Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Jan 1925

Vol. 4 No. 2

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LIVE STOCK BREEDING BILL, 1924.—THIRD STAGE.

(1) On and after the appointed day it shall not be lawful for any person to keep or have in his possession any bull to which this Act applies save in so far as such keeping or possession is authorised by a licence or permit granted to such person under this Act and for the time being in force.

(2) Every person who shall keep or have in his possession any bull to which this Act applies in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.

(3) In any prosecution for an offence under this section the burden of proof that a licence or permit had been granted under this Act in respect of the bull and was in force and (where the age of the bull is in issue) the burden of proof of the age of the bull shall lie on the person prosecuted and unless and until the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that no such licence or permit had been granted or that if such licence or permit had been granted it was no longer in force on the day on which the offence was alleged to have been committed.

(4) For the purpose of a prosecution for an offence under this section a bull shall be deemed to be kept by and to be in the possession of each and every of the following persons, that is to say:—

(a) the owner of the bull, and

(b) the owner of the lands or premises on which the bull was when the offence was alleged to have been committed, and

(c) the person having the charge or management of the lands or premises aforesaid.

Mr. BENNETT

I beg to move Amendment 1:—Section 1, sub-section (2).—Line 20, to delete the word "twenty," and to substitute therefor the word "five."

This may seem a rather trivial matter to engage the attention of the Seanad, but the people whom it concerns are compelled, by the force of circumstances, to deal with trivial matters. To the ordinary farmer the difference between a potential fine of £20 and a potential fine of £5 is a matter of very live interest indeed. The penalties proposed under this Bill are, in my opinion, extreme, and compare very unfavourably with the penalties mentioned in other Bills passed here. Under this section, if a man has an unlicensed bull he may be fined £20. I may be told by the Minister that the offender will not be fined that amount, but I should like to remind the Seanad that "the means to do ill deeds oft make ill deeds done." While I do not suggest that the officials who may be told off to administer this Act would, in any case, be harsh, yet it is still possible that a particular individual charged with its administration may turn out to be harsh and may be inclined to impose the extreme penalty. I think I am only beating against open doors when I try to induce members of the Seanad to be any more clement than I am sure they are naturally inclined to be. I have every confidence they will see that for the ordinary farmer who will have imposed upon him for the first time grave restrictions—I do not say they are not wise— on his liberty as regards what he may do to make his farming pay, or what he may do to be a greater benefit to the community than he is now, the infliction of a penalty as large as £20 ought not to be allowed. I therefore ask the Seanad to agree that the extreme penalty in this particular case should be what I ask, namely, £5.

Mr. LINEHAN

I beg to second the amendment. I think the penalty mentioned in the section is a very drastic one for the offence of keeping a bull without a licence, especially at the start of putting this Bill into operation when farmers cannot possibly know what their responsibilities are. The maximum penalty mentioned in an Act is always a guide to a judge when he is hearing a case. Therefore, when a judge sees that the Oireachtas consider that a fine of £20 should be imposed on a man for not having a bull licensed, he will naturally come to the conclusion to inflict a very large and substantial fine. Farmers at the present time are not in a position to pay a fine of that kind. I think, at the commencement of the work that is to take place under this Bill in the matter of the improvement of the cattle industry of the country, it will help to get the co-operation of farmers if you fix fines of a moderate character. Acts of Parliament are made very unpopular when exorbitant penalties are fixed in them. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I cannot agree with the views expressed by the mover and the seconder of this amendment. The offence of keeping unlicensed bulls must be met by fines that will deter people from doing so. I would ask the Seanad to consider the case of a grazier whose practice has been to work what is called the springer trade and whose habit has been to get the cheapest bull he can for the purposes of using him with the heifers he purchases. He will probably get that bull for £10 or £15. Will any Senator tell me what deterrent is a fine of £5 to a man who knows that if he were to get a licensed bull he would probably have to pay from £40 to £50 for him? It is obvious that if it were discretionary, in levying a fine you must take into account extreme cases such as that. It is ridiculous, to my mind, to suppose that any person who occupies the position of being able to impose a fine will think of putting on the maximum penalty on a small farmer. Such a thing is not likely to happen, as it would be a straining of justice which would certainly be over-ruled. It is not only that the grazier offender—the man who offends on a larger scale—can inflict injury upon himself, and upon those who purchase his stock, but there is also the injury the small farmer can do to his neighbours who may have heifers across the hedge. A scrub bull will break through any hedge, and what is to become of the progressive farmer who is doing his best by a selection of the best sires to improve his herd? They may be ruined in a day. I think this is an offence that ought to be met with suitable punishment and, unless the fine is a substantial one, I do not think this Bill will be of the slightest use.

Mr. BROWN

What strikes one who knows nothing about farming or about cattle is this: The whole benefit of this Act, as far as I can understand it, depends upon there being no unlicensed bulls in this country, and, therefore, if the Minister and the country are to get what is to be expected from this Bill the penalty should be kept at least at this maximum of £20. An appeal is made by Senators Bennett and Linehan on behalf of the poor farmer who cannot afford to pay this fine. But if he cannot afford to pay it he can very easily avoid having to pay it by not keeping an unlicensed bull. I do not think the farmer because he is poor has any right to offend against this Act and to get off with a small fine.

Colonel MOORE

It seems to me in this matter the farmer is left in the dark. There is nothing laid down in this Bill as to what a bull is. A bull may be a bull after a month old or three months old or six months old. It is not stated in the Bill. I may be wrong.

Mr. BROWN

There is a provision as to that.

Colonel MOORE

It was not originally so.

Mr. BROWN

Section 20, sub-section (1) reads: "This Act shall apply to all bulls of such age as shall be prescribed for that purpose by regulations made under this Act."

Colonel MOORE

Then I am right; it is not laid down. A farmer may possibly get a young animal, a little beyond the prescribed age. Even if it was laid down he might make a mistake. We all make mistakes of that sort. What I suggest is, there is a great deal of difference between a man who does a thing systematically and a man who does a thing once. A compromise might meet the position, I think, and for a first offence the fine might be fixed at £5. Then if there were subsequent offences it might be put at £20.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Senator Colonel Moore made an extremely able and just defence of the particular section, but drew a different conclusion. It is exactly because we should not impose the same fine for every offence that a maximum is placed in the Bill, and it is left to the discretion of the magistrate, and rightly so. He will know the circumstances of the case and will impose a fine that is just and suitable. Senator Moore suggested that we should have a scale of fines in this Bill—£2 for the first offence, £3 for the second, £5 for the third, £10 for the next, and so on. That is what it comes to. But that would not meet the case. May I ask Senator Linehan one question: In the case of a man who kept an unlicensed bull that was continuously spreading contagious abortion in the neighbourhood, would £20 be a sufficient fine? I do not think it would. We content ourselves with £20 as the maximum, but I think that any farmer would agree that the maximum is extremely lenient in a case like that. You must give a discretion to persons in a judicial capacity. This is a maximum fine. The magistrate will have a discretion, and experience shows that magistrates, as a rule, do not impose fines large enough. In fact, the tendency is the other way. Everyone knows that it took years and years to get the magistrates to impose adequate fines in cases of milk prosecutions.

In the regulations issued quite recently providing that every purchaser of cattle exporting them to England should get a certificate as to the name and address of the seller, notwithstanding the fact that it was of the utmost importance from the point of view of keeping the ports open, we could not get the magistrates to impose anything like an adequate fine until we instructed the State Solicitor to go to the various courts and point out the necessity from the point of view of the farmers themselves of imposing adequate fines. The tendency is all the other way. There is not the slightest danger that the magistrates will err on the heavy side. There is much more reason to think that they will err, as they always do, on the light side.

Mr. BENNETT

This fine, I take it, applies to the whole section. Perhaps I would be in order in asking does this apply to paragraph (b) sub-section (4): "The owner of the lands or premises on which the bull was when the offence was alleged to have been committed." If the bull suggested by Sir Nugent Everard strayed from some other man's land would not the man on to whose land it strayed be liable under this section to a fine of £20 because his neighbour's stray bull came in—the owner of the land on which the bull was when the offence was committed, the offence been not taking out a licence? I really cannot understand what the meaning is if it is not that, and if so, it inflicts a very great hardship upon somebody who is an unwilling offender and who may have such a fine inflicted upon him. It seems to me at any rate to be an ambiguous clause, and I appeal to the Minister with his usual lucidity to help me in the matter.

Mr. HOGAN

The question that arises in section 1 is the fine that should be imposed upon the actual offender.

Mr. BENNETT

Yes, but sub-section (4) paragraph (b) says the owner of the land on which the bull was when the offence was committed.

Mr. HOGAN

The issue under section 1 is the amount of the fine to be imposed upon an offender. The issue under sub-section (4) is different. It is a question of who the offender is. There is an amendment to that on the paper and when we come to it we can discuss that particular point.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 30.

Tá

• T.W. Bennett.
• R. A. Butler.
• T. Linehan.

Níl

• W. Barrington.
• S.L. Brown.
• Mrs. E. Costello.
• Dowager Countess of Desart.
• J.C. Dowdall.
• M. Duffy.
• Sir Nugent Everard.
• T. Farren.
• T. Foran.
• O. St. John Gogarty.
• J.P. Goodbody.
• Sir J. Purser Griffith.
• H.S. Guinness.
• C.J. Irwin.
• Sir J. Keane.
• P.W. Kenny.
• J.C. Love.
• E. McEvoy.
• J. McLoughlin.
• E. MacLysaght.
• Sir Bryan Mahon.
• W.J. Molloy.
• Col. Moore.
• J. Moran.
• G. Nesbitt.
• M. O'Dea.
• J.T. O'Farrell.
• B. O'Rourke.
• Mrs. J. Wyse Power.
• Earl of Wicklow.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. LINEHAN

I beg to move:—

Section 1, sub-section (4) (b), lines 36-37.—After the word "committee" to insert the words "unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the bull was on said lands or premises without the consent of the owner of said lands or premises."

This amendment is put forward to meet the case of a bull straying on to another person's land and being found there by the inspectors of the Department of Agriculture or by the Civic Guard. As the section stands, the owner of those lands on which the bull would be straying is liable to this penalty. By the insertion of the words that I suggest, it will be open to the person on whose land the bull is found to prove that the bull strayed there without his consent. I think the Minister ought to accept the amendment, which will tend to make the position more clear.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

A difficulty might arise by reason of the introduction of the word "consent"; "consent" might mean expressed consent, and it might mean consent in writing. Perhaps the Senator would agree to add to the word "consent" the words "or connivance"?

Mr. LINEHAN

I am not bound by any form of words. Any wording that will carry out the idea that I have in mind and that will save an innocent person from severe penalty will be satisfactory.

Mr. BROWN

I would suggest the addition of the words "knowledge or connivance."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The word "knowledge" created a great difficulty in the licensing code. I would suggest that "connivance" is a better word. You may, if you like, put it "without the knowledge or connivance" and leave out the word "consent."

Mr. HOGAN

The additional words suggested by you, A Chathaoirligh, and Senator Brown, would meet the case, if Senator Linehan consents to their admission.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It would then read "on such lands or premises without the knowledge or connivance of the owner."

Mr. HOGAN

Perhaps Senator Linehan would add "and without the knowledge or connivance of the person having the charge or management of the lands or premises aforesaid"?

Mr. LINEHAN

I have no objection.

Mr. DOWDALL

If there are loopholes left in this Bill, they will nullify its effects. We who have had experience know that while everybody, generally speaking, will support the principle supposed to be contained in this Bill, when it comes into practical operation, everybody in the country will be on the side of the transgressor. Already it is sufficiently difficult to get convictions. I hope the amendment will not be passed, because it will cause a great deal of evasion and, to a large extent, it will nullify the purposes for which the Bill is intended.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Of course, you will appreciate that the very accident that was referred to by Senator Everard, of a bull straying on to his land, may happen. If that happened, as in the case instanced by Senator Everard, he would have to pay the penalty. I do not think that is fair. This clause, if amended, will throw on the owner of the premises the onus of proving if the bull is found on his land, that it is there without his knowledge or connivance. In such circumstances he ought not to be fined.

Mr. DOWDALL

I quite agree, and, no doubt, such incidents do happen. I rather relied upon the man on whose land the bull trespassed having his remedy in a civil court.

Mr. BROWN

He could not claim the fine; he would have damages.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I think the words you suggest should be added to the clause by way of amendment. They are very necessary. Any person before whom a case was brought would never think there was any connivance on the part of the owner of land who had probably very valuable pedigree stock there. Such a man would not be likely to connive in acquiring the free services of a scrub bull belonging to his neighbour. Then there are cases when, perhaps, the farmer, who is not particular about the quality of his stock, and does not want the expense of keeping a bull, might connive by way of pulling a bush out of a fence. I think it is quite necessary that he should be required to prove that he was not conniving in this matter in the production of a monstrosity. At any rate, it would mean the production of cattle that are not of any value to the country.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Would it not be more artistic to put (b) and (c) into one clause and to say "the owner of the lands or premises on which the bull was when the offence was alleged to have been committed, and the person having the charge or management of said lands on this date, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the bull was on said lands without the knowledge or connivance of the owner of said lands, or the person having the charge or management thereof"?

Mr. HOGAN

I agree, and I undertake to bring up an amendment to that effect on the Report Stage.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Otherwise there would be a lot of repetition.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

(1) The Minister may, subject to the provisions of this Act on payment of such fee (not exceeding five shillings) as may be prescribed, grant to any person a licence to keep and have in his possession a specified bull to which this Act applies.

(2) Every application for a licence under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed time and shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee aforesaid.

(3) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, including payment of such additional fee (not exceeding five pounds) as may be prescribed, grant a licence under this section notwithstanding that the application therefor is made at a time other than the prescribed time.

(4) Where the Minister is satisfied that a licence granted under this section has been lost or destroyed he may, subject to the prescribed conditions and on payment of the prescribed fee, issue to the holder of such licence a duplicate thereof, and such duplicate licence shall for all purposes have the same force and effect as the original licence, and all the provisions of this Act with respect to a licence granted under this Act shall apply to a duplicate licence issued under this section.

(5) Where the Minister refuses an application for a licence under this section he shall return to the applicant for such licence the fee paid under sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section by such applicant on such application and may also if he thinks proper so to do return to such applicant the whole or any part of the additional fee (if any) paid under sub-section (3) of this section by such applicant in respect of such application.

Mr. BENNETT

I beg to move as an amendment to section 2 (3), line 50, "to delete the word ‘five' and substitute therefor the word ‘one.'" This is giving permission to the Minister to say that not more than 1/- should be charged for the licence.

Mr. HOGAN

I am opposing this amendment also, for this reason. The clause reads: "The Minister may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, including payment of such additional fee (not exceeding £5) as may be prescribed, grant a licence under this section, notwithstanding that the application therefor is made at a time other than the prescribed time." The inspection will take place twice a year at suitable times, and it is very necessary indeed that the bulls shall be inspected on those occasions. Every effort will be made to meet the convenience of the farmer. Suitable places will be chosen in each district within reasonable reach of each farmer so that no hardship about having to bring bulls long distances will be inflicted on anybody. Very great care will have to be taken to secure that. On the other hand, it is extremely important from the point of view of economy and administration, which we are so careful about, that the habit should not spring up of——

Mr. BENNETT

I am afraid that the number of the line in this paper has misled you. I am referring to 5/- for licences, not to £5. You will see if you refer to line 41 what the point is. That reads: "on payment of such fee (not exceeding 5/-)." I want that changed to one shilling.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

In other words, your amendment was wrong in saying line 50. It should be line 41?

Mr. BENNETT

Yes.

Mr. HOGAN

The fees in question, I should say, will not yield more than half the cost of the administration of the Bill. I do not think they will amount actually to half the cost of the administration of the Bill. I think it will be agreed it is a sound principle that a fair proportion of administration should be paid by the people who benefit. And in fact this particular clause has not been objected to by any of the organisations of farmers that I know of. I have discussed this Bill with a number of organisations, and with a very large number of farmers; in fact, with representatives of every organisation of farmers in Ireland, and at no time did I find any opposition to that particular fee. It is generally agreed amongst farmers that that particular fee is fair, and it will be generally agreed that a fair proportion of the cost of administration should be paid by the people who will benefit, and, in fact, whether you have it paid in this form under the administration of the Act or not, you will have the farmers paying a big proportion of the cost of the administration, no matter whether it is levied by taxation or whether they pay it by fees of this sort. Five shillings is a very small fee in view of the value of the animal in question. It is a very poor Shorthorn bull that is not worth £40, and 5/- is a very small proportion of that. It will be less than half the cost of administration, and, in fact, there has been no opposition to the amount of this fee from any organised farmers.

Mr. GUINNESS

Surely if a farmer can keep a bull valued for £40, he can pay a fee of 5/- for a licence.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

(1) The Minister shall not grant a licence under this Act in respect of any bull which appears to him—

(a) to be calculated to beget defective or inferior progeny, or

(b) to be affected by any contagious or infectious disease, or

(c) to be affected by any other disease or defect prescribed as a disease or defect rendering a bull unsuitable for breeding purposes.

(2) Except in the case of a pure-bred bull (entered or eligible for entry in a prescribed herd-book) the property of one person and used exclusively for the service of cows the property of that person, the Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of a bull which appears to him to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept or is proposed to be kept.

(3) The Minister may for the purposes of this section cause any bull in respect of which an application for a licence under this Act has been made to be inspected and examined and, in the prescribed cases, to be marked in the prescribed manner with the prescribed mark by an inspector at the time and place appointed by the Minister for that purpose, and it shall be the duty of the applicant for the licence to bring the bull at the time and to the place so appointed.

(4) Where the applicant for a licence under this Act fails to bring the bull to which his application relates at the time and to the place appointed as aforesaid, the Minister may refuse to grant the licence or, if so required by the applicant and upon payment by the applicant of such fee (not exceeding five pounds) as may be prescribed, may cause the bull to be specially inspected, examined, and marked as aforesaid for the purposes of this section at such time and place as may be appointed by the Minister for that purpose.

Colonel MOORE

I move the deletion of sub-section (2). I do not really object to the sub-section so far as it relates to half-bred animals and suchlike things——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Then, Senator, would it not be wiser to wait for your second amendment, if you do not want to have the whole sub-section deleted?

Colonel MOORE

I do not much like the whole sub-section, but I will do so. Another Senator wishes to delete the whole of it, and I will leave it to him.

Sir JOHN KEANE

The Senator is right. I wish very strongly, and in a most unqualified manner, to delete this sub-section. I dealt with the case yesterday, but there must necessarily be a certain amount of repetition in developing my argument. This is really, as I submit to the House, regulation much overdone. The Minister is taking power to regulate fashions in breeding, which is not the business of the Government. It is a most dangerous thing. It raises the whole question of the free play of private enterprise and individuality, and when you come to consider who is the best judge of the development of sound breeding, I ask the House to say that it is undoubtedly the individual left unfettered. You may ask how I reconcile that with the principle of the Bill. Well, of course, all these things turn on specific aspects. As far as inferior bulls are concerned, we have agreed to the principle, but that is in a totally different category from the breeds themselves. This is now entering into the region of the breeds themselves, saying which should be allowed, and which should not. I do hope that the House will appreciate the big difference in principle thereby involved. Some may say that this will not be applied. Then why is it put in? I have very grave doubts as to whether it will actually apply. The Minister will find it unworkable, but we have to judge by who is taking the power.

If this thing is applied at all it will mean that in these districts where it is applied only a limited number of breeds will be allowed to exist. If the Minister decides that in certain special cases no Shorthorn will be allowed, it will mean that the owners of herds of Shorthorns who cannot afford their own bull will have to get rid of them. That is a most ridiculous and impossible position. The Minister quoted the Kerry breed, which is a success and is thriving. It has done that by private enterprise. Why not leave well enough alone? One of the great arguments is that these Kerries have done so well in the Cahirciveen district. If so, they have not done it by Government agency; they have done it by the free play of private enterprise, and why interfere with that? Surely it is not the business of the Government to get unduly alarmed at what people may do in the future. If you introduce that principle into legislation, where will you ever end?—the Government providing against the possible erring tendencies of mankind.

Then, again, I challenge the Minister when he takes up that instance of crossing a Jersey bull with a Shorthorn. The belief is generally popular at present that it is a bad thing to do. But in the course of time people may discover that the Jersey bull, being very rich in milk qualities, and Shorthorns having a tendency to be poorer, the Jersey-Shorthorn cross was not so utterly ridiculous as people find it now. There are all kinds of vagaries in breeding, and I do not think any man can claim to be infallible and say that any attempt to cross a Shorthorn and a Jersey must be prohibited by an Act of Parliament. That is what this Bill amounts to. I therefore hope that the House will take this thing on a totally different plane, the plane of the broad principle that people may do what they like unchecked within sane limits. This tendency of the Government to overdue regulations and to put us back to mediæval conditions is like the Sumptuary Laws, that we all know were such a hopeless failure and have been discredited for centuries past.

I was not here yesterday to hear the Minister's remarks on the Second Reading, but I understand from the Press report that he asked, "Why object to compulsion at all? If you accept it in regard to scrub bulls, why object to it in other directions?" All these questions are questions of degree. Surely he does not ask for a charter for compulsion in every shape or form. If that is in his mind it is borne out by the tendencies of many of his measures. Here is a measure which, if brought in five years ago, would have been received with execration against Government interference, but now that it has been brought up by a home Government it has been accepted almost with gratitude. The principle applies all along. The principle is dangerous; it is dangerous, whatever Government is in power.

Colonel MOORE

I am very glad the opposition passed from me to the last Senator. Ministers seem to imagine that they and their officials are infallible, that they know better than anyone else what should be done, and that anything done by rule and regulation is right. I am not saying anything against the Minister, far from it, but Ministers have the idea that experts can lay down rules and regulations and that they are right. Experience proves that they are very frequently wrong. It was wrong to send a certain class of ponies down to the West of Ireland, and it proved wrong, I think, when beef Shorthorns were brought to Limerick. Farmers told me again and again that their cows had been ruined by Shorthorns. Farmers have their prejudices. The present Minister, I think, is prejudiced against Friesians. He does not like to have Friesians in the country, although they are the best milkers in the world and won prizes everywhere.

To show to what extremes they carried their prejudices I will mention an instance where a great breeder in the North of Ireland, who breeds Shorthorns, and who was awarded prizes, purchased a Friesian heifer. He went to Scotland and bought a Friesian heifer for £500. Having done so he found that he could not bring the animal into the country on the plea that there was danger, although at the time there was no disease. What happened? He found afterwards that people who had bought Shorthorns at the same fair were given a licence to bring the animals to this country. The man wrote to the Department, which was not then under the present Minister, and showing the narrow views that these officials held, he was told that the Shorthorns were allowed in because they were being brought over for breeding purposes. He wrote another letter to the Department asking if it supposed that he had paid £500 for the heifer to send it to the butcher, and if it was not wanted for breeding as well as the Shorthorns. That particular class of cow was not wanted in this country by experts and officials sitting down in an office who have these prejudices. It is to avoid that that we must keep some sort of freedom, some sort of individuality. I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister should have power to stamp out scrub bulls, but I hope the Seanad will not allow officials to dictate what cattle should be bred in this country. The Minister said that the Department was not going to interfere except occasionally and perhaps in only one district. There will be other Ministers, however, successors of the present Minister, and we do not know what they or their experts will do. Once regulations are established by law they are very often carried out.

Mr. BENNETT

I oppose this amendment, as it seems to me if it was passed the Minister would have no power to refuse licences for half-bred bulls or for any type of bull, fulfilling the first three conditions in the section. It is only by having pure-bred bulls in the country and by eliminating the scrub bull, which, after all, was a very indifferent half-bred bull—although there were good half-bred bulls—that it is possible to secure the object of the Minister.

Mr. DOWDALL

I have a great deal of sympathy with what Senator Sir John Keane said regarding private enterprise. In fact, I am one of the strongest supporters of that principle in the Seanad. For the last 30 years I know that the yield of milk under private enterprise has been something in the neighbourhood of 400 odd gallons per year per cow. In the district with which I am conversant, the yield should have been three quarters more than that. In Denmark, which is a very sterile country, the yield was three-quarters more than the figure I mention. That being the case, I think it would be really making a fetish of private enterprise if we did not allow some sort of ordered compulsion to be tried, at least for a period. If we find it is onerous and does not justify itself, it is open to any member of the Dáil or any Senator to introduce a new Bill in view of the experience then acquired and alter the provisions in such a way as may be necessary. For that reason, while I have a great deal of sympathy with what Senator Sir John Keane said, I think it is far better to give the Minister a chance. In my view, and in, I think, the experience of a great many people, this will do the country an amazing amount of good.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

Nobody, I think, will cavil with the proposition that there is an absolute need for compulsory powers in a certain direction. We have already affirmed that as regards scrub bulls, but I look upon this as a matter of very serious importance. The Minister has to exercise autocratic powers. In the definition I find that "Minister" means "the Minister for Lands and Agriculture." The Bill does not say with the assistance of any particular committee. There is an appeal, of course, but there could be no appeal if it was a question of suitability of breed to a district, because that must be set out beforehand. I think it is a terrible responsibility, if it is meant that the Minister should take upon himself to decide between the principal breeds for this country; the Shorthorn, Hereford, or Aberdeen Angus. He is to judge as to which is suitable. You would then introduce what is called the battle of the breeds. That has been fought out in every country in the world. Is the Minister to be made responsible for deciding which breed is the best? They all have very good qualities, and they all have one quality in common which is wanted in every county, and that is early maturity.

That is what we want, and that is what we will not get with badly-bred cattle, or cattle that are the produce of scrub bulls. We know that there are many hundreds of thousands of these in the country now. As for being able to supply the whole country with pedigree bulls of one or two breeds, unless you called upon all the breeds I think that is impossible at the present moment. We have only got to think of the number of half-bred and inferior bulls and the number of premium bulls—which are bulls selected by the Department as being calculated to improve the breeds of the country. Undoubtedly a large number of half-bred bulls must be permitted for a time. I think that will have to be admitted. It is a very large order for the Minister, or even for his advisers, unless they were known to have practical experience, to take up and decide this great question, which, as I said, has been fought out in every country in the world—as to which is the best breed generally to improve the stock of the country.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

Following what has been said, I would like to say that there was certainly very considerable prejudice against the Department in the past which I, as a pretty large farmer, shared. I would like to say, however, that since the new regime came along the methods and the personnel of the Department have changed in such a way that a great many of us who previously regarded it with suspicion now regard it with considerable confidence.

Mr. IRWIN

I also oppose the amendment as, in my opinion, if it was passed it would largely impair the usefulness of the Bill. It is well known that there are a great many people who will buy the cheapest possible bull, the reason being that they do not rear the calves but sell them. Therefore, a man in a dairying district may buy a bull entirely unsuitable for that district. He would buy it because it was cheap and because it was the first cheap bull he could get which passed the test for health. In buying that bull, he would be utterly regardless as to the progeny it would beget. It is well known that in many parts of the country calves are bought and sent to other districts. That occurs largely in Wexford, where the calves are mostly brought from Cork, Limerick and Waterford. What will they get in Wexford if this amendment is passed? They will get a calf of every variety and the stock will be distributed throughout the country. From one point of view, there is something to be said for the aspect put forward by Senator Sir John Keane, but, looking at it from the point of view of usefulness, while it may hit a man with a fancy or fad for certain kinds of cattle, and may prevent him carrying out his fad, it will also hit the man who is doing all the harm by breeding from any description of bull.

Mr. HOGAN

This is undoubtedly the most contentious clause in the Bill, and it requires some explanation. The clause, as a whole, sets out that a licence shall not be granted for really two reasons. There are three subclauses—(a), (b) and (c). It says that the Minister shall not grant a licence in respect of any bull which appears to him (a) to be calculated to beget defective or inferior progeny, or (b) to be affected by any contagious or infectious disease, or (c) to be affected by any other disease or defect described as a disease or defect rendering a bull unsuitable for breeding purposes. You can amalgamate (b) and (c) and, shortly, the position is that the Minister shall not grant a licence to any bull, defective either in substance or quality, or diseased. Sub-section (2) provides that the Minister may not grant a licence. He has a discretion there in respect of a bull which is unsuitable to a particular district. Notice the difference. In the first case, he shall not grant a licence to any bull defective or diseased, and in sub-section (2) he may or may not grant a licence to a bull on the ground that it is unsuitable to the district, except the bull is a pure-bred bull used for the service exclusively of cows the property of one person. I propose to accept an amendment similar to that of Senator Butler, which goes on to say "or for the service of cows of a similar breed belonging to any person or persons." The position, therefore, is that there is discretion in the Minister to refuse a licence in the case of any bull of a breed or type unsuitable to the district, except the bull is a pure-bred and used exclusively for the cows of one person or for a similar type of cow in the neighbourhood. That meets a reasonable objection. But with that alteration I submit that the clause is essential. We are all against compulsion, but we all explain that compulsion ceases to be useful and begins to be wrong just at the line which we ourselves draw. Senators Sir John Keane and Colonel Moore have their own ideas of the use of compulsion, and I suppose the Ministry have their own view also.

We have first to ask ourselves the question whether it is necessary that the Ministry should have some discretion in regard to refusing licences for bulls unsuitable to a particular district. In order to defend the point of view that there should be no discretion, and that there should be no such power in the Ministry, Senator Sir John Keane was forced to take up the position that really there might be some very great advantage unknown to us in crossing a Jersey with a Shorthorn. Senator Colonel Moore took a different line in order to prove his case that no discretion should be given to the Department. That is a point of view that would not be listened to for five minutes in any representative gathering of practical farmers. For the purposes of experiments and scientific research, so far as our present knowledge goes, it may be useful to cross a Jersey and a Shorthorn, or a Jersey and a Friesian. In any practical assembly of farmers such an idea as that suggested would be scouted.

This Bill was discussed at practically every meeting of the farmers' organisations throughout the country, and, especially, at the best meeting of all, namely, that held at Mallow. Senator Sir John Keane was there, and I am sorry he did not then put forward that suggestion. I am satisfied, whatever his views about it are, that practical farmers throughout the country have no fears on that score. It is a suggestion that would get no consideration in any gathering of farmers, and I am sure that every farmer, whether he calls himself practical or scientific, will agree with me. I hold that it is necessary to take powers to enable us in such contingencies to prevent, say, Jersey cattle going in and spoiling cattle in County Limerick. I am almost certain that Limerick is one of the counties into which the Department never sent a beef bull. I put it that it is absolutely essential that this power should be there for the Department to exercise in the event of such a contingency arising, and preventing a Jersey or Guernsey bull going to County Limerick. I also suggest, for the consideration of practical farmers, that it is right that, in addition, the Department should have discretion to prevent non-Kerry bulls of any kind going into the Kerry breeding area, which is a very limited area in County Kerry.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Can the Minister explain what he means by the "Kerry breeding area"?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, in a moment. I put that point of view to the various farmers' organisations, and I never found any dissent. I put it at Mallow and elsewhere and discussed it here and there throughout the country, and I never found any dissent. Now, as regards the Kerry breeding area, I am surprised that Senator Sir John Keane does not know it. It runs near Sneem and about Cahirciveen. I cannot define it in miles, but if I had a map with me, I could outline it. It is an area where Kerry cows are bred as the commercial cattle of the county, and where there is practically nothing else but the Kerry cow. That cow is a pure-bred, and it is a tremendous advantage to farmers in that particular district to be in a position to have a reputation for pure breeding in their cattle. Dealers and farmers can come to a fair in Cahirciveen from any district in Ireland or England, knowing that they can walk into the fair and that if they buy an ordinary cow they have an extremely good chance, about eighty to one, that they will be buying a Kerry of pure breeding. On the other hand, there are small pockets there, where rather careless farmers are bringing in non-Kerry bulls bred from cross-bred heifers.

That is, to some extent, interfering with the reputation of the cattle of the whole area. As you know, in business a minority can do all the harm. Credit is a very delicate sort of mechanism, and if the idea once gets about that cattle are getting in of a non-Kerry breed and are being crossed with the cattle of that particular area, people will begin to lose confidence. What is happening is that the Kerry breeds are pushing out the other breeds, even on the border line, but the process is too slow, and it is leaving too much to chance. Everyone would agree that it is right that the Kerry bull should be encouraged there exclusively. At the same time, you cannot control a minority, and a minority can do a lot of harm to the cattle there. Three or four farmers might bring in non-Kerry bulls to a district that was purely Kerry up to that time. Three or four years of that sort of thing would do a lot of harm to the breed of cattle. In addition to that we are looking forward to using Kerry cattle for conditions almost peculiar to Ireland, that is to say, extremely poor mountainous land, very poor people, a very rainy climate, very little feeding, and so on. You have got those conditions in Connemara, Kerry, Donegal, Mayo, and, in fact, in areas where a quarter of the population of this country live. It is believed that the Kerry cow, which has been peculiar to the County Kerry, could be transferred to these districts. Surely it is an advantage to have a small breeding ground where the people are breeding pure Kerries as commercial cattle. It is an advantage if there is such a possibility to define a small area. It could, of course, be changed later on. It will never be a question of changing suddenly. Senator Sir John Keane made a suggestion yesterday that the Department needs to be very adaptable in this matter. If at the end of ten or fifteen years it was found unnecessary, having seen that there was no danger of the Kerry stock dying out, to continue the policy of confining the area of Kerry cattle, there could be a change. As to the advantage, from the point of view not only of the Kerry farmer but of farmers all over the country, of keeping a small area for pure-bred cattle, no body of farmers would disagree. If it is necessary to keep this discretion in the Ministry for purposes such as I have mentioned and in order to keep Jersey or fancy cattle—the cattle of villadom, as Senator Sir Nugent Everard described them last evening—out of Limerick, Waterford or Tipperary, it is necessary to take these powers to meet such a contingency which is perhaps not likely to arise at present, but which may arise. If it is necessary to give discretion to the Department to meet such contingencies, I do not see how you can complain of the section.

You may say because you find it necessary to get this discretion for special purposes you are taking power to prevent Aberdeen-Angus or Hereford from being brought into the County Limerick. You are discriminating against Aberdeen-Angus or Hereford in favour of Shorthorns. You may; but Senator Everard will agree with me, that for a great many years to come, the struggle of the breeds in this country will be a struggle between these three great breeds of cattle, which are the three main breeds in the "goodish" land of the country—namely, Aberdeen-Angus, Hereford, and Shorthorn. You ask what guarantee is there that the Department of Agriculture will not exercise the powers they have in connection with fancy breeding. What guarantee is there that they will not exercise those powers for the purpose of discriminating between the three main breeds? The answer is obvious. It would be utterly impossible in face of the Dáil to do such a thing. The Minister for Agriculture that would make a regulation at the moment preventing Aberdeen cattle from entering the County Limerick would not be able to maintain his position for twenty-four hours. And no consultative council that knew its business would remain functioning for twenty-four hours. They would resign immediately. Your real guarantee is that there is a consultative council drawn from the whole of Ireland. They represent the whole of Ireland, and they will be able to speak. It will consist practically of farmers, and they know their business. You have also the Dáil. The position of a Minister for Agriculture who would do a thing like that would be utterly impossible. If you reject that clause you are preventing the Department from taking powers which are essential, because of a danger which really does not, and could not, exist. We have met the case of a farmer, say, in County Kerry who wants to keep a bull for the use of his own cows, a farmer who has, say Shorthorn cows in a special area in County Kerry. These restrictions only apply to a small area. We have met that case by providing that the Minister shall have no powers to refuse a licence to a pure-bred bull. I am willing to accept Senator Butler's amendment to the effect that the bull may be used not only for the owner's cows, but for cows of a similar type in the neighbourhood.

That meets the equities of that case. I do not believe there is a single herd of Dairy Shorthorns in this area, and I doubt very much if there is a single Dairy Shorthorn in the area. There are any amount of "crosses," but I do not believe that in the particular Kerry breeding area there is one Shorthorn cow. That is rather a big thing to say, but I think it is a fact. There may be a few cases of "crosses" between the Kerry and the Shorthorn, but that there is a single Dairy Shorthorn in the area I doubt. In case there are a few herds, the Minister has no power to refuse a pure-bred bull for the use of the owner's cows or for the use of similar cows of the same breed in the neighbourhood.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I oppose this amendment. I think it is vital to the Bill that the provision should be retained. The retention of the clause would justify itself, if for no other reason than to preserve the Kerry breed. It is the only national breed of cattle we have left, and it is a very valuable breed. Sir John Keane is anxious that we should define the Kerry breeding area. I would say that it would include the whole coast line from Sneem to Cahirciveen, or a straight line from Kenmare to Cahirciveen. That is a big area, and if we allow other classes of animals into that district—a good many of the cattle there graze in common on the mountains—the effect will be very bad and we will have a very mixed breed in a short time. Sir John Keane said that if this measure were introduced four or five years ago there would be a terrible uproar in the country. I am a member of cattle trade associations for 25 years, and during all that time we have been advocating a measure such as this.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I should like to deal with certain remarks that have been made by opponents of this amendment. I fail to understand Senator Bennett's attitude, because he reads my amendment as an attempt to extend the use of half-bred bulls or to limit the use of pure-bred bulls. I cannot see that that comes into the amendment at all. If he wishes to license only pure-bred bulls he could have his proposal effected in a direct and a totally different manner by inserting an amendment that only pure-bred bulls should be licensed. As everybody knows, that is quite impossible. It will be many years before there are sufficient pure-bred bulls in the country to serve its needs, and it is very doubtful whether, in all cases, pure-bred bulls are an advantage. I am quite prepared to say that before any assembly of farmers.

Senator Dowdall, who is, I am sure, in his own accomplished sphere, a strong advocate of private enterprise, seems to think that in this case it is practically safe to give to the Government carte blanche to act in a regulative and bureaucratic manner and to control these experiments in cattle breeding. The Minister asks why I did not raise this whole question at Mallow. I had my own reasons. First of all, I did not want to introduce a note of controversy in that harmonious meeting. I very nearly challenged the Minister then on certain other statements he made, and probably I will have an opportunity of so challenging him in the course of the debate here. I may have been wrong not to challenge him then, but I felt that it would be more suitable to do it here, when the Bill was under discussion. I would be quite prepared to re-state, word for word, what I said a few moments ago, to any assembly of farmers and I do not believe—I may be wrong—that the Minister would gain the unanimous approval of farmers for this clause. If possible, I should be glad if the Minister would join with me and go before a body of farmers, chosen at random, and let us have it out.

Mr. HOGAN

I think the Senator is under a misapprehension. What I suggested was that I was sorry he did not point out to the gathering of farmers at Mallow that there might be certain advantages in crossing Jerseys with Shorthorns.

Sir JOHN KEANE

It is very hard to compress one's argument into a short sentence like that. I was putting that as an illustration of the danger of interference. You are bound to get queer things done by private enterprise, and if you once interfere with the queer things and try to do away with the absurd things, where are you going to stop? It is a question of mentality. This is a point on which we are diametrically opposed. The Minister believes that this question of State regulation can be kept within safe bounds without any damage to the free play of private enterprise, and he claims for the regulating authority a flexibility and an adaptability which it has been shown all down the ages no Government possesses. He visualises the Government as in touch with fashions and ready to act the minute anything becomes dangerous. Those of us who have experience of Government know that nothing becomes so rigid, so stereotyped or so unimaginative. You should not kill the free play of imagination because it acts peculiarly in individual instances. You have to take the good with the bad. The whole point of my argument is that you cannot condemn a whole system or a certain method of working merely because it is liable, in individual cases, to abuse.

As the amendment of Senator Butler is now being accepted, the case I brought up will be to a certain extent dealt with: The case of owners of what are euphemistically termed "fancy cattle"—and every breed, at some stage of existence, was considered "fancy." In all departments of thought and intellect and art, certain things in the early stages were considered "fancy." Wagner music in the earlier stages was regarded as distinctly fanciful. If you had a Government in power controlling music, they might have suppressed that class of music in those early days. Things regarded in the initial stages as fanciful are very often found later to be of great utility and advantage. If you once take the line of acting on the popular impulse of the moment you may be doing great harm to valuable ideas in the germ. The Minister allows those fancy cattle to have access to a bull if there is a fancy bull in the area but what I do not think the House realises—the Minister certainly did not stress it—is that he forbids the owner of non-fancy cattle to have access to a fancy bull. Why should that be forbidden? It brings us to the extraordinary position of what we may call State eugenics. It is nothing else. If I own a Shorthorn cow and there is a Hereford bull or a prescribed bull in the district, I am forbidden—it has that effect although the compulsion is on the other party to withhold his bull—to take my cow to his bull merely because the State considers it is not in the interests of the industry. I think it is a most extraordinary invasion of the rights of the individual. That is about all it is. This bad principle is implicit, and absolutely written indirectly into the Bill. You cannot get away from it, and when it is presented, as the Minister skilfully presents it, in a special case, in a highly coloured and attractive form, that aspect is inclined to be forgotten. The fact, however, in plain words is that I, as the owner of a cow, can only have access to certain bulls. The State forbids me to have access to others. It is on that ground I ask you to pass the amendment.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

Senator Sir John Keane objects to the Bill because it is State eugenics. The reason I and other farmers support it is because it is State eugenics.

Mr. GUINNESS

I should like to say a word about the much-maligned cross-breeds. I have reared a good many cattle of the cross-bred type and one of the very best cross-breeds I have found is the cross of a Shorthorn and a Jersey.

The EARL of MAYO

I should like to say a word or two in answer to the Minister's statements regarding the necessity of retaining the Kerry breed I will concede to him Kerry, County Limerick and the Golden Vale. He has explained the necessity for the pureness of the Kerry breed. These are our national cattle and it is quite right to keep them pure. Senator Counihan has told us the exact district where they are bred. There is no doubt that the Minister has complete powers to say that a certain bull is unsuitable to a district, but may I point out that in this small country of ours, there are other districts besides Limerick and part of the County Kerry. I rather agree with Sir John Keane in what he says, that the Minister has complete power in dictating what kind of bull is to be kept in a particular district. The Minister said the Consultative Council was to have something to say to that decision. After all, I have got the Bill before me and the Council is only consultative. The Minister has complete powers and these powers are to last. The Bill which we are going to pass— with amendments, I hope—is a Bill for all time and, therefore, I think that the Minister—although he has very clearly explained everything with regard to Kerry and Limerick—should remember that there are other district in the Free State in which we should like to have a free hand in choosing the type of cattle and the breed of bulls.

Mr. HOGAN

So you will.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. BENNETT

I beg to move:—

Section 3, sub-section (2), line 14. To delete all after the word "herd book" down to and including the word "person" in line 16.

This amendment deals to a certain extent with what has already been dealt with by Senator Sir J. Keane, but he reads it in a different light to what I do. This section gives emphasised power to the Minister to refuse registration to pedigree bulls. I for my part, believe that none but pedigree bulls should be used for any purpose in the Saorstát. For that purpose this section should be amended and, as I suggest, should read as follows:—

"Except in the case of a pure-bred bull (entered or eligible for entry in a prescribed herd-book), the Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of a bull which appears to him to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept or proposed to be kept."

In other words, I think that it should be within the competence of any farmer to keep a bull of the type suggested by the Minister, either an Aberdeen-Angus, Hereford, or Shorthorn. The Minister based his case almost entirely on Cahirciveen. Cahirciveen, no doubt, is a very romantic place and has great possibilities from the scenic point of view, but I think from the point of view of the cattle industry in Ireland, Cahirciveen is not the be-all and the end-all. The noble Senator, the Earl of Mayo, alluded to the Golden Vale. I am, unfortunately—possibly fortunately—thoroughly conversant with the industry in the Golden Vale, and there, I can assert most positively, while it is possibly the largest dairying district in Ireland, it is at the same time one of the most fruitful districts for producing beef, or producing cattle for the purposes of fattening and for keeping in existence the great store cattle trade. A large number of calves are bred in County Limerick, and I know the tendency—an increasing and progressive tendency—amongst farmers in these later days is to fashion themselves for producing cattle that will sell, particularly Aberdeen Angus or Hereford crosses.

If the Minister, who tells me he will not use these powers, does not intend to use them, why does he ask these powers from us? It would be perfectly easy for him to schedule the district of Cahirciveen and leave all other areas alone. The innuendo, to my mind, is that instead of sticking to Cahirciveen, he means to poke his nose into the other parts of Ireland and to prevent the use of Aberdeen Angus, Hereford or other bulls there. To my mind that danger is inherent in the Bill. To my mind it is implied by the suggestion of the Minister and by the fact on which he bases his case for the preservation of the pure-bred cattle of Cahirciveen.

If he meant to keep the cattle in Cahirciveen from coming into contact with cattle in the other parts of Ireland, then he ought to have drawn a circle around Cahirciveen so that no bull other than a Kerry bull would enter there. He does not do that, but he takes power to himself to exclude from every district in the Saorstát any bull except the breed of bull which he himself thinks is good. I maintain, and Senator Sir John Keane agrees with me in this, that wise and experienced farmers who have given considerable thought to the question as to how best they can make ends meet have come to the conclusion that in many cases cross bred calves are the best for them to have. I would ask Senators to remember that this is not a dairy Bill. It is a Live Stock Breeding Bill. Senator Dowdall, who is intimately concerned with the milk trade, out of which, I am sure, he makes a lot of money, seems to be obsessed with the idea that this is a dairy Bill. This Bill is termed a Live Stock Breeding Bill, and I say that live stock breeding, which is concerned with the production of cattle that are to be fattened and sent to England and Scotland, is as essential and as important as the development of highly improved milking cows. If the Minister, or some future crank in the Department, is obsessed with the idea that milk beasts only are to be produced, then I say that the live stock breeding industry in Ireland will be placed in a position of great danger and may possibly lapse. For that reason I cannot see what injury the adoption of my amendment would inflict. If the Minister thinks that it is calculated to inflict an injury, he has his remedy, because he can schedule Cahirciveen and he can keep there the breed of bull which he thinks is essential to the interests of the nation. But, for goodness sake, let him leave the other districts alone. I would appeal to him to allow the intelligence of the average farmer to continue to play its part in the other districts. The case of Cahirciveen proves that the average farmer is not a fool. The progressive farmer in Kerry, by 80 to 1, produces pure-bred cattle. I think that was the figure given by the Minister. Is it likely, from these facts, that any farmer operating in Ireland in an intelligent manner will use for his herd any type of pure-bred bull other than the pure-bred bull which he believes to be most suitable for his stock?

I suggest that no Minister, no consultative council, and, in fact, nobody would seriously dream of imposing on a County Limerick farmer a regulation obliging him to use a Hereford bull, or any other type of bull that he did not think would be suitable. Why not make plain the implication that Cahirciveen alone requires a Kerry bull? But that is not what happens. The Minister takes power over the whole of the Saorstát simply because he needs the Kerry bull in Cahirciveen. The Minister bases his case on Cahirciveen. He would not like two or three farmers outside the district to roam into Cahirciveen. I ask in my amendment that in every district in Ireland, with power to the Minister to make an amendment excluding Cahirciveen, men may be allowed to select pure-bred bulls, provided they fulfil all the other conditions prescribed, such as defective progeny, etc. I think that is an eminently reasonable thing to ask, and I hope the Seanad will see fit to sanction it.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I think it is quite clear now from what the Minister has told us that he is greatly misunderstood. He understands now, I am sure, from the speech of Senator Bennett, what I think the majority of the Seanad, and I should say the majority of the country, really want. It is quite impossible, I think, to deal with the amendments proposed without doing away, to a large extent, with the amount of discretion which the Minister may reasonably ask for. What I suggest is that the Minister should bring in, on the Report Stage, an amendment embodying what he told us as regards the limitation of interference on the part of the Ministry. He told us that he would never think of dictating to a Limerick farmer whether he should exclude an Aberdeen-Angus or any other breed from his herd, or whether a man should confine his attention to a certain type of Shorthorn. There are no two types of Shorthorns alike. Some of the Shorthorns are of the milking strain. I do not believe anyone would accuse the Scottish Shorthorn of being of the milking type. Reading the section, one might imagine that the Minister was anxious to take power to act as a dictator, but he has already explained to us that he repudiates any idea of the kind, and that if such an accusation had been made against him in the Dáil he would have tendered his resignation rather than lie under that imputation. I do not think it is asking the Minister too much to bring in on the Report Stage an amendment embodying the views he has just expressed as well as the views so eloquently expressed by Senator Bennett.

Colonel MOORE

Practically everything that I had intended to say on this section has been much better said by Senator Bennett and Senator Sir Nugent Everard. There are just one or two matters, however, that I would like to refer to. Senator Bennett referred to the production of beef cattle in Limerick. Bulls which are produced in Limerick are sold to a large extent in Connaught. They drift up there and are used as store cattle. You cannot say that you will limit one particular class of cattle in one particular district without getting into a muddle in some other district. On this question of Friesian bulls, I desire to ask the Minister if he advocates the exclusion of them from acting in Limerick. I have been told on good authority by breeders that if the Friesian bulls were introduced into Limerick, in ten years they would wipe out the Shorthorns, so much appreciated are they for their milking and beef-producing results. I may say that there is very high authority for that statement.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I would like to support this amendment as the next best to the one which was rejected a short time ago by the Seanad. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied that the words "in a prescribed herd-book" would cover the Departmental register.

Mr. HOGAN

No. A pedigree bull is a bull registered in a prescribed herd-book. That is Coate's book. It does not include a bull registered in the dairy herd-book. A pure-bred bull is a bull of one breed, such as the Shorthorn, and a cross-bred is a cross between two breeds.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I think as the owner of a fancy breed—one of these reputed fancy breeds—if I wish to bring in a bull I should not be proscribed from bringing in a bull that is on the Department's register. He may be a useful type of bull though not a pure-bred bull. Under this section a registered bull would not be admissible. Surely that is not the intention?

Mr. HOGAN

It is.

Sir JOHN KEANE

If that is so it casts a great slur on the registered bull. Everyone knows that there is a great scarcity of these Dairy Shorthorns, and if I happen to be the unfortunate owner of a Dairy Shorthorn herd in a prescribed district, I am now further precluded from obtaining the services of a Department registered bull. Is, I ask, that right or logical?

Mr. HOGAN

That is the intention.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I consider it should be amended, and on the report stage, if this section unfortunately survives, I shall bring up an amendment at least to admit into the herd-book the category of Department bulls which are a very valuable stock. It is an extraordinary attitude to adopt that if there is a registered bull, proved from the milch strain, the owner shall be forbidden, by expressed statute, from bringing in one of those bulls to his own herd. It seems to me a strange thing to come into this Bill. More astounding than the compulsory powers taken by the Government is the extraordinary attitude in discrediting their own stock. The Department built up this stock with very great pains, and as a result of much expense, and now they are putting them on an inferior and lower scale than the bull in the prescribed herd-book. One knows perfectly well that a lot of these pure-bred Dairy Shorthorns are exceedingly inferior and perfectly useless for dual purposes. They are a useful breed say, for milk, but they are perfectly useless for anything else. It may not be the case universally, but I certainly have experience of it. I kept Dairy Shorthorn bulls for years. I bought them from very big dealers in England, and I have suffered for it. A lot of these Dairy Shorthorns are very unsure as calf getters.

There is another aspect of this matter. So important is it, that every precaution should be taken to see that these powers of prescription are fully published and known before their enforcement. Now I see there is nothing in the statute to ensure that these prescribed districts are made the subject of a rule that should be laid upon the Table. The Minister can simply say this bull is not suitable for this district. He can take any district he likes and alter it when he likes. I think we should have, at least, this protection that when a regulation of this kind is adopted it should be in the form of a distinct rule which would come in under the provisions of section 19, and which should be laid upon the Table and that could be debated. That, I think, is at least needed, otherwise we do not know what is going to happen. There is nothing to ensure any publicity. The Minister comes along as and how he likes, but not necessarily after consulting this council, and he can simply chop and change his districts. I do not say he is going to do that, but we have to examine these enactments in the way they are capable of being used, not in the way they will be used. If the Minister cannot give an assurance that he will embody this matter in the form of a rule I shall put down an amendment to try and ensure that on report stage.

Mr. HOGAN

I am sorry if I left the Seanad under the impression that there was only one case to provide against— the case of the non-Kerry bull coming into the Kerry area—because I specifically argued the case by quoting later on the case of a Jersey bull coming into Limerick. There are a very large number of cases I could easily enumerate. I did base my argument upon the Kerry case and on the absolute necessity of confining a certain area in Kerry to the Kerry bull and Kerry cow. If any farmer thinks for himself he will have no difficulty in finding five or six cases. Are Galloway bulls to be allowed into Limerick? Would that be right? Would it be policy to allow Galloway bulls into Limerick for general service, or would it be right to allow them into the County Tipperary, and if so, into what parts of the County Tipperary?

Colonel MOORE

What about Friesians?

Mr. HOGAN

I will make a few suggestions. I could spend hours here talking on these cases and still would not exhaust them all, nor have I touched upon a single contentious point from the point of view of any practical farmer. Any practical farmer will admit that—it might be in the near future—a regulation should be made preventing the entry of a further lot of Galloway bulls into Limerick, and Senator Bennett would not object even. There are some there already. I put this to the Seanad even at the risk of antagonising Senator Colonel Moore: Supposing large numbers of Friesian bulls came into Limerick, and, after a little experience, began to cross with the dairy Shorthorns there, and after that little experience it was found these bulls were not exactly the paragons the Senator thinks they are—and I think most farmers here believe they have not all the virtues attributed to them by Senator Colonel Moore——

Colonel MOORE

They are not allowed to come in.

Mr. HOGAN

There are already Friesian bulls in Limerick. Supposing they were crossed in great numbers with County Limerick cows. Remember this, that in regard to breeding the life of a bull is about three years; he breeds five or six bull calves and they multiply quickly—a small minority can do all the harm. I mentioned five or six cases of Galloway bulls in Limerick. Senator Bennett said there is not the slightest chance of that occurring. But there are other places. There is Waterford, where there is a chance, and every farmer will agree that they should not be allowed in.

I agree I might pick a wrong county; it might be Kilkenny, or Carlow or Leix. I am showing the impossibility of putting a schedule into the Bill and defining certain areas into which you are going to allow certain bulls. You could not do it. What I do impress upon Senators is that so far as the three main varieties are concerned, Hereford, Aberdeen-Angus and Shorthorn, either for beef or milk, no Department of Agriculture and no Minister dare prevent any one of them coming in to any district they like with the one exception of Kerry. That is the position at the moment. That position may change over a period of seven or eight years. It is just possible—I am afraid to put it forward for fear people will read too much into it—but it is just possible that in five or six years, or sooner, it might be considered that there are too many Aberdeen Angus bulls coming into the County Sligo, or vice versa. I do not say that is going to happen. No one can tell what the developments will be, but whatever they are they will have to take place slowly and over a great number of years. There is no question of adaptability. There is no question of being ready to change one week from the procedure that you have been carrying on the week before. There is no question whatever about that. We can discuss a particular case, say, of County Sligo, with various farmers, and some of them will tell you: “There was a county where you got first class Shorthorn cows five years ago, and now they are all spoiled. Go there now and you will see only cross-breeds.” I am not talking now of pedigree cattle, but of cross-breeds. They will tell you: “There is nothing there now but cross-breeds. There is so much crossing, that even the beef qualities of the cows are not what they should be.” I do not subscribe to that doctrine. I do not think that that is clear at all. But in three or four years it may become abundantly clear that the cattle of the County Sligo are being injured for one reason or another, and, perhaps, it is because they brought in too many Aberdeen Angus bulls. I do not know whether that is so or not. Certainly, no Government Department could venture to act on even a well-founded opinion in the matter.

There would have to be absolute certainty and not only absolute certainty but a general consent in the matter. It could not be done at the moment. It would be quite impossible to take any steps in that direction at the moment. A state of affairs might present itself in three or four years, and at that time farmers might say: "It is a pity you cannot make some regulations," perhaps the very regulations that I have in my mind now. But no regulations could be made without the strong support of the majority of the farmers affected. My position in the matter is, that I am taking, for the Ministry of Agriculture, powers which are necessary in a very large number of cases, and about which there can be no contention, but which cannot be scheduled. It would be almost impossible to schedule them. I quoted nine or ten different cases and of these cases quoted, five or six are simply non-contentious so far as the farmers are concerned.

I am pointing out that there are further possibilities in the future. You are afraid that these powers will be abused. But there is a real safeguard against that. These powers could not possibly be abused for any length of time despite the Consultative Council and the Dáil. It could not be done by any Government. It would be the one point on which farmers would come out and vote, and they would be very unanimous about it. We have to realise that there is a big change from the time when we were ruled from England, and under the English Parliament, and when public opinion in Ireland had its effects only very slowly over in England. Now it is entirely different. There you have the real safeguard. I put that to the Senators and I say it would be a great pity in view of the necessities of the case to refrain from giving these powers for the benefit of the farmer. I said yesterday that you could only justify this Bill on very good grounds. That is so. No one will deny that there is real urgency about the matter. The urgency is so great that you cannot wait for persuasion and the effects of an educative process. You must have compulsion, compulsion however, not to make complete changes in policy but to encourage tendencies already there, and that people generally are agreed upon are right. We cannot afford to wait. Look at this year's figures for butter and beef. If we do not take quick, effective and urgent steps to bring ourselves more into line with our competitors in the future, then we are leaving our markets and the agriculture of this country is going to be in a very poor way indeed.

Mr. KENNY

The Minister referred to Waterford. It is a strange idea to be putting restrictions on the three recognised breeds that we have in that county—breeds between which there is rivalry at the moment. You have rivalry between the Shorthorns and the Herefords. I suggest to the Minister that he should explain the point clearly in order that his meaning may be on record in regard to the entire position of the Bill. Breeders and cattle owners cannot afford to have any ambiguity about the wording of a Bill like this They must know where they are. Would not such an addition as this meet the view of the Minister: In sub-section (2), after the word ‘bull' in line 17 to insert the words ‘may refuse a licence under this section in respect of a bull outside of a Kerry pure breed,' or whatever limitation there may be, other than a Shorthorn, Aberdeen-Angus, or Hereford.

A man is only going for a milking strain of Shorthorn. Side by side with him in the same area in Waterford there is a man going for beef. He will go for Aberdeen-Angus or beef Shorthorn. You cannot generalise in a county like that, where men have different fads and different methods in the line of breeding. You cannot say that any bull of either of these three breeds is unsuitable for a district. Because they are all operating in different lines of service and for a useful and definite line of purpose—namely, to improve the stock either in the direction of milk or beef. I do not know whether that would be acceptable to those who have spoken here.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I should apologise to the Seanad for raising this matter again. But the subject is so important that it should be thoroughly debated. The Minister, in his last remarks, gave us a clear insight into how he has, by association, thoroughly absorbed the bureaucratic point of view. His argument is, that the Government can come in and save the farmer from the effects of his own folly or lack of judgment.

Mr. HOGAN

Is not that the Senator's own argument?

Sir JOHN KEANE

The Minister takes this view; he says for the time being some noxious breed obtains a footing in a district. It does not matter for a time. The people are in ignorance, although they are presumably trying to earn their living.

The people direct their energy to wresting a living, with great difficulty in some cases, out of their holdings, and I submit they know probably better than the official how best to conduct their work. After a bit the breed increases, and then the Government come to the conclusion that the people have made a mistake. The people themselves are incapable of seeing that they have made a mistake; that is implied in the Minister's argument. After a bit the difficulties of the situation come underneath the all-pervading eye of a Government official, the cry of halt is made and then the Government put into operation this machinery. They know exactly when to do it; they come in just at the psychological moment, and they proceed to limit further importations of those breeds. I would imagine when large numbers of animals have already been obtained that the harm is done. Human institutions do not usually work in that way, and I am sure the Minister, who is a practical man, and who has experience gained from living amongst the people, is aware of that.

I can give him a practical example. There was the case of a faddist who brought in black pigs to certain districts in County Waterford. Those black pigs were unacceptable to the factories, and they were cut in price. The result is there are no black pigs now. That is the way things work in practice. People soon get to know what is to their good and what is to their detriment. That is the only way in which things will work out. The experience gained in regard to the black pigs in County Waterford shows that the people are the best judges of their own affairs. For the State to sit there, as a sort of fairy godmother or grandmother, just to determine the exact moment when and how it should interfere, and what it should interfere in, is absurd. It is thoroughly undemocratic. If the Minister would only be logical he would apply this condition of things to the whole system of Government and prevent the people exercising their votes. The people should be allowed to exercise their own judgment. When the Minister states that the people cannot be trusted to govern their country and to know when things are going wrong, I shall be inclined to support him.

We hear him proclaiming, he and his colleagues, the virtues of democracy, and that the people should know best for themselves and we hear that public representative institutions are the only cure for public distempers. But now it would appear that the minute the farmer exercises his own judgment when he interests himself in his own business, the Government consider he is making a mistake. They come down with autocratic powers, haul him up, and interfere with the legitimate exercise of his powers. That, possibly with good intention, but in ignorance, imposes a very heavy commercial loss on the farmer. It is not always the animal that looks best to the official eye, or that answers some theoretical requirements, that gives the most profit. It is profit that the farmer looks for. The Minister must be aware of that. You may see the most beautiful calf or yearling, but the animal may not be worth £15 or £20. The point is: what does it really cost a farmer to produce stock. If it costs him £21 to produce an animal worth £20, it is certainly not worth his while.

Mr. BENNETT

I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the suggestion made by Senator Kenny, to give us some guarantee in the Bill that the opportunities which he describes as useful will not be tabooed. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent any Minister exercising his power in a different fashion. I am sure that the present Minister will see that the matter is looked after properly, but we have no certainty as to what may occur under his successors. Given these powers, I maintain that some faddist administrator or adviser will start some breed of bull, which is not useful, in a locality. By altering the Bill in the manner the amendment suggests, it will safeguard the industry in the State. Dairying will be safeguarded. We are not confined in this Bill to the dairying industry, though some Senators have confined their attention to that Department. We are interested in live stock breeding in Ireland. As a farmer with nearly 40 years' experience, I say that if men are prevented by the dictates of any Department from selecting the type of bull they require for their herds, so long as it is a pure-bred bull and one that has stood the test, then a bad day's work has been done for the cattle breeding industry of Ireland.

Amendment declared lost, on a show of hands, by 9 votes to 6.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I suggest that we defer further consideration of this Bill until to-morrow, and meet at 12 o'clock.

Sir JOHN KEANE

We have dealt with practically all the really contentious amendments, and I think we might proceed to finish the Committee Stage now. It is very hard to have country Senators attending.

Mr. COUNIHAN

The Bill is very important, and if we attempt to finish it this evening it will really have to be rushed through. I propose we adjourn now.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

I second the proposal.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I move that we sit until seven o'clock.

Mr. BUTLER

I second.

Mr. DOWDALL

I move that we sit until the Committee Stage of the Bill is finished.

Mr. BENNETT

I beg to second.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Would it not be better if we compromised and sat until 7 o'clock?

The Seanad agreed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I understand that amendment 8 has been accepted. It reads:—

Section 3, sub-section (2).—Line 16. After the word "person" to insert the words "or for the service of cows of a similar breed belonging to any other person or persons."—

(Senator Butler.)

Amendment agreed to.

The EARL of MAYO

I beg to move:

Section 3, sub-section (2). Line 18. To delete all after the word "kept" to the end of the sub-section.

I cannot see how you can deal with the matter in this fashion. It really amounts to the Minister seeking to prophesy what is going to happen.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think, Senator, that that is quite right. I think the one case applies to a bull which is actually in the district. The other applies to a bull that a man proposes to bring into the district.

The EARL of MAYO

"Proposed to be kept." I cannot see the sense of putting in the words "proposed to be kept."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

If a man applies for a licence, he wants it for a particular bull. He has not got it in possession at the moment, but he proposes to get it and keep it, and in anticipation he applies for a licence.

The EARL of MAYO

With all due respect to you, Sir, I cannot see how you can legislate on a proposition.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Well, it has often been done, Senator.

Mr. KENNY

Will the Minister explain the procedure in that case? A man wants a bull and he goes to a fair or a show to buy it. He complies with the regulations, and, having bought the bull, he takes proceedings to have it registered. An inspector is sent down and he says it is not the type of bull that will be allowed into that district. He has got the bull and has paid for it; the seller will not hold it up until the inspector goes down and passes it. A farmer buys a bull according to his lights and the definition in the Bill, and he thinks it is all right, but the inspector says it is not suitable. He then has to sell the bull. How does the application of this procedure work? Must he buy the bull first and then ask the Department to send down an inspector to say whether he can use the bull in his district?

Mr. HOGAN

That raises an important point. Another section provides the procedure. The bull is bought in the fair by some person who brings him into a certain district, and Senator Kenny asks what guarantee has he that the licence will be given, because this may be a breed or type unsuitable for the district. See how it works out in practice. A certain area in County Kerry is defined, and it is known to every farmer within that area that nothing but Kerry bulls can be kept there. That is the only specific case I have in mind at the moment. That will be well known. Afterwards, in two or three years, if it is found that Galloway bulls are going into Limerick too quickly—it is unlikely, but it is possible—there will be a prohibition in regard to them. But for a very considerable time the prohibition will only be in existence in regard to one area, and will be known by every farmer in Ireland. Outside that area bulls will pass quite freely; the transfer will be absolutely automatic. The bull is licensed; hence he is all right so far as quality, substance and disease are concerned. Outside that area it will be well known that the transfer will be absolutely automatic. It will be well known, and I am sure very well debated, that no bull except a Kerry bull can go into a certain area in County Kerry. If after that a farmer goes to the Minister Fair in Limerick and buys a licensed bull to take down to Kerry, he does so at his own risk and with his eyes open. In fact no farmer will do it. That is really the position.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not see what this has got to do with Senator the Earl of Mayo's amendment. We are on that at present.

Mr. KENNY

As the Minister has already raised a very important point——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes, but I do not see its connection with the amendment. I am not disputing the importance of the point at all.

The EARL of MAYO

I want to know how you are going to legislate on a proposition. This is a proposition, "proposed to be kept," and how can you legislate on a proposition? I do not want to delay the Bill, but I should like an explanation of that.

Mr. HOGAN

I will try to explain the matter. Someone wants to buy a Shorthorn bull for his own herd in Kerry. He applies to the Department to give him a licence. The bull is not in County Kerry yet; it may be in County Dublin. Application is made for a bull that it is proposed to keep in Kerry. That raises certain considerations set out in Section 3, but I think the Senator will see the necessity, in view of that procedure, for having the words, "in respect of a bull which appears to him to be of a breed or type unsuitable for the district in which it is kept." The bull might be in county Dublin at the time the application is made. It may be proposed to bring the bull from Dublin to Kerry or Tipperary or any other county you like, and then the words "or is proposed to be kept" will come in.

The EARL of MAYO

I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BUTLER

I propose:

Before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) If a written requisition signed by not less than twenty farmers owning jointly not less than fifty cows is sent to the Minister for Agriculture requesting that a bull or ram of any particular breed be licensed in the district of the farmers aforesaid, the Minister shall, before refusing to grant a licence under Section 3, sub-section (1) cause the Consultative Council to hold a public inquiry into the matter and before giving a decision shall take their opinion into consideration.

This refers to sub-section (2), which has been discussed for the last couple of hours, and there is a good deal of doubt as to how it will work out. If the farmers are to have confidence in the working of that sub-section I think a new sub-section, such as I propose, is desirable. For instance, under sub-section (2) the Minister can say that a certain bull is not to be kept in a certain area, even if the farmers in that area desire a bull of that type. I think it is only reasonable, if a certain number of farmers desire a bull, and send in a request to the Minister, that their views should be entitled to be heard, and also that the consultative council should hear them. Further, I think that the Minister should confer with the consultative council, and should take their opinion into consideration. At present the Minister has not the right to confer with them. I think this amendment would make for the easier working of the Bill.

MR. HOGAN

I suggest to the Senator that that provision is not necessary. As I pointed out, it is absolutely certain, in the nature of the case, that the consultative council would have to give serious consideration to any proposal to limit an area, and to prevent bulls of a special breed going into that area. That would have to be first discussed with the consultative council. It would be essential to discuss it. You cannot mark out any area unless you have the support of the majority of the farmers there, unless you have the support of organised public opinion. I have tried to make that clear. It would be impossible for any Minister to define any area and say, "into this area no bull except of a certain type shall go," unless he had organised public opinion behind him. If the consultative council, which will be representative of good farmers all over the country, were against it, he would not do so. That would be strong evidence that he had not the support of organised public opinion behind him. I start with that. Before anything of that nature could be done, the Ministry would find it necessary to have organised public opinion behind it, and the guarantee is the consultative council and the Dáil, especially the Dáil. His position would be impossible if he had not organised public opinion with him.

I suggest to Senator Butler that that particular amendment is unsound, for two reasons: first, because the farmers in question might be a very small minority of the district; and secondly, because not only are the interests of that particular district affected, but the interests of a very large district outside it. The cattle trade in Ireland is interlinked. What happens? Stores are bred in the South, go to the West, and then go back to the East. Farming in Dublin is very much connected with and dependent on farming in Cork, Tipperary and elsewhere. You cannot simply define a district and say what happens in that district shall have no reaction outside. What happens in one district will affect another. It is unsound in principle to ask that a particular opinion, of perhaps a minority of farmers in a district, should be taken into account in deciding whether this is to be done or not. We have decided, and the Seanad has agreed, that the Ministry should have such powers. If that is right it certainly would not be right for the Ministry to decide whether they should exercise such powers on the views of the minority of the district affected. That is what it might mean. They might be the small minority doing the harm. It would be wrong if the Ministry exercised these powers on the advice of the minority of the whole country.

I suggest to the Senator that he has sufficient safeguards, as the Bill stands, in the Council and the Dáil, and that the particular principle underlying this amendment, that certain farmers in a particular district should get special consultation, is unsound in principle and unnecessary, in view of the fact that the gravest consideration would have to be given to the question before any decision was come to. In fact, in all the circumstances of the case, no Minister could put such a provision as in Section 3 into operation without the support of the organised farmers, and without previous discussion.

Mr. McLYSAGHT

I go very far in supporting the Minister towards compulsion in this Bill, but I really do not see why he should not accept this amendment. It does not allow the opinion of a small minority to prevail, but merely provides that that opinion shall receive more thorough attention than it would receive if the amendment was not put in. I have supported the Minister in every case up to this, but I will support this amendment.

Mr. KENNY

Would what Senator Butler requires be met by putting in the Minister's own interpretation into the section? That is, to add after the word "may" the words "with the approval of the consultative council." It goes without saying that the Minister would consult the council. No Minister would take such a course without consulting his council.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 8.

Tá

• William Barrington.
• Thomas Westropp Bennett.
• Richard A. Butler.
• Michael Duffy.
• Sir Nugent Talbot Everard.
• Sir John Keane.
• Patrick Williams Kenny.
• Thomas Linehan.
• Edward MacLysaght.
• The Earl of Mayo.
• The Earl of Wicklow.

Níl

• James Green Douglas.
• Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
• John C. Counihan.
• J. C. Dowdall.
• James Perry Goodbody.
• Henry Seymour Guinness.
• Joseph Clayton Love.
• Edward MacEvoy.

Amendment declared carried.