drafted the Bill. In this day and age of modern language it seems that nothing simple can be drafted in Bills. We have to continue using the language Daniel O'Connell used in his parliamentary days when he was able to drive his famous coach and four through everything. Despite the Minister's efforts to explain it to me, I find it very difficult to accept the words: “‘animal’ except in the definition of ‘substance’...”. I accept there may be something legal required for experiments and so on. The Minister of State did not define how an animal could be “in, on, under or from any land or premises...” as contained in section 11 (1) (e). I would ask why that section has to be excepted from the definition of an animal. Is that a misprint?

Mr. Hyland

The objective of this section is to cover every possible eventuality from a legal point of view. Therefore, the legal advice available to us in the Department is reflected in the phraseology used in the Bill. I do not think we should get bogged down in technicalities. Arising from the contributions on Second Stage there are no divisions in this House concerning what we want to achieve. I am sure we would all be united in putting together a form of words in legislation which would guarantee what we want to achieve. Therefore, the explanation I am giving in relation to the formulation of the work is, from a legal point of view, what we consider to be necessary. We have had situations where animal vaccines were challenged. The Deputy will have to accept my explanation. The point raised is not a major factor in regard to the Bill's objective. These are technical points and perhaps have a legal bearing, but they do not in any way alter the effectiveness of what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. McCormack

Like my colleague, I too am concerned about this legal jargon, which is creeping more and more into legislation to cover eventualities that can never happen, and certainly would never happen in regard to section 11 (1) (e). It is similar to the form which issued to farmers recently for headage payments. So much irrelevant material was in that form that it prevented many people from completing it. One had to deduct headlands, rocks, marshes, etc. That type of language is very confusing to farmers, whose full co-operation the Minister should seek in all matters concerned with disease eradication and illegal substances. I would ask the Minister not to have the Bill couched in such language that the ordinary man on the farm cannot immediately understand what the Department or the Minister is trying to convey to them. I would urge the Minister of State to take it back to the draftsmen and get them to break it down into a simpler form of words.

Mr. Hyland

I do not think farmers will be seeking a copy of this Bill to see how it applies to their individual farm operations. This debate, the explanatory memorandum — a much simpler and understandable version of what we are trying to achieve — along with the guidelines which will issue from the Department will be relied upon by farmers rather than examining the contents of this Bill. I can well imagine the difficulties which individual farmers would experience in terms of what we are trying to achieve. In relation to all legislation we have to ensure it is legally sound, otherwise we would be in the courts in days if there were loopholes in some of its specific requirements. I fully understand the view expressed by the Deputy in relation to the form of words used, but I do not accept the point that it will be confusing to farmers. All they want to know is what we are trying to achieve, how we propose to deal with the problem, how its provision will be implemented and what the penalties will be. We are talking about technical and legal points which do not have a bearing from the point of view of farmers understanding it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

I would ask Deputy Browne to report progress.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Is this a new way of silencing me?

Progress reported. Committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.