Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jul 1947

Vol. 34 No. 2

Clean Wool Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

Question proposed: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

Prior to the recent war the greatest part of the Irish wool clip was exported, only a very small proportion being considered suitable for home manufacture. Imports of merino and other fine wools declined steeply in the early war years and progressively greater use was made of the home clip for manufacturing purposes here. With this development the desire on the part of merchants and manufacturers for cleaner fleeces marketed in better condition became more insistent. Their greatest complaints were against the use of tar, pitch and paint as substances for branding sheep, the use of bloom dips, which imparted a stain to the wool that would not scour out under the normal scouring processes, and against the inclusion of "daggings" in the fleeces.

The Irish Wool Federation and the Association of Woollen and Worsted Manufacturers pressed for the complete prohibition of tar, pitch and paint, but because alternative branding fluids were not then available in adequate quantities and because the step was considered too drastic, my Department was unable to agree to the proposed prohibition, but to meet the wishes of the trade to some extent and to try and improve the quality of Irish wool for the post-war export trade, the Emergency Powers Clean Wool Order (No. 85 of 1944) was made in March, 1944. Before the Order was made representatives of producers, merchants and other interested parties were consulted.

The provisions of the Clean Wool Order are as follows:—(1) Every person who shears sheep is required before shearing to separate from the fleece all wool on which tar, pitch or paint is present; (2) The purchase or sale of wool on which tar, pitch or paint is present is prohibited; (3) The manufacture, purchase or sale of sheep dip containing unnecessary colouring matter which imparts a stain or colour to the wool is prohibited.

The Order, backed up by propaganda in the nature of posters and leaflets issued by the trade associations in co-operation with this Department, brought about a considerable improvement. The Order was regarded as an educational measure rather than a penal one and prosecutions for contraventions of its provisions were not undertaken.

On the termination of the emergency, it was decided that the provisions of the Order should be embodied in permanent legislation as it would be a retrograde step to go back to the position which existed pre-war. A draft Bill was, accordingly, prepared but representations were again made by the merchants and manufacturers that the improvement brought about under the Emergency Powers Order had not been maintained and that nothing short of the complete prohibition of the use of tar, pitch and and paint would be effective. On further consideration in the Department it was decided to consult representatives of the wool producers, to put the facts before them and to ascertain their views on the total prohibition of the use of these substances.

The necessity for marketing Irish wool in the best possible condition has become all the greater in the post-war period as wool is one of the few raw materials of which there is a very large world surplus. Considerable difficultities are likely to be encountered in maintaining a satisfactory market for Irish wool either at home or abroad unless the highest standards of cleanliness are maintained. It is, in fact, understood that certain American buyers now require a warranty of freedom from tar, pitch or paint before purchasing Irish wool. The difficulty in this country arises mainly in the case of mountain flocks and black face sheep whose owners say that the marking fluids require to be put on at least twice a year and this creates a lot of difficulty for them. On the other hand, there is practically no home market for black face wool and it is necessary that this should be exported in good condition.

I may say that, in all the discussions which took place before this measure was introduced in the Dáil, the producers were made fully aware of its provisions. They did not like some of them, but on hearing the arguments that were advanced in their favour and on becoming aware of the necessity —because of some of the reasons that I have given—for the taking of some action along the lines indicated, they consented to the provisions contained in the Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

While I agree with what the Minister has said to a certain extent, I think it is not unfair to say that this Bill has been prepared from the merchant's point of view as against that of the producer's point of view. I think it is also fair to say that, taking the long view, the merchant's point of view will also be the producer's point of view. So far as that is concerned, I think it is desirable that the provisions of the Order should be continued in some form or another. The Minister will agree at once that, during the war, there was great difficulty in obtaining marking fluids with a sufficient degree of permanency without the use of what is termed in the Bill a prohibited substance. I agree at once that the use of tar will spoil a fleece permanently. Tar will spoil the product permanently, but I should like the Minister to assure the House that, when this prohibition is being made, there is even more than a likelihood, that there is a very strong probability, that there will be on the market, in sufficient quantity and at reasonable prices alternative marking fluids which can be used without danger to the fleece, because, unless they are available at suitable prices and in sufficient quantity, there would be no justification for the Bill.

So far as the framing of the Bill is concerned, I want to make only two comments. The Bill is really an enabling Bill. It enables the Minister to implement it by Order and does nothing more than that. When we have any enabling Bill before us, it is desirable that the Orders made by the Minister under it should be tabled before both Houses, so that the Oireachtas will know exactly what has been done, when it has been done and how it is to be carried out. Particularly in so far as Section 3 is concerned, it would be desirable that the Minister should table not merely the Order but also any further Order he may make under sub-section (3) revoking or amending the principal Order. I suggest that he might agree on Committee to an amendment towards that end.

I am a little worried about Section 5. I accept without question that no person should knowingly, or in circumstances in which he should have known, purchase or otherwise acquire, or sell or otherwise dispose of any wool in which a prohibited substance is present, but I think the section as drafted will be very difficult to operate. It is completely absolute and it may very easily happen, and, from what I can find out from wool merchants, does happen, that a great deal of wool is bought which, without any negligence or degree of culpability, may have some small amount of a prohibitive substance in it. Nevertheless, in such circumstances, there would be an offence under Section 5.

I do not want to bring the Minister even as far as saying that there must be positive proof that the person knew of the presence of the prohibited substance, because, just as I think the Minister has gone a little too far in the section, I should be going too far if I suggested that; but the Minister might agree that the section should be so drafted that a person would be committing an offence only if he knew, if the circumstances were such that, if he had carried on his business in a reasonable and proper way, he should have known, or if he had been negligent and blameworthy in not bothering to find out. Innocent circumstances may arise, and, I believe, will arise, under this section, and I suggest there should be some provision to cover such cases.

I do not know whether the Minister was with us when we argued this point before but, on the general principle, it is wrong to put into an Act an absolute offence and leave it merely to the discretion of a justice as to whether a man has been guilty of an offence, knowing that the justice must convict but need not impose a heavy penalty because he feels he is no more than technically guilty. I suggest that the wording of a statute should provide that, where a person is blameworthy, he should be visited with the full rigour of the law, but, where he is not, he should be entitled not merely to a conviction with a nominal penalty or to a dismiss under the Probation of Offenders Act but to an acquittal. I suggest that something in the nature of—if I may use the phrase without meaning to undermine what the Minister has in mind—a watering down of that section is desirable. If the person has been negligent and is not making any inspection, I agree that that is a proper offence; but where a person has, through no fault of his own, sold a small portion of wool, part of a fleece, where there is a prohibited substance, he should not be guilty of an offence and it would be wrong to impose on him a conviction— that the district justice should feel he is bound to convict him though he need not impose any serious penalty.

Mr. Counihan

I agree with Senator Sweetman about the Bill, which might be drastic and might inflict hardships on a person who, through no fault of his own, may commit an offence under this Bill. If Senator Sweetman drafts something for the Committee Stage, I am sure the Minister will agree with him. The tar marking of sheep has been advocated for a number of years by the wool merchants and they even send out samples of the particular branding which they want sheep owners to use when branding after shearing. I do not think there can be any great objection to making this Bill compulsory on the farmers although it is a merchant's Bill, it is still to the advantage of the farmer.

I am in agreement with the Bill, but would like to point out that it is introduced after the shearing season and the branding time and if it were put into effect this year it would create a lot of hardship, as most people brand their sheep with pitch and tar and, when it would come to the shearing next spring, if the pitch and tar are on the sheep the farmer is to be prosecuted and fined. The Minister should look into that. All sheep shorn in April and May were in most cases branded with pitch and tar and that will be on until the shearing season next year and, according to the Bill, the farmer must be prosecuted; so the Minister should see that these provisions will not be put into operation until next season.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

As soon as this Bill was circulated, I was very interested in it; and I am amazed to find that it went through the other House so quickly and with so little discussion, all stages going through in one day. Since then, I have discussed some of the points with the Minister. The Bill is not urgent now, as the shearing has taken place for this year and there will be no shearing until next May. If the Emergency Powers' Order which is in force had been complied with, there would at present be no tar branding at all, as this was prohibited under the Emergency Powers (Clean Wool) Order, 1944. In implementing in permanent legislation an Emergency Powers Order which was to a great extent incoperative, we should be careful to have this Bill enacted in terms which will be satisfactory.

As one of the individuals who may be concerned with the operation of this Bill, I would like to have it in a manner in which I could understand it. One of the suggestions I have to make is that the local authority officials should have imposed on them under this Bill the duties set out in the Emergency Powers Order, at least as far as the officials of County Committees of Agriculture are concerned. That is not introduced in this Bill and is a change from the wording of the Emergency Powers Order.

The definition of "sheep dip" does not satisfy me. It says:—

"The expression ‘sheep dip' means a substance or preparation which is a remedy for sheep scab and is used for the dipping of sheep."

Sheep are dipped for other purposes and if a farmer wished to evade this definition he could say there was no obligation at this time of the year to dip for that purpose and that he was dipping to prevent other parasites that affect the sheep skin and not for sheep scab. If I had to appear in court to try to prove such an offence, the solicitor for the defence could easily drive a coach and four through my case and the justice on the bench could do the same. The words "substance or" should be knocked out also, leaving it

"The expression ‘sheep dip' means a preparation which is used for the dipping of sheep".

Further, it could be a substance not necessarily used for the dipping of sheep but as an application to the wool or back of the sheep, as some dye substances are used for show sheep, which are not dipped at all. What is really a garden watering can is used to pour the colouring matter over the sheep's back. I have prepared a definition which would be far more effective than that in the Bill. It would read:—

"The expression ‘sheep dip' means a preparation which is used for the dipping of sheep or is applied otherwise as a preventative or treatment of skin parasites."

I can see why the Bill is drafted with the sheep scab mentality, as the Department of Agriculture is the controlling authority for animal diseases. They only view it from the point of view of the disease with which they are concerned, but intelligent farmers dip their sheep at many times other than the times during which they are compelled to do it by law as a preventive of sheep scab; so that definition should be altered.

When we come to the definition of wool, we find:

"The word ‘wool' means raw wool (including raw skin-wool)."

The hyphen is between "skin" and "wool". I do not know what exactly is meant by the words "including raw skin-wool". All the wool is raw, all the wool grows on the skin; so why the difference? I would interpret it to include the skins of sheep which are slaughtered and the wool attached to those skins. That point requires consideration. That requires very careful consideration, because in the case of animals sent to the market, or when 300 or 400 come to Dublin, it facilitates the owners when they are marked with colouring matter. As far as I know it is paint.

A water colour was previously used but on a wet day it was practically useless. We must have colouring matter which can be applied to sheep's wool which will be effective in identifying them subsequently for the owner, and will prevent contravention of the terms of Section 3. I assume that all these skins of sheep slaughtered in public abattoirs or private slaughterhouses, which have been marked with any identification mark on behalf of the owners, must comply with the terms of Section 3 and must not be marked with tar, pitch or paint.

Section 2 refers to an authorised officer appointed by the Minister. I should like the Minister to include there an officer of a local authority. I pointed out to his predecessor in connection with the Diseases of Animals Act that without the assistance of officers of local authorities, at least veterinary officers, the campaign against foot-and-mouth disease in 1941 would not have been as effective as it was. The Gardaí can supervise satisfactorily through the country, but it would help if an officer of a local authority was in a position to point out generally to a farmer, or to a breeder, what was a contravention. He could explain to an owner that he was making himself liable to penalties if he persisted in certain respects.

It would be an advantage if officers of local authorities, whether veterinary officers or agricultural instructors, were included as authorised officers. I am not thinking so much of giving them work or additional responsibility, but they would be in contact with farmers, and it would be in their interest that the terms of the Bill should be made known to them and in that way prevent contravention of its terms. Naturally, the work of officers of local authorities would be limited to their territory. There is a section in the Health Bill defining such limitations as far as officers of local authorities are concerned. No officer of a local authority is going to go outside the limit of districts which he is appointed to supervise.

In Section 3 there is a definition of prohibited substances meaning tar, pitch or paint. There is scarcely any necessity to define tar or pitch. Everyone knows what they look like, but I think it is necessary to define "paint". As far as my information goes water paint would not permanently discolour wool. Oil paint would be adhesive and would be permanent, and I assume would be difficult to deal with in the scouring process. I have seen paint sticks applied in orange, green and blue colours. These things are adhesive and will not wash out with rain. It would create a difficulty if they were included as "paint". I tried to see how permanent these things would be on wool. They are not permanent dyes. I have seen ordinary paint that is put on furniture and on windows applied by men who were in the market marking sheep. That is objectionable colouring matter but it comes under the heading of "paint".

There are other colouring matters which might be interpreted by some people as coming under the heading of paint. If Senator Counihan were prosecuted for bringing sheep into the market with such colouring matter, and if he employed Senator Sweetman to defend him in the courts, I have no doubt that the Senator would drive a coach and four through the terms of this section, and we would then be faced with what is known as inoperative legislation. My remarks are directed so that as a responsible House we should not have any legislation which might be inoperative. Despite all the farmers in the Dáil no one faced the difficulty of defining "daggings". It is a new word for the dictionary.

Mr. Sweetman

On this side of the House we do not use dictionaries.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I think the legal people are the people who use dictionaries most.

Mr. Smith

Do you know what the cattle trader said to Córas Iompair Eireann when he complained of bad transport?—"Come to the fair, Córas Iompair Eireann." If Senators want a definition of that I say: "Come to the fair."

Mr. Hayes

Heigh ho, come to the fair!

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I accept the Minister's joke. If the Minister was in court giving evidence, he would have to describe what he meant by "daggings", and if there was a lawyer defending he would say that it did not refer to "daggings" but to something else. I think there could be a simple definition of "daggings".

Mr. Smith

Let us have it.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

Fecal accumulation on the tail and perineum. I think it could be easily translated into Irish.

Mr. Sweetman

The asides cannot be heard here.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I have had experience of legislation passed in all seriousness by the Oireachtas, when it was uni-cameral, when we had not a Seanad to deal with it, where the court decided afterwards on cases that were brought before it and expressed an entirely different opinion from what was the intention of the Oireachtas. The Milk and Dairies Act, 1935, provided that where milk was being sold on the public thoroughfare the name and address of the seller should appear on the vehicle, whether it was a bicycle or a car or on the can if he had not a car or bicycle and that the words "bainne ar diol" should be displayed. It was very desirable that the officials of the corporation should know who the person was who was selling milk from door to door in this way and these words were the first words in Irish that were seen in every street in Dublin. When the corporation brought cases to court under the Act, at first they succeeded, but I do not know whether it was a wily solicitor or a wily justice who ultimately pointed out that selling milk on a door step was not selling milk on the public thoroughfare, that it was selling milk on private property if you went in a few steps on the garden. Cases were dismissed and no case can now be brought unless you find somebody selling milk at College Green, blowing a bugle, as you would sell ice cream. It is the lawyer's job to drive a coach and four through any Act we pass. In this case I would appeal to the Minister to take the suggestions seriously, because I believe they are of importance.

Section 4 provides that a person who shears sheep shall, before the shearing, separate from the fleece all wool on which a prohibited substance is present. If the Bill operates and if everybody keeps the law there will be no prohibited substance on the wool, unless the daggings and if the sheep were washed before shearing the daggings would be washed off. It would be impossible for a farmer to go around all his sheep before shearing, and if there was tar, pitch or paint on the wool to remove it before shearing. I maintain that the insertion of the words "or during" will make it intelligible and applicable. Anybody shearing sheep will remove these prohibited substances during the act of shearing.

Under Section 5, no person shall purchase or otherwise dispose of any wool on which a prohibited substance is present. Senator Mrs. Concannon has drawn my attention to the words "otherwise dispose of". That would mean that you could not throw it away Selling is defined in the Bill so I imagine the section would operate all right. I suggest that the words "otherwise dispose of" after the word "sell" are unnecessary.

Mr. Smith

Could you not barter?

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I was thinking that you could not present it to the Minister but I suppose there is the possibility of barter. If we have got to the stage of bartering I suppose the introduction of that term into the Bill would be necessary. We considered it was scarcely necessary to put in the words "otherwise dispose of". When you disposed of any article by bartering, I suppose the lawyers would agree that that amounted to selling. It would be exchanging at any rate.

In connection with Section 6, I am not sure of my ground, but I fancy that Section 6 should be part of Section 3 where the Minister defines "prohibited substance" and in the same section he could prohibit the use of the substance. However, that does not concern me so much. When we come to Section 9 it seems to me that the only attempt to enforce this Bill will be that an inspector will visit the premises of a wool dealer or a wool merchant, we will say, one of the bigger merchants in Dublin, and open one of these big bales of wool to see if there is any prohibited substance on it. That would be beginning at the wrong end and would be absolutely ineffective in producing clean wool, right up from the place at which it is shorn until it reaches the merchant or the miller. The section reads:—

"(1) An authorised officer shall be entitled at all reasonable times to enter any premises in which he has reasonable grounds for believing that wool is kept for sale or other disposal and may inspect such premises and examine and take samples of any wool which he finds therein."

I do not know if, under our laws, we shall always get the same definition for the word "premises" as we find in some Acts passed by the Oireachtas. There is no definition of the word "premises" in this Bill. In some Acts the word "premises" is defined to include land.

Mr. Sweetman

The word "premises" always includes land.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

If that is so I am satisfied, but I do not think that definition is given in some of the Acts passed here. I think the section I have read would seem to indicate that the term "premises" does not include land because it says "in which he has reasonable grounds for believing that wool is kept for sale". Wool is not kept for sale on land. It is kept under shelter in some premises. What I fear is that, under the section as drafted, a justice or a solicitor might say, for example, that the wool which was on Senator Counihan's farm after shearing, and which had all this objectionable material on it did not come within the terms of the section because it was found on land and not on any premises. What I am thinking of is, that the inspectors enforcing this measure will visit the premises of the wool merchant, or some other premises, such as a railway store, and examine the wool there. That, to my mind, would be absolutely ineffective. In saying that, I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not want any Senator to think that the farmer who produces wool should be harried by inspectors. I believe that, with an intelligent approach to farmers and sheep owners on the part of the inspectors, the things that are objectionable and illegal under this measure can be pointed out to them.

The best help that we could give would be to ensure that there will be no objectionable substances on the wool from the time it has been shorn until it goes to the wool miller. Obviously, the only satisfactory time during which those objectionable substances can be removed from the fleece is during or before shearing. No one is going to open bales of wool that have come from some other merchant. He will just take it for granted that it is all right. The wool will pass through several hands before it goes finally to the woollen miller. He will also take it for granted that it is all right. The time to prevent an offence being committed is when the wool is being shorn from the sheep. I would like to see the word "premises" defined as meaning land. If that were done then the word "kept" would not appear to me to be as objectionable as it is in the section. As it is, premises only means a railway store or some similar structure so that it provides an easy way out for an inspector to examine these places and forget all about making a proper inspection. I think that every farmer and sheep owner should be anxious to have the terms of this Bill complied with, if they can be complied with at present.

I should like to know if we have an indelible colouring matter which can be used as an identification mark on sheep and which will not be injurious to the wool in the subsequent processing? I have yet to get an assurance that that is so. The substances which we have tried under the Emergency Powers Order have proved ineffective. The oil paint which is being used at present in every municipal abattoir is not very effective on a wet day. I should like if the Minister could assure me that there is some substance available so that when farmers brand their sheep with it it will be indelible for the greater portion of the year, that it will be an effective method of indentifying a sheep where it happens to stray into a neighbour's farm or while it is on communal grazing land such as the Dublin and Wicklow mountains. There must be some method of identification of sheep on communal grazing land.

It is illegal at present to use tar, but we know that it is being used. I do not want to see this House enacting a Bill which will be inoperative. It may become operative by summoning every farmer who uses tar. His defence will be that he has nothing else which is effective to use. I would not like to see that position. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that some indelible dye is now available. I would also like him to consider the suggestions which I have made from the point of view of making the Bill a rational and operative one, while at the same time not imposing any extra inconvenience on the farmer who produces the sheep, the trader who has to identify the sheep or on the butcher who subsequently slaughters the sheep and marks it so that he will be able to identify it as his property when it is mixed with the sheep of many different owners in a large abattoir.

I must say that I was amazed that the Bill went through all its stages in the Dáil with such very little discussion and consideration. That is surprising since there are so many farmers in the Dáil interested in this matter. I do seriously point out on behalf of the producers of mutton, of wool and of the trade of the country that this is an important measure. Senators know well how tar is applied as a brand on sheep. The letter "C" is used for Counihan, and "D" for Donovan. The brands are put on with tar. I am told that no matter how you try to scour that fleece afterwards that the small black flecks will appear in an otherwise lovely, white blanket.

That is something we do not want to see happening to the products of our woollen mills of which we are so proud. We do not want, either, to create any inconvenience for the farmer who has to produce that wool. It is an important measure from every point of view and I should like to see it reasonably capable of operation when it passes from this House.

Mrs. Concannon

It may surprise the Minister to see me intervening in this debate, but the hurler on the fence sometimes sees more of the game than others, and what strikes me is that, if the provisions of the Bill are to be made operative, what Senator O'Donovan has stressed must be realised— there must be the provision of proper dipping and marking substances which will do their job. My object in rising is to suggest that that is a proper subject for investigation by the Industrial Research Council, and I think the Minister would be doing a good day's work if he asked his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to put it before that council.

Mr. O'Dea

Like Senator O'Donovan, I am rather worried about the use of the word "paint" in paragraph (a) of sub-section 3 (1). Furthermore, Section 7 (1) says:—

No person shall manufacture any sheep dip, whether it is or is not approved sheep dip within the meaning of the Sheep Dipping Order, which contains colouring matter (not being an ingredient essential for preventing or treating sheep scab) and which, when applied in any manner to sheep, imparts a stain or colour to the wool.

If it is a brand, surely it must impart a colour? With regard to daggings, I do not know if I caught Senator O'Donovan's definition correctly. He referred to fecal matter, and, so far as I could understand, left out the very important matter, wool.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I said, "fecal accumulation on tail and perineum."

Mr. O'Dea

I hope we will not put that into the Bill. We know what a fecal accumulation is and to put it into the Bill would reduce it to an absurdity. If he said "wool covered with fecal matter"——

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I suggest we can insert the words "on the wool of tail and perineum". Would that meet the Senator's point?

Mr. O'Dea

It would, but I think Senator Sweetman would have the defence: "What is fecal matter?" when attached to the wool. Is it clay or fecal matter? It is very dangerous to go into these definitions.

Mr. Smith

Senator Sweetman made a point on Section 5 on which we had a discussion in the other House. Representatives of the trade saw me with regard to this section prior to the introduction of the Bill, but, after arguing the whole matter out with me, they agreed, perhaps reluctantly, that there was no way of dealing with it, other than the way provided in this section. I was interested to hear if Senator Sweetman could suggest any other set of words which would give the power to make this proposal operative and, as I say, in my discussions with the people in the trade, who do not like this section any more than Senator Sweetman, they were unable to be helpful to me, but they went away feeling that it was the only way out.

I am assured that the necessary suitable fluids are available, and, of course, there could be no question of making a prohibition against the use of other objectionable substances, unless and until these are on the market in sufficient quantity and of the quality which would achieve, so far as possible, the purpose desired by the farmer, while, at the same time, doing the minimum of injury. Senator Counihan has suggested that this was a measure largely designed by those immediately concerned in the trade. The same question was put to me, perhaps in another form, in the other House. It was put in this way: what benefits are likely to result for the producer from the passage into law of these proposals?

Mr. Counihan

They are already branded.

Mr. Smith

That is a type of question to which it is not easy to give an answer, but, as I tried to make clear in my opening remarks, the difficulties of securing a market for a particular type of wool are fairly great, and there are certain buyers who have already been asking for assurances and guarantees that the wool does not contain any tar, pitch, paint, or other objectionable substances, and, while it is not easy to prove to the producer what he will actually get as a result of the prohibition, those immediately concerned in the trade are the first to be confronted with this proposition and they naturally are the first to convey to the Government the steps which must be taken to eliminate this undesirable practice.

The fact that producers, as I have told the House, have agreed to these proposals, and have agreed to abandon a custom, a long-established, if undesirable, custom, on hearing the arguments in favour of its abandonment, should, I believe, bring home to all our minds the need for abandoning it. They are the first people who would make a protest loudest and longest, and, when they have accepted the provisions of this Bill, there must be a good case for it.

Senator Counihan mentioned the danger of doing an injustice to those who had already branded their sheep. I gave an assurance in the other House that that would not occur.

In reply to Senator O'Donovan, I might say that in regard to Section 9 I am circulating an amendment. As Senator Sweetman has pointed out, the word "premises" includes land, but the whole section appears to be weak and requires strengthening, so I am circulating an amendment to improve it. Some of the other points made by Senator O'Donovan can be discussed on the Committee Stage. I do not think there is very much in any of them and some could be accepted without making much difference one way or the other. If the Senator feels strongly about them, we are open to consider them.

It is difficult to argue these matters on the Second Reading. I thought this Bill would slip through here just as it slipped through the other House, but seeing that is not going to be the case,. I might as well face it and take it inch by inch. Having expressed my disappointment, there is scarcely any reason to argue these different points with Senator O'Donovan now. Therefore, I will be satisfied with the Second Reading, and we will deal with these points on another day.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 9th July.