Government amendment:—
1. Section 1, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and also that the bull was on that day a bull to which the Act applies."

The Act would not apply to a bull under age, and the effect of the amendment is to make it quite clear that the onus of proving the age of the bull shall be on the owner.

Amendment put, and agreed to.
Government amendment:—
2. Section 1, sub-section (4). Before paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph (b) as follows:—
"(b) a person to whom the bull has been lent, hired or leased for a period exceeding one month, and"


Senators will know already that there is a transfer for the purposes of the Act if a bull is leased or hired for a period exceeding one month. Consequently it is necessary to insert the words in sub-section (4).

For a shorter period the owner of the bull would be responsible.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment:—
3. Section 1, sub-section (4). To delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and to substitute the following paragraph therefor:—
"(c) the owner or the person having the charge or management of the lands or premises on which the bull was when the offence was alleged to have been committed, unless such owner or person proves that the bull was then on the said lands without his knowledge or connivance."


This is to meet the suggestion made by a Senator and agreed to by the Seanad.

Amendment put and agreed to.


If I might make a suggestion at this stage, I suggest that amendment 9 be taken next. It raises every point raised by Senator Butler in amendments 4 and 6 and also raised by Sir John Keane in amendments numbers 5 and 8.


It would be in order to do so if agreed on the Report Stage.



I move:—

9. New section. Before Section 5 to insert a new Section 5 as follows:

5. (1) The Minister may by regulations made under this Act declare that any particular breed or breeds or any particular type or types of bull is or are unsuitable for any specified area or areas, but the Minister shall not make, revoke or vary any such regulation until he has consulted the consultative council established under this Act in regard thereto, and the Minister, in the making, revoking, or varying any such regulation shall take into consideration any advice in regard thereto given to him by the said council, after making such (if any) inquiries and investigations as it thinks proper.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may, if he think fit so to do, refuse to grant a licence under this Act in respect of a bull kept or proposed to be kept in an area specified in such regulations if the bull is of a breed or of a type declared by such regulations to be unsuitable for that area.

(3) The Minister may, subject to the provisions of this section, at any time, if he thinks fit so to do, suspend or revoke a licence granted by him under this Act if the bull to which such licence relates is brought into or kept in an area specified in any such regulations and is of a breed or of a type declared by such regulations to be unsuitable for that area.

(4) The Minister shall not under this section refuse, revoke, or suspend a licence in respect of a bull which is entered or eligible for entry in a prescribed herd-book and is used or intended to be used exclusively for the service of cows of the same breed as the bull.

This new section insures that the Minister, before he makes any regulations declaring any breed or breeds are unsuitable, must confer with the Consultative Council and the Council has power, if it thinks fit, to hold an inquiry into the matter. The other sections of the amendment are somewhat similar to those proposed to be deleted in the Bill.

If this amendment is passed, the whole of the mechanism of my amendments is broken down and I shall have to ask leave to draft new amendments or to apply my amendments in some way to this new section.


I suggest that we take this amendment and if it is passed we shall endeavour to find some way of settling Sir John Keane's difficulty.

I second the amendment.


I accept the amendment.

Would that prevent the owner of a herd of cows from using a bull on another breed? He already has that power of using a bull. Will this Clause nullify that? Will that over-ride the power to use a bull provided you have a certain number of cows?


This only applies to an area limited under sub-section (2). That is limited for the purpose of preventing certain bulls of certain breeds from entering it. When such an area is limited, the Minister may allow a bull which is not of the particular breed specified to go into that area. If that bull comes in he can serve cows of any kind. This amendment secures that he has no option in the matter. He must allow into that particular area any pedigree bull for the service of cows of the same breed.

Amendment put and agreed to.


To deal with the point of Senator Sir John Keane, I suggest there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent us adjourning after we have dealt with as many amendments as we can on the Report Stage. I think if Senator Sir John Keane finds it necessary, and if the Seanad agrees, it would be possible to adjourn consideration of the Report until to-morrow, when we will have to meet at any rate. I propose now to take the amendments in order.


Senator Butler's amendment was substituted for another amendment and agreed to in Committee. This new amendment provides for the purposes of sub-section (2) of Section 3 and for the purposes of sub-section (2) of Section 4. Senator Sir John Keane's amendments were to sub-section (2) of Section 3 and sub-section (2) of Section 4. They can be transferred without the change of a single word to sub-section (4) of the new amendment which has just been carried.


Senator Sir John Keane's amendments would be amendments to the new amendment and could be moved at the end of the remaining amendments.

I am quite satisfied with the Minister's suggestion.


I propose to oppose the amendment. I was merely pointing out to Senator Sir John Keane how to deal with it.

I move:—

Section 3, sub-section (2), to delete the sub-section.

The sub-section is provided for in the new amendment that has been passed.

Question put and agreed to.

If the sub-section is deleted, the power that a man had to use any bull will be taken away. In other words, cross-breeding will not be allowed. Sub-section (2) was a remedy for the owner of cows whereby he could have any bull he desired for his herd.


That is so, but I would suggest to the Senator that he can raise that point in connection with Senator Sir John Keane's amendment to sub-section (4) of the new section. The new section repeals sub-section (2) of Section 3 and sub-section (2) of Section 4. If the Senator wishes to argue it I suggest that he can do so on an amendment brought forward in connection with sub-section (4) of the new section.

I am opposed to the deletion of sub-section (2) for the reasons I have stated.

If you do not delete sub-section (2) what will be the position?


If the sub-section is not deleted the Seanad will have to take steps to meet an extraordinary situation. Until that position arises I do not think that I can give an answer.

I submit that the deletion is consequential on the passing of the new amendment.


I think that is so, but from the Chairman's point of view it has to be put to the Seanad. If the Seanad does something inconsistent, a way out has to be found.

I suggest that we should discuss sub-section (3) of Section 3 before going any further.


We are on the Report Stage now and only deal with amendments. It is in order to discuss the amendment and is not necessary to go through each section as in Committee Stage.

I submit that it is not desirable that the breeding of cross-bred cattle should be prohibited. Practically that is what the new amendment amounts to. If a man has a herd of cows and wants to breed cross-bred cattle, the new amendment will prevent him doing so.

Amendment put and declared carried on a show of hands by 12 votes to 5.


As regards amendment 5, in the name of Senator Sir John Keane, I think it is agreed that it will be changed and taken as an amendment before the new Section 5, which has been added. It would be convenient, I think, to take amendment 6, in the name of Senator Butler, first, and when we reach the new Section 5, then to take Senator Sir John Keane's amendment in the new form.

I beg to move amendment 6:—

In Section 3, sub-section (3) to delete the new sub-section (3) inserted in Committee.

This is provided for in sub-section (1) of the new Section 5.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 7:—

In Section 4, sub-section (2), to delete the sub-section.

The point raised by Senator Bennett arises here again. I do not think this contention that cross-breeding will be eliminated is quite justified. I think the House already knows my views as regards this arrangement, but of course that is all passed now, as the principle has been adopted. Apparently, if you want to breed crosses, and you have got Shorthorns, there is nothing as far as I can see to prevent you bringing in a pure-bred bull of another type and crossing with your Shorthorns. As far as I can see, you could bring an Aberdeen Angus bull into a prescribed district, provided he is pure-bred, and cross him with your Shorthorns.


That is not the position. Senators will have to remember that this section only deals with a very limited area. I stated on the Committee Stage that we did not contemplate applying this section to any area at the moment except Kerry, and a special district in Kerry. Therefore, it can only apply to that district. I state now that it would be quite impossible to carry, with any Consultative Council or with any body of organised opinion, any regulation which would extend it, say, to Limerick, or to any of the ordinary big districts in the country where the ordinary Aberdeen Angus, Shorthorn, and Hereford cattle are used. It was on that discretion that I relied in getting the section through in the Dáil. I say that that discretion could not be exercised except in the case of limited areas. I stated that it was never contemplated to exercise the discretion except in a small district in Kerry. We are only dealing with a small district in Kerry. I accept Senator Butler's amendment, which is now being inserted in the Bill, and which is to the effect that before even that district is limited, the Consultative Council shall cause a public inquiry, if they wish, to be held into all the considerations that would arise before limiting such a district. The first question that would arise is, what electoral divisions should be scheduled as the areas over which that section should operate, and the next consideration is what breed should be used and what prohibited. I accepted that amendment. The Consultative Council are free to hold either a public or a private inquiry in regard to that. That is a further safeguard. It may be that there is an overwhelming case for limiting a certain district to a certain type of bull; for limiting certain districts in Kerry to the Kerry bull. But what, I ask, about the unfortunate man who lives in that district and who has a pedigree herd and wants a stock bull for the use of his own herd. To meet that case we inserted sub-section (4) in the proposed new section 5: "The Minister shall not under this section refuse, revoke, or suspend a licence in respect of a bull which is entered or eligible for entry in a prescribed herd-book and is used, or is intended to be used, exclusively for the service of cows of the same breed as the bull."

That meets the case of the pedigree breeder but it does not meet the case of the man who wants, say, an Aberdeen Angus bull to put on ordinary Shorthorn cows. For the farmer in a district where they are breeding nothing but Kerry cattle, I am afraid we cannot do anything. I am simply giving that as an example of the fact that the general good of the community in that district must be considered before the predilections of any particular individual. But we have met the case of the breeder who was breeding, let us say, Aberdeen Angus or Shorthorns in that district. We have provided that the Minister cannot refuse a licence to him to bring in a bull of any variety he likes provided the bull is pure-bred. We have gone a step further and we say: "And is used or intended to be used exclusively for the service of cows of the same breed as the bull."

Take a case in the County Wexford, which I am afraid is not a very good example, of two or three pedigree breeders who want the same bull. They do not want to buy a bull each. As the amendment stood originally and as agreed to on Committee, the position was that each man who wanted a pedigree bull for his own cows had to get a bull. That might be very hard. If you had three or four breeders all breeding the same class of stock—it would be very hard to expect each of them to get a bull. One could pay as much as £150 for a good pedigree stock bull. We have met their case by allowing one of them to purchase a bull for the use of the 30 or 40 cows that they may own. It is provided in the Bill that the bull may be used not only for the cows of the owner, but also for the cows owned by the other men provided the bull is of the same breed as the cows. It is quite clear that we do not allow cross-breeding in the very limited areas which we defined for the purposes of this sub-section.

Where do you define limited areas? The Minister has stated that this will only operate in limited areas. I ask what authority there is for that statement?

I would like to recall the Minister's attention to what he said on the last occasion that this matter was debated. On the last occasion the Minister was talking about Kerry, but when he was pressed a little more he laid it down clearly that he did not intend it to be limited to Kerry. There was a reference made to Sligo and when he was asked he said that it could apply to Sligo. By that statement he practically extended it all over Ireland. The first thing to be considered is that the Minister will not be always there. He will not be everlasting. Consequently this thing is very indefinite. Sligo and Leitrim have already been mentioned, and now he is beginning to tack on Wexford. I am afraid that the whole thing is very indefinite.


I am sorry that I mentioned Wexford at all.

I think we have rather lost sight of the fact that we passed the section which brings the consultative committee into this matter and the only thing that is to restrain this imaginary lunatic that is to be put in the position of the Minister for Agriculture later on is the consultative council. Personally I think there is a great deal of talk about this that is unnecessary. Everybody knows perfectly well that any intelligent Minister could not put this stringent regulation into force anywhere but where it would be more or less accepted. If such a lunatic did arise you will have the consultative council, that will stop him and see that he could not carry on.

I think that the Minister met the objections to the section very fairly. In the first place, he told us that before any area is prescribed as an area preserved for Kerries, for instance, that in that area no bull of any other breed should be introduced with one exception—that is where there is a herd of similar animals, and where there are individuals with cows of the same breeds, whether they be Shorthorn or Aberdeen Angus. To remove the grievance of those men having these herds, he proposed to admit into that scheduled area a Shorthorn or Hereford bull. I believe that was the position.

Senator Colonel Moore in his remarks said he was only going to exclude Kerries, whereas at the time the Committee were sitting, he said he would take in County Sligo and County Limerick. He did say these things but he stated that in an explanatory way, that if Sligo was to become overrun with a certain class of bulls it might be necessary to take power to limit that, and he explained the same thing with regard to the County Limerick. He wanted these bulls to come in to serve a dual purpose of both milk and beef, and it was only on this consideration that he was taking the power of prohibiting a certain class of bulls coming into a district.


I said that situation might arise in the future.

I am entirely in sympathy with the Minister's policy for the County of Kerry. Everyone living there knows that it is very necessary. I suggest it would clear the air a bit if he told us what part of the County he is contemplating. I understand it is not the whole County but portion of the County. Could he give us a definition of the area he has in mind?


Senator Counihan is a Kerry man and he knows the district better than I do. The district I mean is Cahirciveen, Sneem, Kenmare and the Dingle peninsula. It would leave out North Kerry.

I know the County

Kerry, and the district I would describe is from Sneem to Killorglin, between that and the sea.


Leaving out North Kerry.


It is very difficult for a Chairman to decide exactly the relevancy of the matters raised on these amendments, and, consequently, when the discussion started, I thought it better to leave some latitude. I think, perhaps, I may now put the amendment.

Amendment put and declared carried.


It was understood that Senator Sir John Keane should be allowed to move his amendment No. 8 on the paper, which fell through owing to the deletion of the section to which it referred. But he was to be allowed to move it to sub-section (4) in the new Section 5.

I rise to a point or order. I did not realise that the amendment that was passed introduced new matter and a new aspect altogether as to this prohibition of cross-breds in these scheduled areas. I address myself merely now to the point of order. I would prefer if the House would allow it to have the Bill recommitted so that the new matter may form the subject matter of new investigation with the latitude in Committee allowed on a fresh amendment. If the House does not see its way to grant this I ask permission to recast this amendment No. 8, as it does not counter these new points introduced to which I and at least one other Senator object.


I am satisfied it would not be in order to recommit the Bill for the consideration of an amendment already passed and inserted in the Bill. I do not think that possible. I think that much the best thing to do is to proceed with the amendment as it now stands, and if Senator Sir John Keane can get the consent of the Seanad the matter could be adjourned over to to-morrow, and he could introduce a new amendment. I would take such a motion, but I am quite satisfied that having inserted an amendment it would not be in order now to recommit the Bill for the consideration of that amendment in Committee.

In view of your ruling, I will ask permission to have the Report Stage adjourned in due course. I am now dealing with the amendment on the paper, and it does not cover all the ground.

Are we dealing with amendment No. 5 of No. 8?


We are not dealing with either, as they both fell through, the sections to which they referred having been deleted, but Sir John Keane had leave to move his amendment in reference to the new Section 5.


I suggest that the Senator will carry out what he has in his mind if he moved an amendment to the following effect:—Sub-section (4) to which he has moved his amendment, is to provide "that the Minister shall not under this section refuse, revoke, or suspend a licence in respect of a bull which is entered or eligible for entry in a prescribed herd-book or is used, or intended to be used, exclusively for the service of cows of the same breed as the bull." If he moved to delete the words "of the same breed as the bull" and to substitute instead the words "the property of one person and used exclusively for the service of cows the property of that person," that will leave the position exactly the same as the last day, and the case can be argued.

It is very difficult to quite grasp the implication of these matters when they are raised hurriedly. It may be all right—I would not like to commit myself. As I remember, on the Committee Stage the owner of a pure-bred bull in a restricted area, was allowed to give the service of that bull to any person with the same breed of cows.


That was not the position, but it is the position under the new amendment.

I would rather not accept that for the moment. I will deal with what is here, viz., to insert in sub-section (4) of the new section the following words from my amendment 5. After the words "herd-book" to insert the words, "or a bull registered in a register of dairy cattle kept by the Department of Lands and Agriculture." In all these matters where we give these wide powers we have to visualise cases which may be exceptional but which are quite possible. It is possible to have in a prescribed area a very considerable owner of a rare breed of cows of a particular pedigree. In this oft-repeated area of Kerry you may have a large breeder of Shorthorns. Here I will interpolate, if I may, a protest against this tendency to read into powers that are unlimited, a limited application. The Minister takes unlimited powers, and then suggests that he will only apply them over a limited area. That is his intention, but the Bill gives him power to apply it anywhere. He is not going to be Minister for all time, and we do not know what his successor may do. He will have to go by the language as it is in the Statute, and will not have an individual opinion as to how it should be interpreted. Assuming that you get any scheduled area, as I call it for the sake of description, and supposing you get an owner with a large number of registered dairy Shorthorns, this registration has been going on for a long time, and there are quite a number of people who built up valuable herds of dairy Shorthorns and had them registered under the Department. Now by these powers it would not be within the right of the owner to bring in a registered bull. That is an extraordinary position. He can bring in a pure-bred Shorthorn bull.



I should state dairy or beef, because surely the Minister will not go into those niceties as to whether he is a dairy or beef animal. If you go into that you are going to set up a state of inquisition which is unparalleled in the whole history of modern administration.


There is no question at all of that.

You are going to prevent that owner from bringing in a bull of a breed that has been built up as a result of much labour, time and experience for some totally inexplicable reason. The Minister may have some reason as to why he is going to do it, but so far he has not explained it. It would be quite likely that the very best bull would be a bull registered on the Department's register. It is inconceivable that the Minister should taboo our own Irish breed and allow dairy Shorthorns in from England or elsewhere.

I second the amendment and I beg to reiterate the statement of Sir John Keane. For several years we have been encouraged by the Department of Agriculture to bring in these cattle. We had to register the cows, and we have now a breed of cows which produces eight or nine hundred gallons or even a thousand gallons of milk in the year. Their progeny I consider are as suitable to the country as any beasts that could be produced. They were registered by the Department of Agriculture for the last ten years, and now with one stroke of the pen, the work done by the Department is to be blotted out for ever. That shows the mentality of the advisers of this Department. We have to move very carefully. I know myself men who have been building up these herds and have paid out large sums.

I am not certain what arguments the Minister will bring forward, but I am inclined to think that he would say, the proper bull to introduce in these conditions would be a pure Shorthorn bull and not a registered bull as defined by the Department. I have had some experience of these registered bulls and they are all cross-breds. Their dams may be good Shorthorn cows that give plenty of milk, but it does not follow that for breeding purposes these bulls are suitable. I sympathise with the Minister if he intends to raise the point that he does not object to the introduction of a pure-bred dairy Shorthorn bull where herds of dairy Shorthorns have been established but that he does object to the introduction of a registered dairy bull which is not a pure-bred bull. I do not think Senator Sir John Keane is quite correct in saying that there are no dairy Shorthorn pedigree herds. I know of several.

On a point of explanation, I hope I did not say that. I never imagined such a position.

That was rather what it conveyed to me. However, Senator Sir John Keane admits that there are plenty of herds of pure-bred dairy Shorthorns.

I think Senator Guinness is not quite accurate when he makes this statement. As I understand it—I may be wrong—a dairy Shorthorn is not a pure-bred animal. A Shorthorn cow can be brought in— with certain milk regulations—any cow can be brought in, of a Shorthorn type, to that register and yet it is not a pure-bred cow. I do not know how long it would be necessary to go back to establish a pure-bred animal. In the case of horses, we must go back about a hundred years of clean blood, before we can declare it a pure-bred. At all events in the case of pure-bred cattle I think you would have to go back about forty years, whereas the Shorthorn registered at present is not as pure as that or anything like it.

The discussion has taken a course that would suggest that all the bulls in the country were to be pure-bred. About nine-tenths of the bulls will be ordinary bulls suitable for the district, especially in the County Limerick, and the Minister takes the precaution of prescribing a pure-bred bull for beasts going into what he considers a scheduled or closed area. That is the position as I understand it. If you take in the dairy Shorthorn bull they become very numerous and it will be quite easy for anybody to bring that class of bull into the Kerry district which the Minister is all the time trying to guard and preserve. That is the reason he says a pure-bred bull.

I think there are one or two things that require to be stated about this matter. In the first place there is the question of dairy Shorthorns and pure-bred. I believe that they have to go through four generations before they are admitted, and only a small quantity are so admitted. I think that we may reasonably say that the dairy Shorthorn breed is a pure breed without any possibility of well-informed contradiction. I think that, on the whole, there is a good deal to be said for this amendment, unless the Minister puts up some argument which I have not yet thought of. I think, at the same time, that a statement such as that made by Senator Bennett, that the whole value of the scheme will be blotted out by a stroke of the pen because it is proposed in a very limited district—or even in a large district, if you like, but I say in a smaller district—should not be accepted. This scheme has done immense good in Ireland. It has, as Senator Bennett said, increased the yield of milk to 800 and 1,000 gallons. How could the acceptance or nonacceptance of this amendment change the yield of that breed? The thing is absurd. The very price we get for this class of cattle will not be affected. I think that this amendment might be accepted, because these registered cattle are half-breds in any case and they are only dairy cows of a certain type.

On a point of personal explanation, Senator MacLysaght said that my remarks were absurd. My absurdity consisted in expressing the opinion that a scheme which had existed for ten years, promoting the breeding of dairy bulls, is to be abandoned under this Bill. That is still my contention, and I will maintain that it is a contention that can be upheld if the Minister so desires. Permitting it to be done in the Bill, he has the power to do it. The Minister with one stroke of the pen, I reiterate, can blot out the work that the Department has been doing for ten years. I think it is not absurd to say that such a position can arise.


I am glad to hear that it is so easy to do these things. I should like very much indeed to have a state of affairs where, with one stroke of the pen, you could simply apply certain regulations to the whole country, and that no farmer, no member of the Dáil or Seanad, or of the Consultative Council, would say anything to it. That is what Senator Bennett's statement means. Perhaps I might explain what I mean by the terms I use. When speaking of a pedigree bull, I mean a bull entered in Coates's Herd Book; when speaking of a pure-bred bull, I mean a pure-bred bull of a clean breed, whether he is entered in Coates's Herd Book or not. There is only one type of pure-bred in this country not entered in Coates's Herd Book, and that is the ordinary Shorthorn cow, which is, for all practical purposes, pure-bred. I can go into various Counties like Limerick and Wexford, in fact, all over the country, wherever you get a great many cross and half-breed animals, and I suppose 50 per cent. of the cows would be pure Shorthorns in the sense that for generations back they have been bred from Shorthorns and are, in fact, pure but not pedigree. The cross-bred or half-bred animal, whichever you like to call it, is a cross between an Aberdeen Angus and a Shorthorn, a Galloway and a Shorthorn, or any other cross. A pedigree animal is an animal entered in Coates's Herd Book. A pure-bred animal is an animal of pure breed entered in the Herd Book, and a large proportion of the ordinary Shorthorn cows are pure-bred. We take that into account when examining the cow, to see whether it is to be registered in the Dairy Register. You may easily see whether it is, for all practical purposes, pure-bred. There may have been a cross of an Aberdeen Angus two or three generations back, but it is now bred out of her. I am not on the point of whether it is right or not to regard such an animal as pure-bred. A half-bred animal is a cross between two breeds.

Technically, a cross-bred is an animal bred from two pure-breds, and the other is only a half-bred.


That is technically correct. But, for the purposes of the Bill, it would be sufficient, in order to avoid confusion, to define a cross-bred simply as an animal of any two breeds, rather than to take a cross-breed as one thing and a half-breed as another. These are the three main classes, the pedigree, the pure-bred and the half-bred. This animal, in Coates's Herd Book, traces back not so very long ago, to other breeds. It is quite possible in fact probable, that that animal four or five generations back was crossed with another breed. I think that Coates's Herd Book was prepared long after 1800. Coates was a gentleman who simply went round in a pony trap, went into each cow-byre, had a good look at the cows and made a schedule of the good Shorthorn cows in Aberdeen and in England, and put them in his Herd Book. I am perfectly certain that, even after 1800, a lot of them had crossed with other breeds, but it is now bred out of them. I call a cross-breed any animal that obviously on view is a cross between two breeds quite recently.

I do not understand what Senator Sir John Keane means when he speaks about taboos and when he speaks about this slur on these registered cattle. I do not understand what Senator Bennett means when he says that one stroke of the pen might wipe out all that the Department had done for the last twenty years. Dairy cattle are not only pure-bred, but the dairy Shorthorn is in exactly the same Herd Book as the beef Shorthorn. Number one may be a beef Shorthorn, number two be dairy, and number fifteen, beef. In other words, a particular cow has proved to be a good milker and we regarded her as a dairy cow of dairy stock, and therefore pure-bred, and therefore in exactly the same Herd Book. I do not understand the meaning of the word "taboo" in this connection, nor do I understand the expression that Senator Sir John Keane has used that by inserting this harmless provision I am casting a slur on the register of the cattle of the country. He has only two alternatives. Does he maintain that registered dairy cattle can, in fact, get the privileges of pedigree cattle in regard to showing, in regard to exportation and, above all, in regard to price? There is, after all, a difference between pedigree cattle and registered dairy cattle. When I say that I am not in any way casting a slur on the registered cattle of the country. A pedigree beast is always worth more, for the reason that people are sure of the animal's purity, and that, as a rule, it will give better results and better yields. But when you say that a pedigree beast has certain advantages which a non-pedigree beast has not, you are not casting any slur on the Department's Dairy Register. As evidence of the fact that a registered beast, if not as valuable as a pedigree beast, there is the fact that buyers will always give a far bigger price, and buyers are not fools. They do it for commercial reasons and for no others.

Does Senator Sir John Keane contend that unless registered cattle get exactly the same privileges as pedigree cattle, there is a slur on registered cattle? If he does, I cannot argue. They have not these privileges, in fact, and they never will have them. The time may come when breeders may begin to regard the pure-bred Shorthorn, which is not pedigree, as eligible for entry in a herd book, just as at present you have a pedigree register of Kerry cattle; then you have an appendix to the register, and if the cow is up to a certain standard in substance and milk yield, she gets into the appendix and her grand-daughter is entitled to go into the pedigree register. You may reach the same position in generations to come in regard to Shorthorns, but at present there is a distinction between the pedigree and the non-pedigree, and all I wish to insist on is that because I drew that distinction it is not a slur on the registered dairy cattle, and it will not wipe out all the good work done by the Department in building up the Dairy Register, and will not discontinue that work. Why do I ask the Seanad to insist that this bull brought into this area shall be pedigreed? For this reason: This section has to apply to a specified area, limited for the production of a special breed. An area can only be defined and can only be limited when the Consultative Council has held an inquiry. I will not go again into the question of what safeguards there are against limiting the whole country for the purpose of a special breed. We have the Dáil, the Seanad and the Consultative Council, before whom these regulations must come, and that that is a sufficient safeguard, I think any farmer will agree. I do not think any farmer who looks at the question on its merits would for a moment deny that it would be utterly impossible to define any area for the purposes of that section without the overwhelming support of the whole farming community, not only in that particular area, but outside of it. That is what I call the real safeguard against my bringing in a regulation that nothing but Galloway bulls shall be used in County Limerick. We are taking power to define certain areas, and it has been pointed out that that might do harm to individuals. It might do harm to the breeder of a pure-bred herd within that area, and it was suggested that we should put in a clause to safeguard him. We put in a clause by which he can have a pedigree bull of the same breed.

Then it was pointed out by somebody that there might be three or four small breeders who would like to use the same bull and we provided for that by saying: "used exclusively for the service of the same breed as the bull." Now we are asked to change that word "pedigree" and give the same rights to registered cattle as to pedigree cattle. What would be the effect of that? I could buy a good registered bull for £30 or less. I think Senator Butler will agree with me that I could get a registered bull for that price, whatever the pedigree might do. I know there are various Senators here who could tell us at what price we could get a registered bull. I should say a yearling could be got at anything from £15 to £20. Very well. Now, by this amendment you put it within the reach of everybody who has one single Shorthorn cow, a non-pedigree Shorthorn cow, in any district to say: "I want a bull, I want a registered dairy bull for this Shorthorn cow," and he can buy the bull cheaply. But you make certain that you will only get serious applications if you put in the word "pedigree." That bull is dearer. People will think twice before buying a pedigree bull. Only a genuine breeder of pedigree stock will buy a pedigree bull. It is only the man who is breeding stock for a definit purpose will go to the expense of buying a pedigree bull. If you put in the word "registered" you can purchase a bull for 20 per cent. of the price of the pedigree bull. Now, in Kerry, any man owning a Shorthorn cow could buy a registered cheap bull for the use of even one Shorthorn cow and could bring such a bull into any district. Hundreds of them would come in, and it would defeat the object of the Bill. You cannot prevent such a man from using his bull for the service of Kerry cows. The result would be it would be back in the same condition as before. It is a bit of a risk to take in a pedigree bull. But if the bull was to be a non-pedigree one, that bull could be bought cheaply and you would have ten such bulls for the one pedigree bull, and you would be back in the place where you started and it would be as well to delete the whole section. That would be the logical thing to do.

I do not think the Minister is very well acquainted with the prices that pedigree bulls realise. I can tell him there are very large numbers of pedigree bulls which, on account of colour or other causes can be bought just as cheaply as a good class of registered bull. I know that from practical experience. So he has got no safeguard really in the word "pedigree."


I may quote an answer to that. I saw 500 Aberdeen Angus and 500 Shorthorns sold recently, and out of the 500 of both kinds, there were a number sold under £30. The average would be £67.


We are on the Report Stage now, and it was because I thought Senator Sir John Keane was rising to reply to the Minister that I did not want to prevent his having put his points. But while some of these points are interesting, it is not possible in the Report Stage to fly backwards and forwards.

The Minister speaks from one instance and I speak from another.


I quoted 500 instances.

I have personal knowledge of these matters. I myself have purchased pure-bred dairy bulls that have been culled out from herds, and I got them very cheaply.


There must be something wrong with them, then.

Everybody knows that owners of pure-bred herds have to sell off a large number of their cows. They are very expensive to rear. Every pedigree Shorthorn breeder always culls out a certain number of his cows, very often because of their colour or other reasons. All along what I would like to bear in mind, and what I ask the Seanad to bear in mind is that the liberty of the subject is being glaringly infringed. The argument that these scheduled areas will be inundated with cheap bulls from the Department's Dairy Register, that is really a suggestion not worthy of consideration. Because while there may be cheap bulls, this register is an exceedingly valuable register, and it is getting increasingly valuable. Let us see what is happening —as these yields are going up, as these yields are increasing, the strain is improving, and while certain of these bulls may be of a cheap price, those bred from high yielding cows are certain in the future to become of great value. The Minister already knows how extremely difficult it is to get a really satisfactory dairy Shorthorn bull at anything like a reasonable price—I mean anything under 100 guineas. With the increase in the milk yield of the dam the value of the bull rises even now, and will rise more in the future. We hope to get a more vigorous, a more healthy, and a better shape of stock through the Department. Now we are here by legislation prohibiting the owner of breeding Shorthorns from availing himself of this sort of stock which the Government themselves have advertised and assisted in building up with very great care and patience. I can hardly trust myself to speak with moderation on this legislation; and I would like to ask the Seanad to say that there is not sufficient reason for this interference with the liberty of the subject.

Amendment put and negatived.

I beg to move amendment No. 10:—

New section. Before Section 5 to insert a new section 5 as follows:—

"5.—No licence shall be refused under Section 3, sub-section (2) or revoked under Section 4, sub-section (2) of this Act until one calendar year after the order has been published in the official gazette, prescribing the limits of the district in which, and the type and breed of bulls in respect of which, such licences are liable to be refused or revoked."

Possibly the references are not correct, but I should say the principle would apply.


If it is only the references it would be in order to take it.

It is only the references that are not correct. I really am not quite prepared to say how much cleaning up it will require, but I think the Seanad can see the principle at which I am aiming.


I think the best thing under the circumstances is to leave the amendment as it stands, and the Senator will then see whether the Seanad is prepared to accept it or not. It is difficult to say exactly. I think there is rather more than the references to the sections required in it, otherwise I should be prepared to take it.

We all know that the Minister has power to schedule certain areas, in which he will prohibit certain breeds. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the country will get notice of this fact. Breeders and others should have ample opportunity to find out what the intentions of the Government are in this matter. Owners might be contemplating buying certain bulls, or they might be developing other breeds of herds in certain directions, and it is only fair to give them a year's notice of any intention to limit their activities in the manner this Bill proposes. My personal opinion is that these whole powers are so interfering that they will not be availed of much. If they are availed of extensively, they are going to upset the breeding plans with regard to cattle to a considerable extent, and in view of that change breeders should be protected. The Minister should have a policy and foresee his plans. It is not unreasonable that he should give a year's official notice in some official publication of his intention to schedule a certain area and to restrict certain breeds in that area. That is what I seek by this amendment.

I second the amendment.


The question of the publication of statutory regulations under all statutes is being dealt with by a special Bill. I think that is the usual way of dealing with it. You never deal with the publication of regulation in the Bill itself. There is a Bill under consideration which will deal with the publication of statutory regulations, and perhaps that will satisfy the Senator with regard to publication.

I may say it is not statutory publication which will give notice of any such regulations. A statutory regulation is published in the Official Gazette, but very few farmers get the Gazette. If you want to advertise a remedy for fluke in sheep, and you put it in the Gazette for two years, farmers would know nothing about it. For the purpose of bringing it to their knowledge that a regulation has been made and an area defined official publication is not of much use. Look at the sequence of events: the Minister broaches the subject to the Department, and expresses the view that a certain area should be defined. The Consultative Council is called in. They have a public inquiry, and it appears in the papers. They come to a conclusion, and then the whole country knows about it. It is finally decided by the Department that an area should be defined. That is always published, and must be published immediately. There is no statutory duty on the Department to publish the thousand and one things which as a matter of business are published.

Publication in the Official Gazette would not be of much use. The real publication is the publication that takes place in the Press of the discussions in the Dáil, in the Seanad, and in the Consultative Council, and afterwards the publication of the decision to our instructors and inspectors. That is effective publication. I ask the Senator to agree with me that this question of the publication of statutory regulations should be dealt with in one Bill. With regard to the time, again there is a difference between us, and one that we will not, I am afraid, agree on. This will not and cannot in the nature of the case interfere with breeding arrangements. Just imagine the breeding arrangements in Kerry. Take Cahirciveen and Sneem, and around that district, which the Senator has mentioned. I say we can only define an area with the support of the farmers, and of the Dáil, and of the country. There is one area we could define with the support of everybody, namely, a certain district in County Kerry. You may, perhaps, get a number of people who would disagree, but you would get the support of the huge majority of every organised body of farmers. Supposing that is the district we are going to define. Where are the breeders in the district who are going to have all their plans put out by reason of the fact that only Kerry bulls can come into that district? I do not know them. A number of men can bring in a pedigree bull for the use of their own stock. If they are breeders—I think there are one or two herds of Shorthorns there—they will not be affected by this. If they want to bring in pedigree bulls they can, and this Bill will not stop them.

Where are the breeders who have been building up these herds, and how are they going to be affected by these regulations? A farmer in that district, having a valuation of £5 or £6, with a few Kerry cows, may be using a Galloway bull. He will be affected. That is the intention, and the ordinary run of Kerry farmers want a Kerry bull and no other, but there are no breeders to be affected in the sense that Senator Sir John Keane means. Sir John Keane doubted if this section could be put into operation at all. In fact, we will put that section into operation in that district. I doubt if there is any single body of organised farmers in Ireland who would not enthusiastically support this, and I have heard of no opposition to it from farmers. Sir John Keane says if you put this into operation it will cause tremendous hardship. To whom? I know of none, and I know the area fairly well. Senator Sir John Keane has made the point that some notice should be given. I suggest to the Senator that an amendment like this will meet the case. Remember, you are dealing with an area where at present there are largely only Kerry bulls, and where three-fourths of the bulls would be rejected under sub-section 2. The amendment I suggest is: "No regulation made by the Minister under this section shall come into force until the expiration of one month after it is made." They will then have all the notice in the sense that the Consultative Council have discussed the matter, and that a decision has been come to. If it is right to define an area at all, what is the point of putting it off for a year?

There is an enormous element of hypothesis in this, I think, until we know how the Minister is going to apply these things. It is largely guessing. A large measure of interference is quite possible under those provisions. I am not going to press this amendment. The Minister says that his contemplated action is going to be known one month before the regulation is in force. All cross breeding is going to be stopped.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.
The following Government amendment was agreed to:—
In Section 5 sub-section (2) after the word "fails" in line 62 to insert the words "without just cause or excuse."


That was agreed to in Committee. It was to meet the case where a man lost his licence.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

Section 8, sub-section (4). After the word "permit" in line 64 to insert the words "and such personal representative shall during such period or until such determination (as the case may be) be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the holder of such licence or permit."

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

In Section 10, sub-section (1) to delete in line 12 the words "and for the time being in force."

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

Section 12, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 63-64 the words "at his own option, any one of the following things" and to substitute therefor the words "such one of the following things as the Minister shall specify in the notice."


This amendment was agreed to on the Committee Stage.

That again takes away any option of the owner of the animal and gives autocratic power to the Minister.


I do not think there was a single objection in Committee. A man could spend two years fattening a bull and it would defeat the Act. That point is perfectly clear, and was agreed on in Committee.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

Section 14, paragraph (d) line 52, to delete the paragraph and to substitute the following paragraph in lieu thereof.

(d) serves under this Act either a notice requiring that a permit be taken out in respect of a bull or a notice requiring that a bull be slaughtered or a notice requiring that a bull be castrated.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

Section 12, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and the cost of such slaughter or castration shall be paid by the owner of the bull to the Minister on demand and may be recovered by the Minister on demand from such owner as a civil debt."


That was a suggestion of An Cathaoirleach and was agreed to by the Seanad in Committee.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—Section 12, sub-section (3), to delete the sub-section.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

Section 14, sub-section (4). After the word "licence" in line 9, to insert the words "or permit in lieu of such transfer."

That is a purely drafting amendment.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

Section 15, sub-section (2). After the word "persons" in line 42 to insert the words "(being persons having experience or special knowledge in relation to the matters on which the council may give advice or assistance to the Minister)."


The amendment was to ensure that the Consultative Council should consist of the right type of men.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

Section 20, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words:—

"save that

(a) this Act shall not apply to a bull kept solely for experimental purposes under and in accordance with the written authority of the Minister, and

(b) in the case of a bull lawfully imported into Saorstát Eireann after it has attained the prescribed age and in respect of which the prescribed conditions are complied with, this Act shall not apply to the bull until the expiration of the prescribed period after its importation into Saorstát Eireann."


As the Bill reads at present no licence will be granted for a bull which is defective or diseased. That is under Section 3. It is quite possible in experimental laboratories that a bull not up to the standard might be used for experimental purposes. It is to meet that case that I am asking the Seanad to insert the amendment. It is to meet Senator Butler's point.

I move

After Section 20 to insert a new Section 21 as follows:—

"21.—The Minister may establish a quarantine station in the Free State, and make suitable arrangements therein for the reception of imported cattle and for their care for a period to be prescribed by him, but no cattle shall be brought into the Free State without his licence."

There is a quarantine station in the North of Ireland, but none so far as I know, in the south. I asked the Minister on a previous occasion to speak on this subject and to tell us the advantage or disadvantage of having such a station. I think the Minister misunderstood me then, as he said that a quarantine station would be open to anyone from the other side of the channel who choose to bring cattle into it without licence, and in that way, perhaps, might spread disease. My idea was that cattle could be imported only and brought to the quarantine station under licence. Instead of importing cattle to the North Wall, where there is a certain amount of danger of spreading disease, my suggestion is that some place should be selected where animals could be kept for a certain time before being sent to the country. It has been stated that it might be expensive to set up a quarantine station. It would be if such a station was set up in the way that the Minister mentioned. Very few cattle, I suppose, are imported and I presume any that are imported come in under licence. Very few cattle would be in the quarantine station at the one time. Having such a place would make for the safety of the country from any outbreak of disease. I have been told that there is a place near Dublin where cattle can be kept. Perhaps that place might answer the purpose that I have in mind. An island would be the safest place for such a station.

I second the amendment.


The position is that a quarantine station may be established at present, so that Senator Colonel Moore's amendment would not give the Department any powers which they have not got already.

I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Government amendment was agreed to:
Section 23. To delete in line 50 the figures "1924" and to substitute therefor the figures "1925."

Is it proposed to pass the remaining stages of the Live Stock Breeding Bill to-night?


There would be no gain in doing so, as the Seanad will meet to-morrow. The Minister and the clerks will go through the amendments and see if they are in proper order. I think we should keep to the Standing Orders and take the final stage to-morrow.


took the Chair.