I do not wish to cover the ground I travelled on the Second Reading, but I wish to emphasise one aspect of the character of this legislation. To my recollection, I have never known a Bill which attempts to deal with a fundamental matter affecting agriculture with no indication whatever as to what the intentions of the Government are. It merely says: "We can tell you nothing; we just want power to make regulations," and they hope it will pass into that unsatisfactory phase of delegated legislation. In principle, it is the same as giving the Minister for Health power to make regulations to deal with the health of the country; it is only a question of degree. I do not believe we have ever had a Bill which—without telling us anything about the foundations, referring to dangers and not telling us what they are—deals with a new approach of science to a very important industry and simply says: "Give us carte blanche, a blank cheque to make regulations.” We know how utterly inadequate the control of the Oireachtas is over such legislation. Therefore, I make my protest.
Live Stock (Artificial Insemination) Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.
As I raised this on the last occasion, I would like to ask the Minister a question. I know the regulations are to be laid on the Table of the House and can be annulled by the Oireachtas, so we will know what they are going to be. However, this is all in the experimental stage in this country. My concern is as to what action the Minister will take in regard to the making of regulations. I would presume that, before regulations are made, he would have a discussion and obtain information and give practical indication of what the experience of people has been in any of these stations.
Obviously, whatever regulations are going to be made can only be made on the basis of experience. They have a certain amount of experience across the Channel, but some of it will contradict other experience. We have not that experience here. The Minister is taking power to exercise control. It is important that there should be a certain amount of liberty as to the manner in which these restrictions are going to be imposed. That, in my view, ought to be influenced by the experience that will be gained from the people who have practical experience of operating one of these stations. I am concerned to know what contact the Minister is going to have with those people before regulations are made. Will there be discussions with them? So far the Minister has given no indication.
I do not know what I am asked to give an indication on. There is a veterinary officer in my Department who has been in England, who has worked in the stations there and who is as fully trained as it is possible for a man to be. We have all the information that is available from the sources that have been mentioned. If a farmer or a group of farmers approach my Department to-morrow with a view to the establishment of a station, I am going to prescribe regulations as to whether or not these are desirable people to have a station and whether their premises are suitable. I am going to stipulate that, if the premises are suitable, there must be a veterinary surgeon in charge of it. I can stipulate other conditions that I, on the advice of my officials and in consultation with the people who are interested, regard as desirable. I am not going to enter into a discussion as to the advisability or otherwise of encouraging this practice. I am simply asking in these proposals for the authority that is enjoyed by every Minister for Agriculture in the Government of every modern country to-day. I do not see why, when I am seeking these powers, we should get down to a debate as to the wisdom or otherwise of encouraging this practice at all.
In support of what Senator Baxter has said, I want to say that all kinds of questions arise in regard to the distribution of semen. There will, for example, be the question of in-breeding. When questions such as these arise is it not reasonable to ask that the Minister should consult, say, the Shorthorn Breeders' Association and other interests representing different classes of stock? That is all that is asked, and the Minister will not give even an indication of his attitude on the matter. There is much more in this than the question of insemination. The question of in-breeding alone raises very big issues which are altogether outside the purview of the technical people. Surely, the Minister should give some indication that he is going to consult the interests concerned.
I am not seeking to create difficulties or ask awkward questions. We have one station in the country, but it may be that we shall have a dozen or more. It is under this Bill that all the powers are being granted which will enable, say, 20 stations to be established. This movement is under test already. A certain amount of valuable experience has been gained. But, as the movement develops, there will be the question of taking decisions and making regulations. The Minister has indicated that an officer in his Department has practical experience of this, and that he has worked at some of the English stations. There is a growing literature on the subject, but while all that is true, some of those countries know very little about it. The science of genetics, so far as the people in these islands are concerned, is only in its infancy. All that has to be considered in conjunction with the subject matter of this Bill and the regulations to be made under it. What I want to know from the Minister is whether he contemplates, in the making of regulations, having discussions with people of practical experience in these stations wherever they are. That is a practice which, I think, ought to be cultivated and developed. The people who interest themselves in any branch of scientific development such as this ought to be brought into whatever discussions there are. I think that, from the Departmental point of view, it would be invaluable to have that sort of co-operation and collaboration. No matter what experience an officer in the Department may have, it is the practical man on the spot who will make discoveries that nobody but himself can make. Such people ought to be brought into consultation when regulations are made.
Nobody will dispute that for a second.
You have not said so.
It is being put to me in a different way now. No Minister, with any commonsense, would fail to consult those engaged in the business. Nobody could have demonstrated the wisdom of that course more than I have during my short term in office as Minister. I am at it every day in the week. There is no dispute on that issue. What I have been saying is that attempts have been made to widen the discussion on a simple sort of measure such as this. The Bill does not permit of a discussion of that scope at all.
I move the following amendment:—
Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—
12. This Act shall expire on or before 31st December, 1950.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, shall expire before the 31st December, 1950. I take it that, by that time, a considerable amount of experience will have been embodied in regulations, and no doubt the public will then be much better educated as to the working of this new development. Therefore, I think it is only right and proper that the whole of this acquired experience should be embodied in a new measure. That seems to me to be commonsense. It is the democratic way for Parliament to keep in touch with these developments. It was in this way that it was intended Parliament should be used.
If there is need for this measure now, surely it is a type of measure which is needed in permanent form. That is the only purpose of introducing a measure of this kind. Applications will not just roll in immediately on the passage of this measure for the establishment of artificial insemination centres all over the country. We might not have one for two years and we might not have one for ten years.
One what?
An application for the establishment of an artificial insemination centre.
Is that the Minister's view?
It is not a question of my view; it is possible. I do not find farmers, whether through co-operative societies or otherwise, pestering my Department about this and full of enthusiasm for it. As a matter of fact, in relation to the one centre from which we have gained some knowledge as a result of the efforts there, the experience is that the farmers in the area are not a bit enthused about it. Why then should this limitation as to the duration of the measure be imposed? If an application came in 1950, it would be just as necessary for the Minister to have the right to say: "These are suitable people and they have suitable premises. Here are the conditions they must observe" as it is now. If there is any question in 1950 of the importation of semen it would be necessary for the Minister to be able to say whether it should come in or go out. What will happen in 1950 that would make it less important that the Minister should have that power than now? I cannot understand that reasoning at all. This is intended to be a permanent measure giving to the Minister and his Department a certain right and authority, and the power to say yes or no, and, if they say yes, to prescribe certain conditions which, in the opinion of the Department, after all the consultations referred to, are desirable.
I am afraid that mentally the Minister and I are poles apart. He is a very good Minister, but he has not, to my mind, got the faintest idea of the Parliamentary point of view. He is what is called a thoroughly bad—it is merely a phrase —House of Commons man. I think he regards Parliament as rather a nuisance and that is the very point on which we join issue. I say: have three years' experience and let him then come to Parliament and get his powers into proper form, into statutory form. Does the Minister think it is the intention of Parliament in 1950 to deprive him of his powers? I do not imagine that for a moment. Experience will show what powers are necessary and they can be embodied in statutory form. That is the way a democracy should work. However, I did not intend to press the amendment. We do not see eye to eye at all. We are living in different worlds and I shall leave it at that.