I move:—In Section 3, sub-section (3), line 22, after the word "examined," to insert the words "and subjected to a test for tubercular disease." The amendment gives power to the Minister—though it does not compel him—to have bulls tested for tuberculosis. I consider that in the case of this disease, which is the worst disease, by far, that cattle suffer from, there should be a regulation as to the testing of bulls that are being licensed, to ascertain whether the disease is present or not. I observe by the section which it is proposed to amend that the Minister "may" cause these bulls to be inspected and examined. My amendment increases the power of the Minister and enables him to arrange for a special tubercular test in any cases in which he or his inspector thinks it desirable. I trust the Seanad will accept the amendment and endeavour, by this means, to limit to some extent the ravages of tuberculosis amongst cattle.
SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LIVE STOCK BREEDING BILL, 1924—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As the clause stands at present, the Minister has the power that it is sought to give him. The Minister has power under this to have bulls "inspected and examined." That would include, of course, examination for tubercular discase, as well as for any other disease.
It is implied by the next clause that he must reject where there is tuberculosis.
There seems to be a misconception as regards the transmissibility of tuberculosis. If one is to make it incumbent on the Government to examine every bull in the country for tuberculosis, you will be up against two things: first of all the test gives the same result whether the animal is tubercular or not, and secondly, there is the absolutely superfluous nature of the test, in view of the fact that you do not transmit tuberculosis from bull to cow. The tendency might possibly be the transmission of tuberculosis to a human being—I suppose that is the reason of this amendment—by milk, but it is not always provable that you get pulmonary tuberculosis from milk.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator's amendment does not propose to make this examination compulsory. It only proposes to give the Minister power to have an examination and to test the presence or absence of this disease if he so wishes. The amendment does not make the examination compulsory in every case.
I did not argue that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you suggested it by saying that you did not think it was necessary to go to the expense of a compulsory examination in every case.
If the intention is to leave it to the Minister's discretion, I think he can be trusted to use his discretion in an economical manner. As regards eugenics, I would not be opposed to their introduction into this country. In fact, I would apply them even beyond cattle. I do not wish to take up the time of the House on a matter which may be safely left to the discretion of the Minister but I question its utility.
As you pointed out, A Chathaoirligh, the discretion is there already. The Inspector may, or may not, have an animal examined and tested for tuberculosis. The question then arises, whether there is any advantage to be derived from putting in specific words to that effect. The power is implied in the Bill. Senator Gogarty touched on a point which has some bearing on this question. The calf from a bull, which would be slightly tubercular, might be a reactor to the test, yet might be absolutely all right. The test is not infallible, or anything like infallible, and you may give an impression, if you put in specific words in the Bill—an impression that you do not want to give —that owners of pedigree herds must have their bulls tested for tuberculosis by this method, and that in any case where there are reactors they will be refused a license. There might be a good deal of publicity about it, and a lot of good bulls might be sent out of the country for that reason. In view of the uncertainty of the particular test, and that a bull may be a reactor and at the same time all right, and in view of the fact that the power is there already, if in any case it is thought desirable to use it, I suggest it would be better not to put in these words.
In view of the Minister's statement, I ask the leave of the Seanad to withdraw the amendment. In answer to Senator Gogarty, the object of my amendment was certainly, in the first place, to protect human life, but it was also for the purpose of protecting the herds of the country, because I am aware that this disease is most injurious to the cattle of the country.
I move to add at the end of section 3, a new sub-section (5) as follows:—
(5) The purchaser of a pure-bred bull or ram from an owner outside the Free State shall, on the production of a certificate from a qualified veterinary surgeon that he is free from disease, be entitled to bring the said bull or ram into the Free State and to get a licence under section 3 of this Act.
As the Bill stands at present, if a farmer purchases a bull outside the Free State and brings him in without a license he is liable to a penalty. I think the farmer should have the right to buy a bull outside the Free State, bring him in, and then get a licence.
I would like to support the amendment, but I think, on account of foot-and-mouth disease being so rife elsewhere, that if we brought in bulls we would have to arrange for quarantine. Subject to that condition, I think the amendment ought to be accepted.
I do not think the amendment can stand as it is. If there is a prohibition of imported cattle from England or from Scotland, or from parts of England or Scotland, you could not make an exception in the case of bulls for which a certificate of soundness and freedom from disease is produced. I do not think the amendment can stand as it is.
The Minister stated in conversation with me one time that he thought it probable that a quarantine station would be established here, so that under certain circumstances cattle could be imported from the other side. When he is replying, perhaps he would refer to that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Would not the difficulty suggested by Senator Sir Nugent Everard be met if the words, "subject to the regulations in existence at the time" were inserted in the amendment.
This particular amendment is really legislating for something that the Bill is not dealing with. It is cutting into a very important series of laws and regulations dealing with the importation of cattle from abroad into Ireland. These regulations are extremely important, and raise very important questions, and I do not think it is sound to interfere with that body of legislation merely as a side wind in a Bill like this. That is what this amendment does. There may be considerations which we do not think of at the moment, and which would arise immediately when discussing the specific question of the importation of cattle from England into Ireland, and which we may be interfering with in a way we do not intend by an amendment like this. Take the amendment as it stands. It would mean that so long as there is a certificate that the animal is not diseased, he must come in. That immediately interferes with the present procedure, by which not only must we be satisfied that the animal is not diseased, but also that he has not been in contact with diseased animals. It would mean that when you get a certificate that the animal is not diseased you are compelled to issue a licence. When the bull comes over, he may be a bull that would be refused a licence on the ground that his standard of fitness and quality is not up to the mark. The point that Senator Butler has in mind apparently is, that as the section stands at present a bull which costs £500 or £600 or £1,000 may be landed at the North Wall, and the owner has then an unlicensed bull, and technically commits an offence. We can meet that point in this way. An inspection can be made of a valuable bull like that on the other side, or even a licence can be given. If application is made in respect of a pedigree bull or a bull of that sort a licence can be given, and the bull can be examined at the North Wall, and if he does not come up to the standard the licence may be revoked, so that you can cover the technical offence. If there is no other point that the Senator wishes to cover except that as the Bill stands you commit a technical offence by importing a bull without a licence, you can get over that point by this procedure of giving a licence for the bull, examining him after he lands, and revoking the licence afterwards, if necessary. If you can meet that point by that sort of procedure I would suggest that the Senator should not press an amendment which, after all, cuts into the whole code of legislation dealing with the importation of cattle from England to Ireland.
Would the Minister say something about the quarantine station? There is one in the North of Ireland, I understand.
The Senator asks me to say something about a question which could be debated for hours and hours. It is a very contentious point. People will say: "Why not have a quarantine station here? You could then have free entry of live stock." If you have a quarantine station, and you keep your bulls in that quarantine station for the incubation period of foot and mouth disease, then importers of bulls will know exactly where they are when they are purchasing them. They will know they can bring in the animals provided they are kept for a certain number of hours, days or weeks in the quarantine station. That is one side of the picture. The other side of the picture is that we cannot take chances, even one in a thousand, of introducing foot and mouth disease here, and if we ever had a quarantine station here, resulting in the free entry of live stock into Ireland, at least as far as the quarantine station, and if an animal was found to be infected in the quarantine station, imagine the confusion it would cause. Probably the ports would be closed for a period. Perhaps in a few days or a few weeks or months, foot and mouth disease would occur outside the quarantine station. It would have got out, and everybody would say, perhaps with some truth, that all this came by having a quarantine station here. A quarantine station means, after all, a quarantine for animals that may be diseased. That is the whole purpose of the station. If, in fact, it fulfils its functions, and if an animal were found diseased, see what might happen. The infection might get out, or might be taken out by a veterinary surgeon, or by birds. We do not know how it would spread, and you may infect a large part of the country and keep the ports closed for months or weeks. These are the two sides of the question. On the one hand it would place the importers of cattle in a position in which they would know when they are buying the exact regulations governing the importation of cattle, and they would know how long they would have to keep the cattle in quarantine. On the other hand you have the danger of spreading the disease from the quarantine station. I am not coming to a decision on that question. I leave it to the Seanad.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Would the Minister have any objection to Senator Butler's amendment if it read: "The purchaser of a pure-bred bull or ram from an owner outside the Free State shall, on the production of a certificate from a qualified veterinary surgeon that he is free from disease, and upon such other conditions as the Minister may require"?
The only objection I have to it is this. That seems to cover it, but, on the other hand, this code of regulations dealing with the import of cattle from England to Ireland is very voluminous, highly contentious and very important, and you are really legislating to alter that particular code. You may be doing it not for any reason which arises out of the import of cattle but to meet the technical point in the Bill. I think it would not be well to put in an amendment of that sort. As the Bill stands we can make arrangements to give the licence on the other side to a pedigree bull and we have a free hand to revoke the licence for the bull if it is not up to the standard.
I would be satisfied if the Minister gave permission for a bull to be examined here or on the other side.
What would happen in practice is that they would be landed here and inspected at the North Wall on the ship.
So long as it is not an offence to bring in a bull I am satisfied. As the Bill stands it is an offence.
Undoubtedly it would be an offence if the bull were landed at the North Wall without a licence. A first-class bull is bought in England and landed at the North Wall. Some one has a bull, to which this Act applies, without a permit. Therefore, there is a technical offence. The man is not a criminal yet; he has not been convicted, but we can meet that point by giving a licence without examination. Then we have still a free hand because the bull may be examined and the licence may be revoked.
In view of what the Minister said, would not the case be met by leaving it "to bring a bull or ram into the Free State" so that it would read: "who would be free from disease"?
Would not the difficulty be met if the Minister undertakes to bring in a regulation that he will issue licences to bulls coming in? The moment the bull comes over here the licence will operate to prevent him committing an offence.
I do not see any objection to giving that, but there may be some considerations which we will discuss on Report.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is exactly what I had in my mind because such conditions as may be prescribed will, of course, involve the making of a regulation. "Prescribed" is defined under the Act to be prescribed by regulation. Therefore, if the words were "subject to such conditions as may be prescribed," that would cover the point made by Senator Brown, because "prescribe" means prescribed by regulation.
I will consider it on Report.
I think that matter has been more or less debated already, and I think it is hardly worth while to raise it again unless the Seanad wishes to do so.
I have a similar amendment down, but I do not think the same thing has been debated. I move to delete sub-section (2). I should like the Minister to tell us whether he has given any consideration as to the period in which he intends to reinspect and examine these bulls. If on the strength of these things an owner has certain class of stock in a district and has got a valuable bull which has suddenly overstepped the border line as decreed by the Director-General of Breeding, and that this dangerous tendency has to be checked, this man's valuable bull has to be done away with or removed into another district. I think that is arbitrary and that compensation should be considered. He has been given a licence and a certain guarantee that that bull can stand for service. If some one comes along and prescribes a service I think it is going further than the previous section.
I think Senator Sir John Keane is making a great mistake not to give power to the Minister to revoke a licence because the use of the bull may show he is inflicting an injury on the cattle of the district and certainly be introducing disease or getting an inferior stock.
This amendment does not affect the disease section. The amendment does not in any way take away the power of the Minister to revoke these things for disease. This method of regulation has gone so far that you get into a maze of regulations and do not know where you stand. With the consent of the House I withdraw the amendment.
I have an amendment down which is consequential and I do not propose to move it. With reference to what has occurred in the debate and to Senator Sir Nugent Everard's references, the Minister has no power to revoke licences in that case.
Ought not the amendment moved by Senator Butler applying to bulls used for cows the property of the owner or other people's cows go into this clause?
I mentioned that to Senator Butler and I hope to be able to say something about it on Report. It is a consequential amendment.
I move:—
Section 5, sub-section (1) (c), line 61. —After the word "bull" to insert the words "save where no charge is made for such service."
This section binds a holder of a licence to produce it on certain occasions to certain persons. I think there is no necessity for the retention of paragraph (c) in the section except in cases where, from time to time, bulls are got for service on the payment of a fee. There are several cases where farmers send their cows and get the service of a bull free of charge, and I think it would not improve the happy relations that exist between farmers if the owner of the bull was obliged to produce a licence to the man in charge of his neighbour's cow. I suggest the amendment covers the point by omitting the necessity for the production of a licence in any case where the service of the bull is given free.
The Senator will notice that there is no necessity to produce a licence unless it is demanded. I do not think the point arises. If one neighbour is doing another a good turn the neighbour to whom the good turn is being done will not say, "I am not going to have this unless you produce a licence." If he is getting the service of the bull free he will not demand the licence.
He can tell him he can take his cow away.
I move:—
Section 5, sub-section (2), line 65: To delete the word "ten" and substitute therefor the word "five."
This matter has been debated already with regard to the question of the amount of the fines. I think the fine is too high.
I want to draw the attention of the Senator to the fact that that is a maximum fine and I want him to consider whether there are not cases in which a fine of £10 should be imposed.
I do not propose to move the following amendment:—
Section 5, sub-section (2), line 65: To delete the word "ten" and substitute therefor the word "three."
In the event of the licence being lost or mislaid I do not see any provision to protect a man. Under those circumstances I think it is very unfair that if a man loses or mislays a licence he should not be protected from being fined £5.
There is a provision in section 2, sub-section (4): "Where the Minister is satisfied that the 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."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That does not quite cover the Senator's point. That only enables a man who has lost his licence to get a new licence. It does not cover the point that if in the interval he does not produce it he will not be liable to a fine. It might be better to put in that no penalty shall be incurred if the licence-holder satisfies the court that the licence has been accidentally lost or mislaid.
I will bring that in.
I move to delete sub-section (3). I think it is rather a hardship on the owner of the bull to have the payment made in this manner.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If there is no clause of this kind the whole thing would not be workable, because the owner of the bull would not be chargeable for the time in which the service would be taking place. Surely the proper person to make the payment is the person acting on his behalf.
In the majority of cases the bull is in charge of the owner because the owner is not able to pay a person to have charge of the bull. On the occasion of the visit of the Inspectors of the Civic Guard the owner may be absent and he might leave some employee in charge.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This provides that he may have the care, custody or charge of the bull.
He may have the duty, perhaps, of minding the bull or something of that kind, but he may not know whether there was a licence or not for the bull, and he would not be able to furnish the Inspector with the licence. I think a demand might be made in a more reasonable manner than that, that is, to leave notice at the owner's place that the licence was required to be produced within a certain period after the visit of the Inspector. I know cases where messages have been given to employees that are never conveyed to the owner. I think this is not necessary because a demand can be made in a much more reasonable way.
I think there is some point in what Senator Linehan says, though I do not think he is right in asking to delete the sub-section. It is a little loose and wide when you say, "any person in the employment and having the care," etc. If you said a person who ordinarily has the care, it might meet the case. I merely throw that out as a suggestion.
There will be sufficient difficulty in the administration of the Act without taking out that provision. If the owner of the bull has the care and management of the animal, you are putting on him the duty of producing the licence on demand. If he does not happen to be there at the time there is a good excuse. If he is away, you have to wait until he returns. So far as the Civic Guard or the Inspectors of the Department are concerned, if the owner of the bull, who has charge of the bull, does not happen to be present, they have to wait until he comes back. It usually happens that somebody else is in charge. It may be one man this week, and another man next week. That, of course, would not occur in the case of a good pedigree herd. I am taking the case of the ordinary farmer, where the same man would not be in charge of the bull two months consecutively. In any event, if it is not the owner of the bull that is in charge for the purpose of the section it is somebody else, and he should have the licence. All this section means is, it puts the onus on the owner of the bull to see to it that whoever is in charge of the bull, whether himself or anybody else, is in a position to produce the licence.
The words "any person" are a little vague. If they were "the person in the employment of the holder of the licence for the time being having the care, custody, or charge of the bull"——
What is meant by "the care, custody and charge of the bull"?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is not the care, custody and charge; it is care, custody or charge. I do not think it is necessary to inform the Senator what the meaning of having the care of a bull is, or having the custody of a bull is, or yet what having the charge of a bull is.
Take the man employed in feeding the bull. Is that man supposed to have the care, custody or charge of the bull?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Certainly while operating upon it.
The Senator will have to remember that either the farmer in question wants to obstruct the Act or not. We take it that he does not, and all that he is asked to do is to ensure that somebody shall have a licence to produce when asked for it; that is all it amounts to, the onus is on the owner.
I do not know what the owner of the cow would say if he was told that he would have to wait for a couple of days until the owner of the bull came back.
As I understand a substitute amendment is being moved, I ask for leave to withdraw my amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The amended amendment, suggested by Senator Brown, now before the Seanad, is that the section read: "The person in the employment of the holder of the licence and having the care, custody, or charge of the bull for the time being."
Amended amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 21:—
To delete all after the word "kept" in line 12 to the end of the sub-section.
It seems to me to be a useless proviso. It makes it much clearer and more definite if you stop at the word "kept."
I think obviously the answer might be that the owner might have changed his address, and the person who gave a wrong address would be liable; he might not know that the owner had changed his address.
I think the clause is perfectly definite and very straight if you leave it at the word "kept." I do not see the use of the proviso, and I think it is merely a waste of time and of print.
The proviso is not of very much use, and I do not think it changes the meaning of the section in practice, but I think Senator the Earl of Mayo must remember that that particular proviso enabled this clause to be carried in another place. You have to make concessions, and while personally I agree the proviso does not make very much difference, at the same time it does no harm, and it made it easier for us to carry the section in the Dáil.
I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
I move as an amendment:—
Sub-section (2), line 42:—To delete the word "a" and substitute therefor the word "sale."
This is rather an important amendment from my point of view. As the Bill stands, on every sale of a bull you would be compelled to get a new licence which will probably cost 5/-, because the maximum amount under these Acts generally becomes the minimum amount. There are continual sales of bulls. Bulls after their period of usefulness passes are sold. We are told by the Minister that there cannot be any very immediate change from the type of bulls we have to the bulls that are desirable and there must be some bulls, not the very best, kept for a sort of probationery period. The owner will be compelled to pay a fee of 5/- licence when the bull is sold. That will mean that the practice that existed in the country hitherto of disposing of bulls at the end of their period of service will have to bear an additional burden of 5/-. The burden heretofore has been very heavy because bulls bought for £20 at the beginning of the period for which they were required have often to be sold at a loss of £10, £12 or £14. That is a matter of public knowledge and I do not think it is just to inflict upon the owners this further burden of 5/-. It may be held that this is a fee on transfer just as a man pays a fee on stocks or shares. It is nothing of the kind. If a man buys stocks or shares, he is buying something outside his business and it is perfectly just that the State should get an amount of duty that is necessary, but here the man is conducting his business in the ordinary way, just as if a merchant was bringing in so many extra stone of sugar and so many extra chests of tea. To put a burden on this transaction is to hamper part of the farmer's business.
There is no fee on transfer.
On sale or transfer.
No fee on sale or transfer.
I was directed by the Farmers' Association to see that sale was not included in the Bill, and if it is not I am perfectly satisfied.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It must be either by transfer or devolution of the property of the bull.
Would devolution of the property include sale?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes, certainly, and so would transfer.
In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
I beg to move amendment 26: In Section 12, sub-section (2) to add at the end of the sub-section the following:—
"and if any personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of such slaughter or castration be caused to any workman, the owner of the bull so slaughtered or castrated shall be free from all liability for such injury."
If a farmer or anybody else employed a contractor he is not liable for any accident to the employee of the contractor. The Minister in this case is in much the same position as a contractor, and if the Minister sends in workmen I think the farmer should not be liable for any accident that might occur to them.
I take it that as the law stands the farmer would not be liable for the workmen employed by the Department who do this work.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think that is quite clear.
I accept that. I take it that the Minister is satisfied that the farmer is not liable for any accident to the Minister's employees.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course that would not cover the case where the accident is, in any way, caused or contributed to by the negligence of the owner.
But I take it that the Minister's own employees will have charge.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If the accident arises solely out of the fact that the Minister sends his men there to perform an operation, the owner would not be liable unless he causes the injury, or contributes to it by his own negligence.
I beg to move amendment 27: Section 12, sub-section (3), page 6, line 12: To delete the word "by" and to substitute therefor the word "from," and to delete the word "from" and substitute therefor the word "by."
It is merely a drafting amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You wish the sub-section to read: "The cost of the slaughter and so on shall be paid to the owner of the bull by the Minister on demand, and may be recovered from the Minister by such owner as a civil debt." That, I understand, is what the Senator wishes. He wishes to impose on the State the cost of this process.
I wish to impose on the State the cost of the slaughter and the castration of the bull by this sub-section, and, it may be, to recover the same from the Minister as a civil debt.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is what I thought.
Will the Minister accept that?
That would make it clear, but I hold it is an unsound principle. Legal notice is served on the owner of the bull; he refuses to comply. The Department find it necessary to go to the expense of sending down a man to slaughter or castrate the bull. Expense is incurred, and is paid from taxation. This amendment would be putting a premium on the evasion of the Bill. It would make it possible for people deliberately to evade the Bill and to get the unfortunate taxpayer to pay. That would be wrong, and I think the Senator would agree.
I do not see how it evades the Bill. If the bull is to be slaughtered or castrated surely there should be compensation paid to the owner.
It is only the cost of castration.
And the cost of slaughter.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It does not mean the value of the carcase. It means the actual operation of killing.
Knocking him on the head or shooting him?
Take the specific case of a scrub bull without a licence—a very bad bull. There is a licence to fatten, but the owner does not avail of it. An inspector inspects the bull, and in six or eight months' time he finds the bull has not been fattened, and is incapable of being fattened, but it does serve cows all over the district. The bull is there, and the owner says "I am fattening him," and he does give him some hay to eat, and that goes on for a year. Everyone knows this bull is serving cows all over the district, and the owner refuses to castrate or slaughter. The Department has no alternative but to come in and slaughter the bull or castrate him; and it would be very wrong, indeed, that State taxation should pay for this delinquency on the part of the owner.
The explanation of the Minister is now upon our Official Record. He mentioned the case of the scrub bull, and I perfectly agree with him. A man may keep this brute and feed him on a little hay and still use him in defiance of the Bill, but now that we have the Minister's statement on the Official Record I am satisfied, and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
In order to make it quite clear the wording ought to run as follows:—"The cost of the slaughter or castration of a bull pursuant to the last preceding sub-section."
I think so. I will make a note of it.
I beg to move:—
Section 12, sub-section (6), lines 23, 24 and 25.—To delete all from the beginning of the sub-section down to and including the word "case" in line 25.
My main object is to have the first three lines of the sub-section eliminated. I really do not know what the meaning of the first three lines is.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course, "without naming him" does not mean the bull; it means the owner.
I have read the section through and I think this sub-section would be improved by deleting the lines I suggest we should delete. I think the remainder of the sub-section, from the words "a notice" down to the end, covers all the points as regards the serving of a notice. As it stands, the sub-section calls for the service of a notice on the owner of the bull. I do not know in what manner that notice could be served, either through the post or otherwise, when the owner's name is not given.
It may be very difficult to get the name of the owner of a bull.
What about the owner of the land on which the bull is found?
We do not want to be faced with a situation like this: you take action against somebody and that somebody is able to meet you by saying that you have inserted the wrong name. He may say: "I am not the owner of the bull; my brother is." And again, he may say: "I am not the owner of the land." The form that is adopted in the sub-section is quite common in many Acts. Under the Public Health Acts notices may be served simply by directing them to the owner, without giving him a specific name.
Anyway, what harm does it do? It makes the administration of an Act all the easier. It will hurt nobody but the person trying to evade the administration of an Act. Further, it will be more economical and, as I have said, it is common form in a great many Acts. In many cases actions have been dismissed on very technical grounds; they could be dismissed because the wrong name is inserted on the notice. Some person might get up and swear: "I am not the owner of the land; my brother is." If, as is set out in the sub-section, you deliver a notice to the owner, then whoever is there on the premises has the onus of giving it to the owner or the owner's agent or somebody responsible.
I do not think there will be any difficulty in finding out the owner of land. Records are always available in the Land Commission or in the Registration of Title Office, and they can ascertain easily who is the owner of land.
But the owner of the bull is intended.
If the bull is found on certain lands the owner of that land is liable.
No.
I think the sub-section would be improved by deleting the first three lines in the manner I suggest.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There remains to be covered the case where a bull is straying on another man's land. The owner there would not be liable.
In such a case as that, who would be served with the notice?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I agree that the rest of the clause seems to provide for every possible contingency, but at the same time I do not think that the sub-section as it stands is likely to do anybody harm.
That is the point; it is not likely to do anybody harm. This Bill will deal with all the farmers of the country, and it may save prosecutions being dismissed on technical points, prosecutions which are perfectly bona fide and useful. After all, if the Bill is required——
Of course it is required.
Its administration should be made easy, provided nobody is done an injustice. Serving the notice on the owner of a bull, not specifically named, makes it easier to administer the Act, and it does nobody harm.
I think the amendment should be withdrawn. The owner of the land would not include an eleven months' tenant.
My object is to facilitate the working of the Act. I would ask the Minister to look into the point I have raised between this and the Report Stage. I agree to withdraw the amendment.
I will look into the matter.
I beg to move:—
Immediately before section 13 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(13) The owner of any cow or heifer which has failed to hold service to a bull who sends that cow or heifer to any other bull for service shall notify the owner or person in charge of any such other bull that the cow or heifer in question has failed to hold service. Any owner failing or neglecting to give such notice as aforesaid shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £5."
The object of this amendment is to endeavour to stop the spread of abortion. It is well known throughout the country that one of the methods of spreading abortion is the sending of an infected cow from one bull to another. I am quite aware that the owner of a bull has power to refuse service of a cow if he thinks that cow is infected; but a better way of preventing the spread of abortion is to put the onus on the owner or the person in charge of the cow or heifer to tell the owner of the bull that the cow or heifer is infected, and has failed to hold service. It will, in my opinion, to some degree prevent the spread of abortion.
I desire to support this amendment.
I desire also to support the amendment. It is a well-known fact that, if cows abort at all, they are liable to do so within three months of the period of service, and if they are brought to another bull they are always certain to infect that bull. Then the difficulty is that that bull may convey the infection to a great number of cows. Something in the nature of what the Senator proposes ought to be inserted, because I know that the case is a very urgent one. There should be some deterrent to the bringing of a cow that has aborted through the country to various bulls. Doing so may do irretrievable injury in that part of the country.
I would like to support the amendment. Let me draw the attention of the mover of the amendment to the fact that the word "notify" seems to be a little vague for an Act of the Oireachtas.
There appears to be some danger in this amendment. It is based on the assumption that every cow that refuses to hold service is suffering from abortion. That may not be a fact. It is quite possible the fault may be due to the bull. It is not right that that doctrine should be accepted. The owner of a cow may seek the service of a bull for another reason altogether, because the previous bull might be in default. The owner of the second bull may refuse the service of his animal. He may say to the owner of the cow: "No; you failed with the previous bull, and therefore I shall not allow you the service of my bull." I think that is a very serious aspect of the case. The amendment is based on the assumption that contagious abortion is the sole and only reason why cows fail to hold service. Every farmer knows that that is not the fact. Cows frequently fail to hold service because the bull is not fertile.
I think the plan suggested is actually in effect in regard to thoroughbred horses and mares. If a thoroughbred mare is sent from one horse to the other, the fact is always recorded.
Senator Keane's objection can be met by disinfecting the animal. It has been met that way before and I do not see why it cannot be done again. I do not see why this disinfection cannot be resorted to in the case of the bull. I believe it would meet the point.
I think Senator Sir John Keane's point is that this particular amendment presumes definitely that if a cow has failed to hold service, it is because of contagious abortion. I do not think the matter goes as far as that at all. The amendment provides that the owner of a cow may say formally to the owner of the bull that the cow has failed to hold service. It will then be for the owner of the bull to bear that fact in his mind and to consider what he is to do; that is to say, to judge whether the cow has aborted or whether it is failure to hold service. I agree with the general principle but, under the Diseases of Animals Act, we have already power to make regulations to that effect. I think it is hardly sound to introduce into an Act of the Oireachtas a provision which is already in existence.
Is the regulation in existence already?
No, but the Act is. We have power to issue such an Order as has been issued under the English regulations. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 to 1914, regulations entitled "Prohibition of service without notification" have been issued. These regulations were issued by the British Ministry of Agriculture, and we can make similar regulations. They would be to the effect that it shall not be lawful to send a cow or heifer which, to the knowledge of the owner of that cow or heifer, has calved prematurely within two months immediately preceding, unless the owner shall give notice in writing to the owner of the bull that such cow or heifer calved prematurely. We have power to issue an Order to that effect already.
The danger is that the cow may not be noticed to have aborted within the three months preceding. Very often all that the owner of a cow knows is that the cow or heifer has failed to hold service. I do not think it would be very arbitrary legislation to say that the owner of the bull must get notice that the cow has broken service. If that happened, say, within a month, it would be for the owner of the bull to judge and take his chances. But if the owner of the bull is told that it is three months since the service, he begins to suspect and, perhaps very rightly, he would not allow his bull to serve. I think there ought to be penalties for concealing the date on which the cow last got service.
The only issue is whether such a clause should be inserted in this Bill, or whether we should take advantage of existing legislation. That is the only question. I am in absolute agreement with the principle.
Existing legislation does not cover it.
Surely it does. We have power under the Diseases of Animals Act to make regulations to the effect that I have just mentioned.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Act of Parliament enables the Minister to make regulations which will meet this.
If he can do so at present it is not necessary to insert this amendment now at all.
If the Minister intends to issue the regulation, I agree that this amendment is unnecessary. This is a live-stock breeding Bill, and this amendment deals with cows which are liable to contagious abortion. I say that unless the regulation is issued as read, or as altered to suit Ireland, then I think the mover of this amendment can very legitimately call upon the Seanad to pass the amendment. But if the Minister says that he will issue that regulation, then there is an end to the matter. However, that is a very drastic regulation. This is a live-stock breeding Bill and we are trying to improve live-stock and to prevent disease from entering our herds. We want to improve the breed of our cattle. The cattle industry is an all important industry; indeed, the most important industry we have.
Perhaps we can consider between this and the Report Stage whether the Bill is the best way to do it, or whether we should do it under the regulations.
I move:—
Section 15, line 42.—After the word "persons" to add the words "who shall have a practical knowledge of agriculture."
Section 15 gives the Minister power to set up a consultative council. I think there is little use in having a consultative council unless the persons comprising it have a knowledge of farming.
I quite agree; but do the words add to or subtract from anything in the section? I do not think so.
If these words were inserted it would not be possible to appoint anyone on the consultative council who would not have a knowledge of agriculture.
There would be a difficulty if you wanted to appoint a veterinary surgeon on the council. The point might arise as to whether he would have a practical knowledge of agriculture. In most cases possibly they would; but you may find a veterinary surgeon doing research work—an invaluable man—and who would not have a practical knowledge of agriculture.
Suppose we inserted "who would have a knowledge of agriculture"?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Would "experienced in agriculture" suit?
I am agreeable to that phrase.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is a little difficulty about the amendment. Apparently you would extend its application to bodies as well as persons. It is difficult to talk of bodies experienced in agriculture. It is not merely a consultation with persons, but with bodies, and I suppose bodies there is intended to mean organisations or associations.
But my amendment has relation to line 42.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In that line would it not do to say "should consist of persons experienced in agriculture"?
That would do all right.
That might exclude people who might be very useful; it might exclude a veterinary surgeon.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I had that in mind. I never met a veterinary surgeon yet who would not tell you he was experienced in agriculture.
Some of them in cities do not know much about agriculture. People engaged in research work might be very good otherwise, but might not know anything about agriculture.
This is a matter that we can discuss between this and the Report Stage, and possibly we may arrive at a satisfactory solution.
I wish to call attention to what I think almost invariably happens on all Bills, and that is the failure to get any detailed statement of expenditure. We got a general statement from the Minister that the Bill is going to cost £10,000 to administer, and that the half, or quarter of it, as the case may be, will be recovered by fees. That is not good enough for a deliberative assembly like this. It is more a matter for the Dáil, but I wonder why the Dáil, which is responsible for finance, agrees to that.
They got a statement in detail in the Dáil on the Second Reading, which is the proper time to get it.
We have not got it here so far as I know. If I spoke under a misapprehension I apologise. My recollection is that we frequently fail to have these detailed figures, and I think that failure covers this case.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think, Senator, so far as I know, that we received any statement of the financial operations of the Bill.
It was to the Dáil I was referring.
Having called attention to the matter I am satisfied.