I do not know if the Seanad would permit me to amend the amendment on the Order Paper by the insertion of the word "external" after the word "other" in the last line—"or any other parasitic disease of sheep".
Clean Wool Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 13, to delete the words "sheep scab" and substitute the words "or preventative of sheep scab or any other parasitic disease of sheep".
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
I drew the Minister's attention to this matter but I still believe that the amendment suggested by myself is phrased better, for the reason that it covers what the Minister referred to on Second Reading. Bloom Dip is applied to the wool of sheep for show purposes without being in any way an application for sheep scab or any other parasitic affection. That was the reason I put down the amendment on the Order Paper, suggesting that the expression "sheep dip" means a preparation which is used for the dipping of sheep or is applied in any manner to the wool of sheep. The preparation may not actually be applied for the purpose of preventing or curing sheep scab or any other parasitic skin affection. I maintain that the Bloom Dip is still not covered. The definition of "sheep dip", even with the amendment just now made in the Government amendment, does not cover it. That was why I put down this wider definition which would include any preparation applied to the wool of sheep even for the purpose of colouring. This dip is very often applied to sheep—more frequently, perhaps, to rams—for show purposes. I fear that those colouring fluids will not come within the Minister's amendment.
We regard the Senator's amendment as too wide. We have considered the matter very carefully and we are meeting the matter to the fullest extent possible.
Does the Senator think that the Minister is pulling wool over his eyes?
As I did suggest an alteration, I think that these other parasitic affections are not classified as diseases. I suggest that the word "affection" be used instead of "disease" in the Minister's amendment.
Disease could result from them.
If the maggot eats into the sheep, there would, of course, be a lesion. I do not think that "disease" is the best word. I suggest that the amendment be altered to "any other external parasitic affection of sheep." I do not like the word "disease", not that it makes a lot of difference, I presume.
I do not think it indicates anything.
All right, Sir.
Amendment No. 1, as amended, agreed.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 26 to insert the words ", of the council of a county or of the corporation of a county borough" before the word "appointed" and in sub-section (2), page 2, line 29, to delete the words "is an officer of" and substitute the words "was appointed by".
This amendment is designed to meet an objection raised here in the course of a previous discussion as to the desirability of giving power to the officers of local authorities to do certain things. There are some objections to extending the scope of the measure in this way but, taking it all in all, I believe it might be better to do as I was requested to do in that previous discussion. This amendment is designed for that purpose.
I raised this matter also on the Second Reading. I am glad that the Minister has accepted it now in the form of this amendment. It is more comprehensive than the amendment which I suggested, because in my amendment, I simply put in the words, "or of a local authority". This is a draftsman's amendment and covers the point more satisfactorily. I am satisfied with the Government amendment. I have one note to add—that I cannot understand why they changed the tenses here and substituted the words, "was appointed by". I suggest "is appointed by", and thus have it all in the same tense. However, that is only one little item. I think the amendment covers the point which I raised on the Second Reading—utilising officials of local authorities as well as officials of the State.
I am advised that "was appointed by" is the proper wording.
All right.
Amendment No. 3 agreed.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), line 38, page 2, before the word "paint" to insert the word "oil".
I submit this as an amendment to the wording to which I referred on the Second Reading. In Section 3, sub-section (1), paragraph (a) the wording is, "is, or contains, tar, pitch or paint,". On the Second Reading, I referred to the ambiguity of the word "paint". My suggestion is that we insert the word "oil" before "paint", making the paragraph read, "is, or contains, tar, pitch or oil paint". Several of these paint sticks are used at present and they could be classified as paints but they are grease sticks; their base is grease. I have spoken to some people on the subject and I think there is no objection to that. The objection is to the tar, pitch or a paint of the type that hardens into a solid surface on wool, such as paint on a building or a door. That is the type of paint that is objectionable and that cannot be removed from the wool fibre on the subsequent scouring and washing. The other grease paints, I am given to understand, can be removed. I really want to facilitate the interpretation of what we pass as legislation for the official of the State or the official now of a local authority who will be trying to implement the legislation later on. I think the insertion of the word "oil" will make the scope of the section more restricted.
In the previous case when I suggested an amendment the Minister said it was making it too wide. I want to restrict the scope of the colouring material which can be classified as paint to the extent that it will only be an oil paint. Someone may say that a varnish paint could do the same thing: that it will solidify and harden and become permanent on the wool fibres. Varnishes are added to oil paints and I think the varnish paint will also have an oil base in it. If we include the word "oil" I believe it will clarify the position for those people who understand this subject.
I do not know if I made the statement attributed to me by the Senator when we were discussing this amendment previously—that this suggestion of his would be likely to extend the scope——
It was just now in connection with the definition of "sheep dip". It was not on a previous occasion, it was just now.
Anyhow, whatever I have previously stated, my view now is that the insertion of the word proposed by the Senator would have not a widening but a limiting effect which I am not at all anxious to give to the section, because when we use the term "paints" it can cover a very wide range of substances. If we insert the word "oil" it has in our view—and I agree with it—a limiting effect.
There is no doubt about that.
That is what I say.
I do not want, therefore, to accept an amendment that would have that limiting effect. I have now specified certain substances that cannot be used. I have power here to increase the number or if I find that a substance is being used that is harmful I have always power to add it to the list. I think the Senator will agree that it would confer no benefit whatever. In fact, in my view it would do the opposite if we were to insert the word "oil" before "paint".
The Minister and myself are in agreement on this matter. What I suggest is a restriction on the interpretation of the word "paint." The marking materials which are being used at present are very numerous but they are not oil paints. I have spoken to wool merchants about this matter. This is a grease stick. I used the word "lipstick" the last day in describing it. It temporarily marks the wool of a sheep. Most people in the trade call this "paint". It is called a "paint stick". Others go around marking sheep with an ordinary tin of household paint and that, to my mind, and to the minds of those who are dealing in the wool trade, is the thing that is objectionable. I would again point out to the Minister that what I am suggesting is a restriction of the interpretation of the word "paint." I want it more restricted than what it is by simply calling it "paint." These materials are described by the trade as "paint sticks" but actually there is nothing in them to object to. If we include these in the interpretation of a "paint" we will make it very hard for traders in the market who marked their sheep yesterday morning. Every butcher who buys a sheep marks it with a stroke or an initial which will indicate to him when he sees the animal again that it belongs to him. That paint stick is called "paint" in the trade but we should not include that type of paint stick in our definition of the word "paint" and that is why I suggest the word "oil-paint" which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who have been discussing the matter with me, precludes what is objectionable and allows that which is not objectionable. That is the point of my amendment.
I have no objection to the use of any paint which is not harmful, that can be scoured out. I have objection to any paint that cannot be scoured out. There are stains other than paint that cannot be scoured out.
That will have to be covered by some other classification.
Think of what you are trying to put over on me.
Is it wool?
There are stains which cannot be scoured out and which are not oil-paints. If I were to accept the amendment, these stains could be freely used. Is the Minister not in a stronger position by allowing the use of paints which are not injurious and prohibiting the use of paints that are injurious and if, in the course of time, somebody devises some other paint that is harmful, it can be prohibited? If I were to accept your amendment it would mean that only oil-paints would be excluded.
It is in order for the Minister to address a private conversation to Senator O'Donovan, that we cannot hear?
If it is not in order, then I will address the Chair. Senator O'Donovan has shown a very keen interest in all this.
I was trying to save Senator O'Donovan a little.
I think Senator O'Donovan will agree that if I were to accept the amendment proposed by him, I would be limiting the powers which I have and which I require and he will agree that that would be undesirable.
The Minister can subsequently extend the Order to include any of these substances but I put it to him that if the Bill becomes an Act next October, the following market day, if a Guard goes into the Dublin cattle market and, on his interpretation of the Act, defines markings on the wool of the sheep which he will see there as paint, as I think he must from the wording of the section, he can prosecute every owner of sheep in the market.
He may prosecute but it is the justice who will interpret the Act.
That is what I want to object to, the fact that these things come before a court.
I am not surprised that the Senator is objecting to that, to-day.
I am not referring to sun-bathing now.
Neither am I. There was a much nastier crack than that this morning.
We can carry a lot.
The Minister must not interrupt.
There is too much legislation which has to be taken to the courts to interpret and for solicitors to drive a coach and four through. I want to avoid that. I want that there shall be in the legislation which is passed a law which can be interpreted satisfactorily by the official who will be trying to enforce it so that he will not be, so to speak, making a fool of himself by prosecuting a person for having a grease-stick mark on wool, to be told by the justice that it is a preposterous case, which should not have been brought. Then we would have the justice making a speech as to his interpretation of the law. I do not want that to occur in this case. It occurs under various laws. Therefore, I seriously suggest to the Minister that when we pass this legislation we should know, and make it sufficiently intelligible for the official or Guard who will be enforcing it, what is meant by the Bill. I appeal to the Minister that the word "oil-paint" should be included rather than simply "paint".
Ceist anbheag ar fad í seo. Níl ann ach go gcuirfí inúil insan mBille cad atá ag teastáil ón Aire, agus ba cóir go mbeadh Béarla go leór ag lucht dréachtcheaptha an Oireachtais chun é sin do chur síos i slí so-thuigthe. Sé, mar a mheasaim, atá ag teastáil go mbeadh sé ina dhlí ná féadfaí aon adhbhar datha ná aon adhbhar eile do-scriosta dathacháin d'úsáid i marcáil caorach. Ná féadfaí a chur síos "péint nó aon adhbhar do-scriosta eile"; agus má ceaptar rud nua ar ball, agus go gceapfar go cinnte, agus go mbeadh sé do-scriosta, bhéadh sé sin arís ar aon dul le péint ola. Nach leor, "paint or any other ineradicable marking material" agus é fhágaint mar sin?
I am in no sense an expert. I have listened to the discussion and I am rather inclined to think that Senator O'Donovan is right in the point which he has made. Section 3 defines what is a prohibited substance. Any paint, even washable paint, seems to be a prohibited substance provided it is paint. Section 5 (1) provides that no person shall purchase or otherwise acquire or sell or otherwise dispose of any wool on which a prohibited substance is present. It seems to me that if any paint is according to this Bill a prohibited substance, the Minister may not have the discretion to allow washable paints which he might otherwise be willing to agree to. It does seem as if there is a flaw and one that ought to be looked into carefully.
The prosecutions are brought by the Minister.
Níl theastaíonn uaim ach iarraidh ar an Seanadóir An Seabhach go mbreathnochadh sé ar fó-ailt (2), alt 3 agus feicfidh sé annsin go bhfuil leigheas díreach mar atá sé ag iarraidh ar an deachracht atá sa scéal. Forgraítear i fó-ailt (2) gur féidir don Aire am ar bith a cheapann sé gur gá é a dhéanamh aon adhbhar nua dathacháin do chose má's dóigh leis gur adhbhar é a dhéanfadh dochar don olann. An méid atá an Seabhach ag iarraidh, tá sé ar fáil, agus go soiléir, insan mBille.
Má tá, fág ansin é.
I am afraid I do not think the Minister quite appreciates the point. I disagree with a great deal of what Senator O'Donovan says but I think he is right in his amendment. As the section is now phrased, there may be a paint that the Minister and I agree is entirely harmless and even though that paint is harmless any man that uses it is committing an offence. The Minister's answer to that is "I am the person who is going to prosecute and I am not going to prosecute unless I think it is harmful." I object to that very strongly. I want to obey the law. I want to be in a position to advise farmers who come to me for advice as to what is the law but if any farmer says to me: "Here is a paint; it is not going to do any harm; it is going to be washable in three days; can I lawfully use it?" I must on this section say, "No, you cannot." The fact that the Minister is going to use his discretion to permit what is in fact a breach of the law—a technical breach I admit—is no defence to the amendment put down by Senator O'Donovan. I am not satisfied that the Senator's wording in the amendment is quite the right one because I am not sufficient of a technician on paint to know whether there could not be an oil paint that would wash out of wool and another type of paint that would not. The point underlying Senator O'Donovan's amendment is that this prohibited substance should be restricted to paint that cannot be washed off. I think he is entirely correct on that.
I strongly support the principle that has been stated by Senator Sweetman. It is surely quite wrong to prohibit a certain thing in an Act of Parliament and then allow the Minister to turn a blind eye on it. That is what the issue involved here comes to. The effect of the Minister's argument on this section would be to allow him to violate the provisions in an Act of Parliament. If the Minister wishes to have a discretion, then there should be a definition of paints—of oil paint or water paint—but if the use of paint is to be prohibited under the law, then no paint should be allowed to be used. If there is a harmless paint the section might be altered to permit the use of it, but if a thing is prohibited under the law then it would be quite wrong to give the Minister power to say whether or not it should be enforced.
Mr. Hawkins
Is it not essential that, as occasion demands, the Minister should have the power to define what the substances used should be? Under this Bill we are not catering for the present day only. This Bill is going to make provision for the future, and while there may not be on the market at the present time substances composed of paints or of branding tars made from oil or from water which may be harmful to the wool, it is quite possible that in the not too distant future there may be some such brands put on the market. Therefore, if the Minister had not this power he could not prevent their use. Under the Bill a prohibited substance is defined as a substance which contains "tar, pitch or paint". Where the Minister is of opinion that any substance is unsuitable for the branding of sheep he may, by Order, prohibit the use of it. It is clear, therefore, that that must be done by Order. The people carrying out the inspections will be in possession of a copy of the Order and will be familiar with its terms, so that the danger cannot arise that inspectors administering the Act will take people to court for failing to carry out the regulations.
I will be kind to the Senator by saying that I almost fell into the same trap myself.
Mr. Hawkins
The Senator need not be kind to me.
It is quite clear that the section does two different things. It defines prohibited substances, and once the Act is signed these substances are prohibited and cannot be changed by Order. There is no power given to the Minister to exercise a discretion. The position is different under sub-section (2). I agree with Senator Hawkins' argument so far as that is concerned, because it gives the Minister power to add a new substance if one should come on the market. That is quite a proper thing to do in these modern times. The Minister, however, is not given power to alter sub-section (1) of Section 3 which is the thing that we are discussing. He has no power, once the word "paint" is put in, to alter the definition of the word "paint" and say what paint should be harmful and what paint should be harmless. I was in danger of falling into the same trap myself, and very nearly said so openly.
It may not be desirable that the word "paint" or "paints", as Senator Sir John Keane has stated, should be in the Bill in this form. It might be more desirable if the word "paint" or "paints" could be more clearly defined. I am invited to limit the word "paints" by the insertion of the words "oil paint". My reply is that I cannot accept it because there are other substances and other stains that could be harmful to the wool. If I were to accept the amendment I could not proceed against those who use those other substances.
Could the Minister not proceed under sub-section (2)?
If I were to get a wider definition I do not know what may come on the market. If I were to include spirit stains or plastic paints I do not know but that in a month's time there would be some new discovery of an entirely different type of paint. If that were not covered in the definition, and if I were to broaden the definition beyond what Senator S. O'Donovan is proposing, I find myself in difficulties. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with the use of the word "paints." There are certain paints of the branding type to which Senator S. O'Donovan has drawn attention in regard to the use of which there is no objection. They are not harmful.
But you must prohibit the use of them.
Suppose I were to get a report from a Garda officer or from anybody else and decided to take proceedings against a man for having used paints, then I must establish to the satisfaction of the court that the paints he used were harmful to the wool.
Certainly not.
Surely, if I am to get a conviction against a man in court I must establish the fact that the paint used damaged the wool.
No, you have not. The Minister has not read his own Bill.
I know the substances that are prohibited and, naturally, if I take a man to court I must satisfy the court that he has used substances that are injurious as far as the wool is concerned.
That is not the Bill.
We are having a great deal of discussion on what ought to be a technical matter. We are discussing this as if there was a difference of opinion between us as to what is desirable. There is no difference of opinion. Nobody on this side of the House objects to the Minister getting power to make an Order. In the case of other Bills we might object to the giving of that power, but in this case we are not objecting to the Minister having full power. This Bill deals with two kinds of things. You have first of all the things which are set out in sub-section (1) of Section 3. The Minister cannot change these by Order. Under sub-section (2) the Minister has full power to prohibit the use of any substance. I think the mistake the Minister has made is in having sub-section (1) of Section 3 in the Bill. I think what the Minister should do is to provide that a prohibited substance is any substance which the Minister has prohibited on the ground that the use of it would do harm—that it would damage the wool or the saleability of the wool. I think that if the Minister were to insert a provision of that sort and drop sub-section (1) of Section 3 he would have complete power, and there would be no need for Senator O'Donovan's amendment or for any other amendment. I think that the use of the word "paint" may limit the Minister because he could not say in an Order that a certain type of paint was allowed. He would have to do it by administrative action which we feel is a mistake and which I think he will find in practice is a mistake. I therefore suggest that he should carefully consider this matter—it might be possible to take it again this evening—because it is important. If he changed sub-section (1) to provide that a prohibited substance is a substance prohibited under sub-section (2) he would get full powers and it would meet Senator O'Donovan's point.
I agree with the point put forward by Senator Douglas. I am glad that so many people appreciate my point, which was referred to as a trivial matter. It is not such a trivial matter, because it is one of the things which can bring the law into disrepute and disrespect. There is nothing more objectionable than passing legislation which just becomes a laughing stock. I am convinced that that is what would happen as a result of this legislation being passed as it is now. I appeal to the Minister to consider the matter in the interval and we can take it later on.
I cannot accept the amendment that Senator O'Donovan is suggesting.
I suggest that the Minister could accept it, because it simply puts in what any practical people will not interpret as an objectionable thing. The other colouring matters which are objectionable will be prohibited. By inserting the word "oil" we restrict it to the paint which we understand is objectionable, just the same as everybody understands that tar and pitch are objectionable. If the Minister accepted the amendment he would still have power to cover any objectionable article subsequently under sub-section (2). There is the other alternative suggested by Senator Douglas to delete sub-section (1) altogether leaving the Minister power to deal with any specific matter by Order specifically referring to the objectionable articles and definitely excluding these colouring matters which are so useful to vendors and purchasers. That course would be acceptable if there were any objection to accepting my amendment. By that means he could restrict the colouring matters to oil paints. Then, if he finds there are other colouring matters which would be objectionable, he could include them by Order subsequently. I certainly ask him not to leave it as it stands so that all these colouring matters would be prohibited by law. I do not think we should do that.
I press the Minister to accept the suggestion put forward by Senator Douglas in the interest of orderly and decent legislation. The Minister said it might be desirable to adopt the suggestion made by me and not have the word "paint" in the Bill without a clear definition of it. If he makes that admission, it is most unsatisfactory to proceed with the Bill as it is. Some time later in the day he really ought to try to meet what he admits himself is objectionable. The whole difficulty is rather complicated by the fact that we have to finish to-day. It is a matter which we should consider at a later stage if possible.
Perhaps Senator O'Donovan would withdraw the amendment for the present and let the Committee Stage proceed so that the Minister may consider what ought to be done between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage. In the light of the points which have been made, it must be obvious to the Minister that it would be an impossible Act to administer. You would have the Garda taking up one man who had paint and passing another man who had paint. That would be difficult to explain so far as the Garda are concerned.
I have here something which might perhaps meet the point made by Senator O'Donovan, "is, or contains, tar, pitch or paint incapable of being removed by scouring".
I want to raise my voice in support of the suggestion made by Senator Douglas. I think it is a matter which should be considered well, because one type of paint which is very largely used to-day is not technically a paint at all, namely, cellulose. If you have to meet a situation in which people would be seeking to evade the law, "oil-paint" will not bring in the technical material known as cellulose, because cellulose is not a paint at all but a fluid which has painting properties. I feel that there is something to be said for Senator Douglas's suggestion. This whole matter is so important that the Minister should consider the arguments put forward and before the Report Stage see how the situation could be met.
I urge Senator O'Donovan to accept the Minister's suggestion, because I think it meets the point at issue. I want to have it clearly on record what the legal effect of this section and this Bill is, because the Minister has given an explanation which is not correct. Once any person puts on a substance that is prohibited under Section 3 (1) in this Bill, ipso facto that person commits an offence. Whether the Minister thinks it is beneficial to the wool or not, the person has committed an offence. I object very strongly to a person committing an offence and then its being left to somebody else to say “although it is an offence, it is an offence that we can let go. We need not prosecute. We can wink our eye at it.” I want the Minister to have every possible power, and I think he has every possible power under sub-section (2) to provide that any undesirable substance is a prohibited substance. I do not want, however, any possibility of there being a position, as there is under the Bill, in which the Minister cannot declare a harmless substance to be harmless, because that is the effect of the Bill as it stands.
I withdraw the amendment and accept the Minister's suggestion which I think meets the point which I raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We will take the Minister's suggestion on the Report Stage.
Take it now, if you like.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
Section 3, sub-section (1), after the word "paint" in line 38 to insert the words, "incapable of being removed by scouring".
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), line 40, page 2, to delete the word "daggings" and to insert the following words, "fæcal accumulation on the wool of the tail and perineum".
I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to accept this definition. If there had been a definition of paint, in the first instance, we would not have had the long discussion we have had. On the last occasion on which we discussed this, I said that the word "daggings" was not in the dictionary. It was not in the concise Oxford Dictionary, but I have since looked up a legal dictionary and I find there a definition of the word which is remarkably similar to the definition I suggest here.
That is a very popular dictionary.
I am quite prepared, if the Minister objects to the inclusion of these words, to withdraw the amendment, because I find now that there can be no confusion if the matter goes to court. It is the court proceedings to which reference was made in the previous discussion that I am wary of, but I feel that there will be no difficulty now because the word is defined in a legal dictionary which must be accepted by solicitors. I think it would be far better to insert these words, but, if the Minister does not wish to accept the amendment, I am prepared to withdraw it.
It would save people having to buy a dictionary.
I am not accepting the amendment.
I very much prefer the definition in the Bill to the Greek definition which Senator O'Donovan suggests. Everybody in the country knows what daggings are.
No.
The definition in the amendment would not cover the whole of the daggings. The Minister and any farmer know that mountain sheep particularly are never washed and the underneath wool is always coated with mud which would not come within Senator O'Donovan's definition. Everybody in the country knows what daggings are and there might be some district justices who might not be able to follow the definition which Senator O'Donovan suggests. He said on a previous occasion that Senator Sweetman or Senator O'Dea would be able to drive a coach and four through it, but they would require the assistance of Senator Ryan to enable them to get a conviction with regard to daggings. I prefer the definition in the Bill.
I cannot accept the Senator's statement that everybody in the country knows what daggings are. I have been to an agricultural college and I have been farming for 20 years and I do not know what it means. I have beside me an auctioneer who deals with farmers and he does not know, and there is a professor of agriculture in the House who has also told me that he never heard the word.
Would Senator Counihan tell us what daggings are? He is the great authority on the matter.
No. The Senator to your right is the authority. He has defined the word.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1), line 7, page 3, to delete the words "before the shearing" and insert instead the words "before or during the act of shearing".
I think it is important to insert these words. The section sets out that a person who shears sheep shall, before the shearing, do certain things. I suggest we insert instead "before or during the act of shearing". Anybody looking at it from the practical point of view will agree that the amendment is necessary. If the law is obeyed, there will be no tar, pitch, paint or objectionable substances on the wool, but nobody can control the presence of daggings, and if these or any of these prohibitive substances are on the wool a farmer would have to go over perhaps 50 sheep individually before they were shorn. The time to do it is during the act of shearing and I maintain that the inclusion of these words will make the section operative. Without these words, the clause will be ineffective and inoperable and will constitute a hardship on a farmer.
Would the Senator suggest the word "during" by itself?
No. Let him do it before shearing, if he wishes. I want to ensure that it will not be attempted to be done afterwards and then, so to speak, forgotten. I want to ensure that it will be done at the feasible time, that is, mainly during the act of shearing. It is easy to remove the tar brand before shearing, but it is during the shearing that he must remove daggings, if daggings be present. He cannot very well do it before shearing. It would be quite simple to include these words and I can assure the House that it is the practicable way of dealing with the matter.
There is no real objection to this, but it does not add to the section in any way. It might perhaps make the section a bit more tidy to include the words, but what I am anxious to secure is that, before the wool is rolled up, this objectionable matter will have been removed. The Senator is concerned about legal difficulties and legal quibbles. He has treated us several times to statements as to the danger of using ambiguous terms and has spoken of the difficulty of district justices or other judges in interpreting what we had in mind, but I think it was clear from the section as it stands that I was likely, without any confusion whatever, to achieve the purpose which will be achieved by the acceptance of the amendment.
The inclusion of these words will make the section far more satisfactory.
It will make it look a little better, but it does not mean the slightest thing.
I suggest it does mean a lot.
I suggest that the section as it is is clear. Some people have said that they do not understand what daggings are. There may be a difference between people who own and count sheep and people who work amongst sheep. I happen to be one of those who worked amongst sheep. I have done shearing myself, and I suggest that, generally speaking, daggings are removed, not before or during, but after shearing. When the fleece is thrown on the ground, a fellow goes along and clips off the daggings. The section is quite clear as it stands and it is much better that the sheep should be dealt with before shearing than either during or after shearing.
Senator Quirke mentioned that it is after the shearing the daggings are removed. Therefore, he is speaking contrary to what is in the sub-section, which says "before the shearing." My suggestion is that the daggings should be removed before or during the shearing.
Senator Quirke has explained that the practice is to have the daggings removed after the shearing. His point is that the word you suggest—"during"—is undesirable. However, we will accept the amendment to show there is no coolness.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (2), to insert after the word "who" the words "to his knowledge or by reason of his negligence".
The Minister and I had some discussion on this point on a previous stage of the Bill. I do not want to weary the House by going over it again. As the section stands, any person, no matter how innocently, and if he does it without any negligence, who purchases wool on which there is a prohibited substance, contravenes the section and is guilty of an offence. The Minister was prepared to go so far on the last day as to say that was undesirable, but he could not find any form of words that would save him. I suggest that the words I propose, protect the Minister completely.
I am entirely with the Minister in this, that anybody who deliberately tries to purchase, otherwise acquire, sell or otherwise dispose of wool on which there is a prohibited substance present, is guilty of an offence. If he does that deliberately, or is so negligent as not to take the trouble to make a proper examination, he should be convicted. But I am told by the biggest people in the trade that this section means that inevitably men buying a lot of wool cannot avoid occasionally—very occasionally—purchasing a fleece with a prohibited substance in it. I suggest that it is reasonable to make those people liable for their negligence, liable for their deliberate act, but it is unreasonable to make them guilty of an offence if that occurred quite innocently and they are able to satisfy the court that it is so.
When would I get a conviction if I were to accept the amendment? Will the Senator explain in what set of circumstances I would get a conviction if I were to accept the amendment?
At any time.
I suggest the Senator should withdraw the amendment. If I were a legal man, my mind would probably run along the same channel as his. If the amendment were accepted a case might go from one court to another until possibly the next wool clip would catch up with it. There is no reason why people in the business should not be made responsible. It should not be made so easy as Senator Sweetman suggests. The section is much better as it stands.
As I explained to Senator Sweetman, we had a long discussion with people in the trade before this Bill was introduced and this was one of the sections about which they felt most keenly. I have no doubt that the section imposes upon people in the trade a very definite obligation if they are to avoid a prosecution. I am quite convinced, if the amendment were accepted, that we could not prove that it was by a man's own deliberate act. The section may impose a hardship on those traders, but think of traders who handle other commodities, who buy sheep, cattle, horses, poultry and other things. They must examine what they are buying.
The case made by the wool buyers is that they are expected to turn out every fleece and look at it. They have to take whatever precautions are necessary in order to safeguard themselves against buying wool so treated. Every individual in any trade has to take necessary precautions before he decides to make a purchase. He must see what he is buying and make sure it is all right. There does not seem to be any greater hardship on those people than the hardships men in business have to carry to make sure that what they are buying is up to the proper standard.
Does not the Minister appreciate that the ordinary manner of buying is that a specimen fleece is taken, possibly one in a dozen, and examined?
That is so.
There is a short time during which a clipping can be bought and I am told by people in the trade— I am not in that trade and the Minister may have more experience of it than I —that to be certain they do not commit an offence means they can only buy one-tenth of the clip that they would normally buy.
They will get over that difficulty.
I know how they will get over it. They will get over it by having additional people examining the wool and the farmers will have to pay. It would seem that the Minister will not accept my form of words, but I am not tied to it. All my words mean is that an innocent man will not be convicted. I suggest it is an outrage that an innocent man, who takes all the precautions, natural, proper and reasonable, according to what is a reasonable method of buying, should be left open to a conviction.
According to Senator Sweetman, all a man would have to say is "I did not have time to open all the fleeces and, therefore, I cannot be accused of knowingly committing an offence."
Or negligently.
That would be the end of the Bill so far as I can see. I have sold wool and I have seen every fleece opened. One man buying wool will open every fleece and another wool-buyer opens one out of every dozen. Another man might not open any fleece at all. I do not think it is any great hardship on a person buying wool to examine each fleece.
It would all depend on from whom a man is buying.
If a man were buying from me he would accept my word for it, but if he were buying from Senator Sweetman, possibly he might be a little bit doubtful.
The Senator told us already that when he was selling wool every fleece was opened. He gave himself away.
Amendment put and negatived.
Sections 5 and 6 put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Government amendment:—
10. In sub-section (1), page 3, line 28, to delete the words "preventing or treating sheep scab" and substitute the words "remedying or preventing sheep scab or any other external parasitic disease of sheep".
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 1.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (1) to insert before sub-paragraph (a) a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
(a) use as a sheep dip.
The section reads:—
No person shall—
(a) purchase or otherwise acquire,
(b) sell or otherwise dispose of, etc.
That is a round-about way of describing the purpose which the section is intended to achieve, which is really to prevent the use of such sheep dip. I therefore suggest that sub-paragraph (a) should read, "use as a sheep dip" and then the other sub-paragraphs will follow on. Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section, as at present worded, are aimed at preventing a person purchasing or selling such sheep dip, but there is no mention of preventing a person from using such sheep dip. I suggest to the Minister that we should include a sub-paragraph prohibiting the use of such material as sheep dip as well as prohibiting trading in it. I think the Minister should accept the suggested amendment so as to make the section more comprehensive.
I cannot see that it is necessary to add the sub-paragraph suggested by the Senator.
If anybody purchases, or otherwise acquires it, or sells or otherwise disposes of it, he is taken into court.
It cannot be used then.
It seems to me to be a necessary preliminary to prevent the use of it.
It is illegal to manufacture it, it is illegal to purchase or otherwise to acquire it and it is illegal to sell or otherwise dispose of it. How then could you use it?
This is the first time the Minister caught the Senator out.
He has not really caught me out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Government amendment:—
11. Before sub-section (2), to insert the following sub-section:—
(2) An authorised officer may at all reasonable times enter any lands on which sheep are kept and may examine any sheep which he finds on the lands.
Some doubt was expressed here as to the interpretation of this section. The word "premises" was known to include lands, but because of the way in which the section was expressed here, there was a very definite doubt as to whether "premises" did in fact mean lands. The amendment is designed to remove that doubt.
I wish to thank the Minister for introducing this amendment. I think it will be a useful addition to the Bill.
Are we to understand that as a result of this amendment for the first time the word "premises" is held not to include lands?
No. We are not to understand what the Senator is inviting us to understand.
What does the word "premises" mean in the first sub-section?
The word "premises" means what it always meant.
What is that?
What the courts, for which the Senator has always such great respect, have always held it to mean.
With all respect it will mean, not what the courts said in the past it meant but what they will say in future it will mean.
In any case they have said that premises includes lands.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask the Minister whether this section would not require some alteration or amendment in view of the fact that he has allowed an inspector or an official of the local authority to be an officer under the Act. If a local authority is prosecuting, the prosecution will not be brought on behalf of the Minister.
How could a local authority prosecute?
Because the officer of the local authority is an authorised officer under an amendment we have already inserted. In that case the prosecution would not be brought by the Minister.
Senator O'Donovan has a certain technique by which he presses me to do a certain thing and then, when as a result of his pressure I agree to do it, he draws my attention to the difficulties and dangers that will arise as a result of my having agreed to his suggestion.
I only want to keep the Minister straight all the time.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment:—
12. Before Section 12, page 4, to insert a new section as follows:—
An Order under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the Order is passed by either such House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the Order is laid before it, the Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 12, 13 and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.