This section provides for a fine. I have not read the Principal Act so I speak as a fool speaketh, but I presume that the reason the export order is made is to get rid of something brought in which might render other articles of a similar kind liable to disease. I presume that the Principal Act includes the destruction of the article in connection with which the Order is made, but in this case, although you might get your £50 fine, the harm would be done if the creature were allowed to remain. Would the Minister say if the Principal Act includes destruction?
Prices Commission (Extension of Functions) Bill, 1938. - Diseases of Animals Bill, 1938—Committee and Final Stages.
The Customs (Consolidation) Act, 1876, gives the Revenue Commissioners powers either to destroy a prohibited article that comes in at the importer's expense, or to sell it and then recoup themselves of whatever expenses there might have been. They have no power to compel a person to export the article again, and we are adding that power here because, as Senator Robinson has pointed out, we would not like to have diseased eggs or poultry sold, as they would do the damage which we want to prevent. We might not like to have them destroyed because, although not useful to us, they might be useful to somebody else. We think the best thing in the circumstances would be for the Revenue Commissioners to have power to compel the person to re-export the goods back to where they came from.
I move:
That, pursuant to sub-section (2º) of Section 2 of Article 25 of the Constitution, Seanad Eireann concurs to the earlier signature by the President of the Diseases of Animals Bill, 1938.