Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1955

Vol. 44 No. 18

Seed Production Bill, 1955—Committee Stage.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Cox

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (b).

The object of the amendment is to give an opportunity of making certain that documents have been properly served. I fully appreciate the difficulty of serving documents and the time and expense involved, but I think there has been in legislation more and more of a tendency to make any kind of service sufficient for the purpose of prosecution. The effect of my amendment is that service might be effected either by personal service or by delivery by registered post. I do not think it is fair to suggest that proper service is effected by delivery to any person over 16 years of age who is in the employment of the person concerned and I think the method of service suggested in the amendment would be fully ample.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

With regard to the amendments to the sub-section put down by Senator Cox, I should be happy to meet him by accepting amendment No. 2 which inserts the word "registered," but the other amendments, designed to eliminate paragraph (b) and to delete certain words in sub-section (2), carry me beyond what is already the practice in regard to service of documents as provided in the Local Government Act, 1941, the Land Reclamation Act, 1949, and the Factories Bill, 1954, all of which have been approved at one time or another by the Seanad.

I think it is relevant to bear in mind in regard to the difficulty about the person of 16 years of age "who is in the employment of the said person," that, if we accept service by registered letter as efficacious for the purposes of the Act, there is no reason to believe that a postman would not deliver a registered letter to somebody substantially under the age of 16 on the premises, if he were the only person who answered the door when the postman called. It is not always easy to make personal service effective because sometimes it is difficult to identify the owner of land, and it is conceivable that a situation might arise in which the only effective way in which notice could be served would be by posting notices on the land, if there was nobody there to accept delivery of them. I am prepared, if it would meet Senator Cox, to accept an obligation to serve my notice by registered post, rather than by post, if he will trust us in respect of the other two proposals to the extent of accepting my assurance—I feel it a pleasure to give that assurance, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of whoever may be my successor in office as Minister for Agriculture—that the aim and object would be to make effective service on the person entitled to be notified.

The great danger in a Bill of this kind is that if you have a valuable and extensive crop of beet seed growing and it suddenly comes to our knowledge that some irresponsible person is growing a small crop of mangold seed in the immediate vicinity which may destroy a large area of expensive cultivation, unless we have power to take effective steps forthwith to avoid this danger irretrievable damage may be done. While in principle I am in entire agreement with Senator Cox that the rights of the individual must be protected, one has to take cognisance of the practical difficulties.

I believe that the Minister for Agriculture, whoever he may be, will be as solicitous as the Seanad to see that the rights of the individual are protected, but if he is to do his job he must have discretion to act promptly where necessary.

Mr. Cox

I accept the assurance of the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cox

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), line 8, before "post" to insert "registered".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Government amendment No. 4:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Orders and regulations under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made and, if a resolution annulling any such instrument is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the instrument has been laid before it, the instrument shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Mr. Hawkins

In regard to amendment No. 5, as the Minister has tabled an amendment that covers a wider field, I am prepared to congratulate him. I would like an assurance that all Orders and regulations made by him under the Bill will be tabled and made available to the public as early as possible. For quite a long time there has been a question of delay on this point.

Mr. Dillon

I am much obliged to the Senator for having directed our attention to this lacuna in the Bill as drafted, and I am glad that the amendment which I submit meets the point he has raised. I think I can give an unconditional guarantee that there will be no loss of time in tabling these Orders and Regulations, but in regard to making them universally available my best effort is restricted by the readiness of the printing trade to print. The plain fact is, as Senators understand, that it is extremely difficult to get matter printed at present. There will be a neostyled copy of any Orders and Regulations available immediately in the Library and copies for the convenience of the Seanad and Dáil will always be available. It is often not possible to have them available through the Stationery Office in neostyled form, but they will be printed as expeditiously as possible. The Seanad can rest assured that if there is delay it will not be of a character which it is within the power of the Department to avoid.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hawkins

This is the section which enables the Minister to issue a licence to producers of seed. We should have particular regard to those who were pioneers in this industry and, unless there is some good reason, these people should get first consideration in the granting of any licences that may be made available by the Minister.

Mr. Dillon

The general principle governing this matter would be that a person already engaged in the trade would continue to enjoy his licence and that a conflicting permit would not be issued to any other party to engage in the production of any type of seed irreconcilable with what he is producing. However, if one man is already producing turnip seed and says to the Department that he is prepared to produce all the turnip seed the domestic market is likely to require, I do not think the Senator should ask me to say that on such a representation I would feel myself bound to refuse a licence to any other person in the country to produce turnip seed. I think I am bound to say to a person who applies for a licence to produce seed under proper conditions: "This is a free country and provided you do not interfere with the legitimate activities of anyone else, you are entitled to engage in the trade as well as any other man."

There is one exception to that, which was mentioned when this Bill was discussed in the Dáil. The sugar beet industry is of so highly specialised a character that I think my inclination would be, as at present advised, to restrict permission to grow sugar beet seed to Comhlucht Siúicre Eireann. I would be very reluctant, as at present advised, to allow another firm to engage in the production of sugar beet seed, inasmuch as the company ultimately has to take the produce of the crop and process it and its economic operation depends very largely on the quality of the beet supplied. Where they are prepared to supply the beet seed and to conduct research into approved varieties, I feel that a very strong case can be made for confining the production of sugar beet seed to such a company.

I cannot anticipate a similar situation arising in the case of any other producer, that is to say, I cannot think of any other producer making a convincing case for maintaining a monopoly in the production of any variety of seed which this Bill will control. Senators may be assured that if there is someone producing already under licence a variety of seed in a certain area, I cannot think it possible that any other person would be licensed to produce a conflicting type of seed in sufficient propinquity to the first licensee as to put his enterprise in jeopardy.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Dillon

May I draw the attention of Senator Hawkins to sub-section (4) of this section which, I think, may in some measure reassure him that any existing licensee automatically becomes a licensee under this Bill?

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 12 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Cogan

I move amendment No. 6:—

Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) Where the Minister makes an Order under sub-section (2) of this section, notice of the terms of such Order shall be served on every occupier of land within the seed production area to which the Order applies.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the persons affected by this section which is, in itself, a fairly drastic section, will know precisely what has been done. I do not think there is provision for such notification to each individual person. My intention is that each person will be notified.

Mr. Dillon

I would be happy to meet the Senator if it were physically possible to do so, but I think, when I direct the attention of Senators to the situation as it already is, they will realise how physically impossible it would be to give effect to the Senator's purpose. We have already one scheduled area in which we produce sugar beet seed. It covers the counties of Cork and Kerry, almost all of Limerick and a considerable portion of the counties of Tipperary and Waterford. If I undertook to the Seanad to notify every individual farmer in that area I would have to notify, first of all, over 100,000 individual farmers. In addition to that, I would also have to notify all occupiers of urban gardens, plots or other small portions of land. I think that the service of notice on such a large scale is manifestly outside the range of practical politics. It just could not be done, and if it were an essential part of the legislation, the legislation just would not work and we would have to drop the whole business of trying to produce these seeds.

I detect, in regard to some of the discussion that took place on the Second Stage of the Bill, that some of these amendments are put down on the understandable apprehension in the minds of certain Senators that there is going to be very extensive interference with the ordinary right of a man to run his own holding, and that this may become an irksome burden on farmers who want to run their affairs without undue interference. I think it might be well to call to mind that the Department of Agriculture does not contemplate the making of many Orders of this kind at all. In fact, we do not. We would not view with equanimity the prospect of having to have recourse to the restrictive powers of this legislation on any large scale.

What are the facts of our experience to date? The Seanad will bear in mind that these seed propagation activities have been going on for as long, I think, as 12 years under Emergency Powers Regulations, so that we have some volume of experience to guide us. First of all, the risk of intercrossing is not very serious, except in the case of mangolds, fodder beet and sugar beet. There is virtually no risk, certainly no risk against which we contemplate taking any precautions, in regard to cereals or grass. Under the emergency legislation which has been in operation for the past ten or 12 years, it has only been found necessary to make one Order, and that Order was primarily designed to safeguard the risk to pure strains of sugar beet seed.

I think, as at present advised, that it is quite likely that that is the only Order that we shall find ourselves constrained to make under this Bill. It would come as quite a surprise to us if the question of making orders of this character under this Bill were of frequent occurrence. I would be prepared to say to the Seanad that our best foresight suggests to us that it is highly unlikely that we will be called upon to make any Order under this Bill other than an Order on the lines of the existing Order which is designed to protect sugar beet.

I cannot promise that a situation may not arise under which other Orders would have to be made, but our experience over the last 12 years suggests to us that that is unlikely. You may always, of course, meet the crank who may turn up, and it is because of the fear of that that this section is inserted at all. At first glance, it may appear to be a draconian power, but it is against some crank that you may have to use that draconian power, so that he will not do immeasurable damage by an isolated act of folly.

I should like to remind the Seanad that we have in this country the right of appeal to an independent judiciary and a Constitution, so that if any Minister for Agriculture gets too obstreperous or even if Oireachtas Eireann were to get too obstreperous and were to infringe on the fundamental rights of the citizens of this State, they can always have recourse to the law, and to the Supreme Court, if necessary. I quite agree that it is impossible for a small farmer, in a remote part of Ireland, readily to set the whole machinery of the law in motion, but that is not the only safeguard under our Constitution. What no Minister of State faces with equanimity is a parliamentary question designed to expose him for having used powers conferred on him in an arbitrary manner. Every Minister is open to query as to why he issued a particular Order, and if he does not give a satisfactory answer he can be required to wait from 10.30 to 11 p.m. to answer on a motion on the Adjournment. If he has not satisfied the House, he will then have to face a barrage on his Estimate and of course there is always available to a Deputy the opportunity of raising the matter by specific motion in Dáil Eireann. He can move that the Order under which the Minister acted in an arbitrary way be rescinded.

I mention these things because they all relate to a series of amendments which seem to be founded in the apprehension that there would be arbitrary use of the powers envisaged. I have given this broad picture in order to reassure the Seanad that our experience over the last 12 years emboldens me to say that I cannot see any likelihood of our making any Order under this Bill except the Order that is at present in operation under emergency legislation. All the other provisions which give rise to concern are designed for an unlikely contingency, but, even in that regard, they are hedged around by a whole series of safeguards to which reference is not made in the Bill itself. Therefore, I would be obliged if the Senator would consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Cogan

It is not my intention to press this amendment. I would like to say, however, that the Minister has stressed what is perhaps the exceptional case, the case of sugar beet growing, which is a large industry covering a very wide area. A Bill of this kind, however, is permanent legislation or will become permanent legislation when enacted. There is power under the Bill for the Minister, not only to deal with the type of seeds which are set out in an earlier section of the Bill, but to add to that list and at any time it is within the power of the Minister to promote the growing of some new variety of seed which will create the position I suggested.

If the Minister were anxious—and I am sure he is—to ensure that nobody would suffer inconvenience in the future in regard to this matter he would have some proviso in the Bill which would enable him to notify those people individually who would be affected. For example, if there were only limited areas—one or two townlands—affected it would be possible to notify the people and, where possible, it would be only right to do so, but, if we assume there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Minister from doing that, then we accept the position and hope that whatever Minister is in power will in all courtesy notify individually the people directly affected if it is physically possible for him to do so.

Mr. Dillon

I would regard it as the duty of a Minister to take every practicable measure to bring it to the attention of every individual in the area. One would do it effectively through public notice, the radio and every other means at one's disposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cogan

I move amendment No. 7:—

In sub-section (3), paragraph (c), line 27, to delete "he considers" and substitute "are".

This amendment raises a much more important issue. Section 16, as the Minister has indicated, gives very drastic powers to the Minister and his Department. It enables the Minister, if he thinks fit, to break down any farmer's fence and fill any farmer's field with an unlimited number of inspectors' assistants equipped with vehicles and all other equipment they require. The Minister has taken the precaution of stating that this is not likely to arise in a very large number of cases. At the same time we are providing that it can arise, that this drastic provision can be enforced and that the inspector, equipped with whatever forces he considers necessary, may enter upon any farmer's land. The relevant paragraph—paragraph (c)— says:—

"If the occupier does not comply with the notice, then, without prejudice to prosecution for failure to do so, an inspector may, with such assistants, vehicles and equipment as he considers necessary, enter on the lands and destroy the plants or render them harmless."

I am proposing that the words "he considers" be deleted and the word "are" substituted. The paragraph would then read that an inspector may enter with such assistants, vehicles and equipment as are necessary. I think that is all the Minister should ask in this connection. If they are necessary, they are necessary and nobody is objecting to them but I think it is bad legislation to give an official the right to decide to do anything that he considers necessary.

There are, as the Minister indicated, courts of law which can decide a matter of dispute and if the inspector in this case takes excessive action, the farmer has redress and he can secure that redress. If the particular paragraph remains in the Bill, then the farmer has no redress because the official concerned can go into court and say he considered this particular action necessary. Therefore, I think that when we are making "necessary" permanent, it should be on an absolutely fair and just basis. I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. Dillon

This is the kind of amendment with which I have sympathy. I share the Senator's view with regard to the rights of the individual. I am advised that the substitution of these words would render the operation of the section very much more difficult—though not impossible. It would create difficulties out of all proportion to any benefits which it could conceivably confer. I would ask the Senator to bear in mind that all these powers are designed to deal with possible developments, the probability of which is extremely remote. The only circumstance, in which it could conceivably be justifiable for the Department of Agriculture to enter forcibly upon a man's premises to destroy a crop, would be if some crank planted in the middle of an area of intensive sugar beet seed cultivation a crop of mangolds. The danger is that unless you have power to go promptly and take out the plot of mangolds, damage is done that you cannot repair.

I know that the legal machinery authorising any Government officer to go in on a man's property and do things like that must of their nature sound disagreeable and unacceptable to legislators' ears. They will properly and rightly scan them very scrupulously. Really, what we are devising here is a machine analogous to the machine which the Minister for Health requires to deal with a situation where a person gets smallpox and will not go to hospital. It is a horrible thing that any Minister of State should have the right to break down a man's door and remove him vi et armis to a hospital and detain him there. Normally, the very thought of that revolts me. On the other hand, what are you to do if a man gets smallpox and will not go into hospital? You cannot let a whole city be put in jeopardy by that man's obtuseness. You, therefore, take power to undertake the detestable assignment of removing him vi et armis to an isolation hospital.

In a much more common case, we have been forced to take powers to prevent the typhoid carrier from taking employment as a cook. It does seem a very hard thing, if you pronounce a middle-aged woman, who is a cook and who cannot earn her livelihood by any other means, a typhoid carrier, but you cannot put the whole population in jeopardy. You have got to do the best you can to help the unfortunate typhoid carrier out of her dilemma, but the one thing you must have power to do is to say: "You cannot be a cook."

I remember, when that particular section was debated in Dáil Eireann finding the greatest scruple of conscience in vesting such powers in the Minister for Health, but I could not resist the logic of what I knew to be the facts. I would be extremely distressed to think that the powers I am seeking in the Seanad will ever be used. The Senator rightly says that I have inveighed repeatedly throughout the country against the outrage of lining farmers' fences with Civic Guards, breaking down his ditches or his gates, or filling his fields with inspectors. The Senator rightly says that I have spoken strongly upon that up and down the country. The Senator rightly foresees that I shall speak loud and long on that topic again, again and again. But because he and I are in such profound agreement on that great principle, we should not allow ourselves to be carried into the position of irresponsible cranks and say that, because we assert the sacred character of a man's home as being inviolable by the State, if somebody wants to nurture smallpox or typhus inside his close, there should be no power in society to protect itself from the consequences of such a strange attitude. It is only on those grounds that I ask the Seanad to leave the Bill in its present form. I assure the Senator that I share his sincere solicitude that neither he nor I shall ever have to avail of these powers for the protection of the people.

Mr. Cogan

It seems to me that the Minister has not even attempted to make any case against this amendment. The only case he attempted to make is that the eventuality envisaged under this section may not occur too often. What guarantee have we that it may not occur fairly often? It is open to any person in this country to enter into a contract to grow seeds for a seed merchant in any part of the country. Having entered into that contract, he can secure that an Order will be made prohibiting his neighbours from growing this particular type of seeds. Once he has got that Order made under this section, the Minister can line that particular farmer's field with inspectors, break down his fences, enter upon his lands and destroy his crops. The unfortunate farmer has no redress whatsoever. There is no compensation clause in this Bill. If the next-door neighbour to the seed producer suffers severe loss as a result of the Minister's inspectors and the inspector's assistants going in upon his land and destroying his crops that farmer has no redress whatever. I am seeking to provide in this amendment one small safeguard to ensure that the inspector, when stepping in on another person's land, will step carefully and will not do unnecessary damage. He will not be protected by having this particular clause which contains the phrase: "which he considers necessary". He will have to do only as much damage as is necessary and that, I think, is a safeguard.

Let it be understood that this is not a garbled version of a speech delivered by somebody down the country and lifted out of its context, to be used against that particular person. It is a section of a Bill. It is permanent legislation which enables the Minister's officials to enter upon a farmer's land, break down his fences and destroy a particular crop. Therefore, I think we are entitled to demand that the utmost safeguards are provided, and this amendment is providing only one very small safeguard. I think that the Minister has agreed that the principle of the amendment is right, that officials should not be allowed to trample down small property owners or small private citizens. It is no answer to say that the terms of this Bill have, to a certain extent, been in operation for a considerable time under Emergency Powers Regulations. There is a fundamental difference between Emergency Powers Orders and legislation enacted by Parliament. Emergency Powers Regulations are drafted by officials with a view to ensuring that everything will go forward as speedily as possible. Legislation drafted by a democratic Parliament is drafted with a view to seeing that every interest is protected and that justice is done.

There would be no justification, whatever, for the existence of a democratic deliberative Assembly if the opinions of officials in regard to what is the best way of approaching a particular subject were accepted without question. We have the function in this House of examining legislation as it is going through, seeing, as far as possible, if there are dangers in it to the ordinary citizens of this State, and of seeing if we can eliminate those dangers. I think forcing an inspector to defend his action in any court of law is, in itself, a practical safeguard.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I would agree with both the Minister and Senator Cogan that it is of prime importance that we, as legislators, should be concerned with the question of interference with individual liberties and rights by Bills which come before us. I would also agree with Senator Cogan that it is necessary, where possible, by the application of all reasonable safeguards, to protect the individual and, in this case, the individual farmer.

I do feel, however, that the Minister has made an unanswerable case, in this instance, because it is a question of entering the lands of a person who is growing a crop against the regulations, which, if it is allowed to flower, may by cross-pollination materially damage the crops of his neighbour or neighbours. Therefore, in considering this particular section, we must consider giving safeguards not only to the man who is growing the offensive crop which becomes dangerous at the time when it may pollinate a crop in the neighbouring field, but also to his neighbours. I think the Minister has made his case extremely cogently that our greater duty is to make it possible to act with sufficient speed to prevent such damage being done.

Senator Cogan has taken up the word "speedily." He has mentioned that the Civil Service like to see machinery that will work speedily. I suggest that it is of capital importance that this destruction of dangerous crops, if it becomes necessary, should be carried out with speed. The amendment turns upon the words "such assistance, vehicles and equipment as he considers necessary" or alternatively "as are necessary." If Senator Cogan imagines that you could test in a law court just how many vehicles, how many assistants, and how much equipment were actually necessary at that time, you would have to be in a position to prove that if another day had gone by, the crop would have flowered and would have been in a position to cross-pollinate a neighbouring crop, an extremely difficult thing to establish in a court of law.

I suggest that, in practice, it would be impossible, and that we must, as reasonable men and women, grant that the inspector will not act in such a way as to be vexatious, but that when he considers a thing "necessary", it will be reasonably so, and I think we should be prepared to deem it so. Therefore, I feel that, although the motives inspiring Senator Cogan in proposing the amendment are good, the clause as it stands is better.

Mr. Cogan

I do not agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that this amendment would affect the speed with which the inspector might act, because I presume that any action a farmer might have to take to redress his grievances under this amendment would be taken after the inspector had taken action and I assume it would be by civil action against the inspector for exceeding his powers. Therefore, I think there is no point in what Senator Sheehy Skeffington has said that the amendment would slow down the operation of the Department in taking action against this alleged crank. We must remember this crank might be only an alleged crank—he might be a more sensible person than the person being protected under the Minister's licence.

When Henry Ford started to tinker with the internal combustion engine, there might have been a Department which might have prevented him from so doing, in the interests of general efficiency, or in the interests of his neighbours or of the bigger firms adjoining him, but, if that action had been taken, it would have been detrimental to the whole course of progress in the industrial world. In the same way, it might happen that at some future date, some person might undertake to grow a particular crop for seed, secure a licence to do so and, having secured the licence, secure an Order to prohibit his neighbours from doing it. It might happen that his neighbours might be interested in growing the same type of seed and might be going about it in a more efficient way than the holder of the licence.

There are a whole lot of general aspects of this matter which can be examined and it is not quite sufficient for the Minister to seek to force the Bill through by suggesting that there is only one Order in existence at present, that it applies to a very large area and stating that he did not foresee in the immediate future the making of additional Orders. If he did not foresee the making of additional Orders there would be no necessity whatever for this section, or it would be drafted in a very different way, because it would specify sugar beet only and would be confined to the growing of sugar beet seed. All these general implications which are embodied in the section would thus be eliminated.

I am not satisfied with the Minister's defence of this very wide power for a particular inspector. I think the inspector should be compelled to act in a reasonable way if he decided not to do so. There was a suggestion by the Minister that this Order is designed only to deal with a crank. Even accepting that, there are cranks in every walk of life—even in politics, perhaps—and there might even be a crank in the Department who might set out to do something entirely unjustifiable, and for that reason it is only right that we should try to safeguard the small property owner or the individual citizen who may own very little property—perhaps only a garden attached to his house. If the Minister would consider accepting this amendment or putting in a safeguard similar to it on Report Stage, he would be doing a useful service, and perhaps doing something on which he would congratulate himself in some years to come when he sees the full operation of this legislation.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Cogan

I move amendment No. 8:—

In sub-section (4), paragraph (b), line 35, to delete "purporting to be".

This amendment is designed again to keep officialdom, if you like, up to scratch. I think it is only right that State officials operating very wide powers should be expected to go to a very considerable amount of trouble in order to meet the ordinary rights of the people. In paragraph (b), we find the words:—

"In any proceedings under this sub-section, a certificate, purporting to be under the hand of an officer of the Minister authorised in that behalf by the Minister, certifying the amount of the costs and expenses shall be evidence of that amount..."

My suggestion is that the certificate should be under the hand of the officer, without using the words "purporting to be". I do not think these words are necessary.

Mr. Dillon

I think the fact is that, in this context, the words "purporting to be" have the meaning of "stated to be". The object of this is to require that the certificate shall have on it a statement to the effect that the signatory is an officer authorised to sign on behalf of the Minister. If the amendment were accepted and these words were deleted, the effect would be that this indication of the officer's status would not be required at all. It will be observed that the latter portion of the sub-section provides that "it shall not be necessary to prove the signature of the officer, or that he was in fact such an officer, or so authorised," but it is considered desirable that there should at least be a statement on the certificate to the effect that the officer is, in fact, so authorised. I think the Senator's amendment is not calculated to produce the result he aims at. Far from placing an additional shackle on officialdom, it would remove from the authority issuing this certificate a shackle which I have sought to place upon him.

Mr. Cogan

I do not pretend to be an expert in matters of law, but I would consider this paragraph would be quite effective if it read:—

"In any proceedings under this sub-section, a certificate under the hand of an officer of the Minister authorised in that behalf by the Minister, certifying the amount of the costs and expenses shall be evidence of that amount."

It could be left at that. I am not pressing the matter, but I think that would cover it.

Mr. Dillon

I can assure the Senator that the form of the Bill is rather more restricted than it would be if his amendment were inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cox

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (4), paragraph (b), line 38, before "evidence" to insert "prima facie" and to delete all words after "amount" in line 38 to the end of the paragraph.

To some extent this covers the same ground as that covered by Senator Cogan, but it is not quite the same. It appears to me that it is not right, and might form a bad precedent, to provide in an Act that the certificate of an official as to the amount of damages and costs shall be final and that the court should not inquire into it. That would be a dangerous precedent to introduce into legislation. My amendment seeks to say that it would be prima facie evidence, that is to say, that the court could accept it as being the correct figure unless it were questioned by the defence. If it were questioned by the defendant, the matter could be gone into. This section may be a precedent for future legislation in other matters. Let us say, in a claim by the E.S.B. for damage to poles, in the ordinary way the court would naturally accept the certificate of the board as to the value involved, but I do not think that should be conclusive. I think it should be open to the defendant to contest it and say that the amount of the damage was not as much as was said. I think there is a real question of precedent involved here.

I have to admit that I did not put down my amendment quite correctly. What I meant to say was that the certificates would be prima facie evidence of the amount and of the signature of the officer; and then I went on to strike out the words that it would not be necessary to prove the signature.

In other words, there are two issues involved: (a) the amount of the damage, which I submit should be open to question in court and (b) the signature of the official, which should be, prima facie, accepted by the court, but the court should not be obliged finally to accept any document put before it as being really an official document. If that principle went into the Bill, there could be no appeal, the Statute would be there and if there were any mistake it could not be rectified.

Mr. Dillon

I am distressed that Senator Cox for a moment entertained the thought that I would sponsor so horrible a principle as he detected in the text of the Bill and it is a consolation to me to find myself sustained by the Attorney-General and the draftsman's office in a view contrary to that expressed by Senator Cox. They so advised me that the addition of the words prima facie, although often found in some documents, is unnecessary and would not alter the sense of the provision. Evidence, say my advisers, does not mean conclusive evidence. The effect of the sub-section as it stands is merely to permit the production of a certificate as prima facie evidence of the amount due. That deals with the net point of the introduction of the words prima facie. I hope the Senator will rejoice with me that the very mention of such thoughts as occurred to his mind sent me hot-foot to the highest legal authority for reassurance that I had not been guilty of inviting the Seanad to participate in any such nefarious activities as Senator Cox apprehended I was about to put my hand to.

I am further advised that to omit the final portion—that is the second part of the Senator's amendment—of the paragraph would render it necessary to arrange for the attendance of an officer in court on each occasion— which would be unnecessary and time-wasting in cases in which the particulars covered in the certificate were not in dispute. If the defendant in a particular case disputes the amount, he is entitled to refute the certificate by giving contrary evidence or by requiring the attendance of the officer, or any other person can be subpoenaed. That is the position so far as I am advised, but inasmuch as the addition of the words prima facie do not seem to alter the meaning of the section or its effect, if it would make Senator Cox less uneasy I shall be happy to accept his proposal to insert those words, provided he will acquit me of any fell intention to introduce a new and loathsome principle.

Mr. Cox

I am very glad to accept the assurance of the Minister and I am very grateful to him.

Mr. Dillon

How can this be done?

An Cathaoirleach

It can be done on the Report Stage. Is the Minister accepting the amendment?

Mr. Dillon

I am accepting the words prima facie.

Mr. Kissane

I think the amendment seeks to do a thing that is not necessary at all.

Mr. Dillon

That is what I have just been saying.

Mr. Kissane

In the end, the evidence of somebody will have to be accepted and if it a case of taking it to court that would mean further delay and expense. Who will foot the bill or bear the additional expense? That is a question I would like to ask.

Mr. Dillon

As these words are unnecessary and the Bill, in fact, means substantially what Senator Cox and I desire, would it meet Senator Cox to withdraw this amendment on an assurance by me that if on the Report Stage he thought it necessary to reintroduce the words prima facie I would gladly accept them?

Mr. Cox

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cogan

I move amendment No. 10:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(6) Any person who as a result of any Order made by the Minister under sub-section (2) of this section suffers loss or damage through being prevented from producing seed or through plants being destroyed or damaged which had been sown before the Order was made shall be entitled to be paid compensation for such loss or damage by the licensed producer of seed who benefits as a result of the Order.

I mentioned earlier that there is no compensation provision in the Bill as it stands. In almost every piece of legislation dealing with the rights of landowners, farmers or property owners generally, there is provision for compensation. There is provision for it, I think, in the Land Reclamation Act of 1949 and also in the Local Authorities (Works) Act of the same year. I think it is an oversight to omit such a provision. I can imagine very serious loss being caused to a particular farmer.

For example, if a farmer is experimenting in the growing of some particular variety of seed, was making some progress and had been involved in considerable expense in regard to his experimentation, and then found himself suddenly prohibited from continuing along the lines on which he was engaged, I think he would be entitled to compensation. There might be other cases in which damage might be done accidentally. My knowledge of the law in operation is not extensive, but if I assume that a person disobeys an Order made under the Bill, then he is not entitled to compensation. Suppose, however, that through some error of an official, a farmer's crop is destroyed, although he had not disobeyed an Order, then I think there should be some provision for compensation. In the main, compensation should be payable, I think, if and when a person is detrimentally affected by the making of a particular Order.

As regards the wording of the amendment I am not entirely satisfied with it because it may not be sufficiently comprehensive. (Amendment read.) I think it is reasonable that if compensation is provided under the Bill it should be paid by the person who benefits from the making of the Order rather than by the State. Perhaps the Minister would look into the matter. He may find that it would be possible, if not to accept the amendment, at least to introduce a compensation section into the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I would ask the Seanad not to accept this amendment. It is probably inevitable that, in introducing and operating any large measure of this character, some disturbance may be caused to certain individuals. Provision for lessening the impact on individual farmers, and for a restriction of seed growing, is contained in Section 20, in which special powers are taken to give permits to individual farmers, specially circumstanced, who want to produce seed for their own use. It is not intended that the issue of permits under Section 20 should be widespread, but the power is there, and it can be utilised if the occasion arises to justify its use.

There is also objection to the amendment in that it provides for compensation for loss. There is no indication as to how the actual or potential loss suffered by a grower is to be assessed. Reference is also made to a licensed producer benefiting from the Order. Here again it is not readily capable of proof what immediate benefit, or how much benefit, would accrue to any particular producer.

I think it is relevant to the Seanad's inquiry to reflect on the fact that Orders of this type have been in operation for 12 years. I think we are bound to have regard to our experience over that period for guidance as to how we should proceed in the future. There has not been one single complaint during a period of 12 years of disturbance or injury to any person by the operation of the powers already in operation. Now, if we were causing serious inconvenience, I do not think anyone can doubt that in 12 years we would have had at least one complaint. We have not had a single complaint.

The producing companies would not give contracts for the growing of mangold seed in these areas, and, accordingly, the only persons likely to be injured were farmers growing mangold seed for their own use. Similar provisions have been in operation in extensive areas over the eastern counties in England where farmers are prohibited from growing mangold seed. I think it is unlikely—it is not impossible but it is unlikely—that an Order would be made under this Bill when it becomes an Act other than an Order to prohibit people from growing mangolds or any unsuitable variety of seed in the immediate propinquity where mangold seed was being sown. Our experience here, and their experience in Great Britain, suggests that circumstances do not arise in which the question of compensation to individual farmers for being denied the right to grow seed that they otherwise might have grown, if they had not been restricted, was necessary. I would urge on the Seanad not to require such a provision to be put into this Bill.

Mr. Cogan

My complaint is that the Minister seems to be inclined to base his case mainly on the Order in force in regard to sugar beet. I am rather inclined to think of the possibility of additional Orders being made which would introduce new elements into the matter. For example, one might think of the growing of such things as kale and rape seeds. There might be the danger of cross pollination and of some particular wild seeds growing in a farmer's crop in an adjoining area. He might not have sown these, and, therefore he could hardly be said to have violated the law. But in order to destroy those seeds the inspector might find it necessary to destroy a particular cereal crop. That would involve the farmer concerned in very considerable loss, and I think there should be some provision for compensation in that case.

I think it is a remarkable thing that, in a Bill of this kind, there is not some provision for compensation. Here, again I am wondering whether the absence of such a provision would enable a farmer to take an ordinary civil action in the courts. I do not know, but I imagine that at ordinary common law he would have a grievance. I am not pressing the amendment, but I think it is wrong that there is not provision for compensation in regard to this section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cogan

Before the section is enacted, I think it is no harm to draw attention to its very drastic nature. I once had the experience of hearing a very unscrupulous politician falsely and maliciously accuse another politician of trying to break down farmer's fences and of bringing tractors in on their land. Of course, that charge was false but in this section we are not dealing with a garbled version of a threat of that kind. We are not dealing with some words lifted out of their context and misrepresented. On the contrary, we are dealing with a very definite and clear-cut piece of permanent legislation which enables the Minister to send an inspector with his assistants. The section does not specify the number of assistants. If the inspector thinks there is a wicked bull on the farmer's land he can bring a number of men to defend him. He can even bring an armoured car if he thinks he is going to be resisted.

A great deal of incitement was issued to farmers during the past four or five years to resist any inspector who crossed the farmer's fence without permission and throw him out by the neck if necessary. Bearing in mind the fact that that incitement was issued to the farmers in a widespread way throughout the country over the last four or five years, a timid inspector might feel he was entitled to bring in very strong reinforcements upon the particular farmer's land and he might in that way do a very considerable amount of damage.

Some very innocent pieces of legislation were passed through the British Parliament during the past ten years dealing with agriculture. As far as I know they were passed with the unanimous approval of all Parties over there and, as a result, a number of farmers had to be shot in Great Britain—that most law-abiding country —in order to enforce the Agricultural Act over there.

Professor Hayes

Had to be shot?

Mr. Cogan

They had to be shot and were actually shot.

Professor Hayes

Farmers?

Mr. Cogan

Yes. The Senator is shocked.

Professor Hayes

Is this in recent years?

Mr. Cogan

Yes.

Professor Hayes

Post-war?

Mr. Cogan

I think it was during the later——

Professor Hayes

The British shot farmers post-war?

Mr. Cogan

That is true.

Professor Hayes

I would like to go on record as not believing that.

Mr. Dillon

As the Duke of Wellington once said, if you believe that you would believe anything.

An Cathaoirleach

We are dealing with what is in Section 16.

Mr. Cogan

The facts I have given are absolutely true. If the Minister likes to check up he will find it is true that farmers resisting the drastic provisions of the Agricultural Act in Great Britain were actually shot upon their own farms. Perhaps, there is nothing very remarkable about that. Any Act that gives officials power to enter upon any property, let it be agricultural land or a citizen's dwelling, may result in violence, death and tragedies such as I have mentioned but we are not expecting anything like that. Nevertheless, it is no harm to emphasise the fact that this is a very drastic section and its provisions could possibly lead to trouble and could certainly, if enforced, in many cases lead to a certain amount of loss or damage to some individual farmers.

I think we should not allow this section to be enacted without expressing the view that it is a serious matter to give the Minister power to interfere in this very drastic way with the rights of ordinary citizens. Even though the Minister may say that the powers will be used to a very moderate extent, nevertheless, they are drastic powers. It could have been said equally in regard to the compulsory tillage Order——

An Cathaoirleach

We are not discussing the compulsory tillage Order. now. It is not mentioned in this section.

Mr. Cogan

Very well, we will get away from it. It had to be enforced only to a very limited extent because 90 per cent. of the farmers——

Professor Hayes

Did not need to be shot.

Mr. Cogan

——accepted it.

Mr. Dillon

Without being shot.

Mr. Cogan

They did not require to be shot, as the Minister said. I do not believe that any farmer would be shot in the enforcement of this Act. Nevertheless, it is always a possibility and there is no reason why we should not, in enacting a section so drastic as this, warn the Minister of its gravity. The Minister appears to think it is a matter for amusement that he is taking power to enter upon a farmer's land to break down his fences and destroy his crops if and when he thinks proper. I do not think it is a matter for general amusement. On the contrary, it is rather a serious matter. As far as I am concerned, I accept the principle that any property owner, whether he owns a large or a small amount of property, must submit to the demands of the community. That is to say that property has its duties as well as its rights. Nobody accepts that philosophy more readily than the farmers in spite of any incitements that might have been offered to then to offer violent resistance. I think it is a pity that the Minister did not accept some of the amendments that were suggested to this section. I think it is particularly a pity that he did not accept the suggestion in regard to some measure of compensation if and when damage would be done under this section.

Mr. Dillon

I can assure the Senator that in the enforcement of the provisions of this Act no farmer will be shot.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Mr. Cogan

I move amendment No. 11:—

In sub-section (3), line 55, before "enter" to insert "(reasonable notice of his intention so to do having first been conveyed by him to the owner)".

The inspector should give reasonable notice of his intention to the owner of the lands. I think that all that is implied by that is that as far as possible the inspector should notify the farmer in advance, if possible, of his intention to enter upon and inspect the farmer's crops. In that way goodwill might be secured. As the Minister says, he has no desire at the present time to shoot farmers. I think, therefore, he would have no excuse not to accept this amendment. It may not be entirely practicable in its present wording, but I hope that he will on Report Stage introduce some provision of a similar nature.

The sub-section which we are seeking to amend reads:—

"(3) Where an Order under Section 16 is in force in relation to the growing of plants in any area, an inspector may at all reasonable times enter and inspect any land in the area and may take samples of any such plants which he finds growing on the land."

I think the suggestion that he should give reasonable notice to the farmer is a practicable one. I admit that the words in this amendment, "reasonable notice of his intention", could have different interpretations. I would be prepared to give an inspector a fairly generous or liberal interpretation in regard to that; that is to say, if it were a matter of urgency, the notice would be necessarily short. All I am seeking to ensure is that a reasonable measure of courtesy would be extended to the farmer, with a view to ensuring that, perhaps, the entire work of enforcing an Order would be carried through, without any of the unpleasantness to which the Minister has referred.

Mr. Dillon

I would entirely agree with the object of this amendment, if it were practicable to give it effect. The difficulty is to decide what is "reasonable notice". In certain circumstances, reasonable notice might be immediate intimation by the inspector of his intention to enter upon the lands. Here we must contemplate the possibility of some degree of urgency in entering and inspecting such lands and the giving of formal notice would create a danger of delay, more especially where any difficulty arose in locating the farmer. The farmer might be at Tramore for his annual fortnight's holiday. We have power to effect notice in another section under the Act, by registered post or by delivering the notice to an employee who is over 16 years of age. If you are possibly dealing with an out farm away from the farmer's house, then serious difficulties arise in giving reasonable notice of your intention to enter in order to eradicate plants which constitute a danger to a seed-growing area.

I do not mind confessing at once that I have a profound distaste for giving authority to any officer of my Department to enter into any farmer's holding, without at least notifying him. On the other hand, it is one thing to direct the officers of my Department to adopt a certain course of conduct; it is another thing to place upon them a statutory obligation to do so. I will look at this matter between now and the Report Stage, but I am bound to tell the Seanad that I am at present advised that it is not possible to devise a practical form for imposing a statutory duty to give reasonable notice. I have no hesitation in giving the Seanad this further assurance that, if necessary, every officer of my Department will be strictly enjoined to make every reasonable effort to inform the farmer politely of the necessity of entering upon his lands, before he attempts to do so or, in fact, before he does so under this Bill, or any other legislation empowering the Department of Agriculture in matters analogous hereto.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 17 agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Mr. Cox

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (4), paragraph (c), line 29, to delete "or negligently".

If wrong entry is made, it must, presumably, be wilfully or negligently. I am proposing an amendment to delete the words "or negligently" because it does not seem to me to be reasonable to say that, if entry is made through some mistake an offence must necessarily be incurred.

Mr. Dillon

My difficulty in regard to this amendment is that if we omit the word "negligently" or the words "wilfully or negligently" we are in the position that it becomes virtually impossible to prove that the omission was a breach of the Statute. I am not so sure that, if Senator Cox proposed to delete the three words "wilfully or negligently", the same difficulty would arise. I would not willingly delete the words "or negligently" and retain the word "wilfully". I think it would be virtually impossible to prove an offence under the Bill if that form were adopted. If the Seanad would wish me to examine the question of whether it would be desirable to delete the three words "wilfully or negligently" and leave paragraph (c) to read:—

"Makes or causes to be made in the record any entry which is false or misleading in any material particular...."

I would be prepared to accept that proposal.

Mr. Kissane

There would appear to be something in this amendment at first sight but, if one considers the general body of law, especially in regard to running-down cases, the word, "negligently" is used as well as "wilfully". I would suggest that it is very difficult to separate these two words because, after all, there is a certain amount of wilfulness behind negligence, because a person would not be negligent if he did not will it.

Mr. Cox

I am not quite certain that I would accept what the Senator has said, but I would be prepared to accept what the Minister has suggested. I think that, if the three words were omitted, it would then be left a matter entirely for the court. I think that would be much more satisfactory.

Mr. Dillon

I shall arrange to have that done on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cox

I move amendment No. 13:—

In sub-section (5) to delete paragraph (b).

Under sub-paragraph (b) an offence would be committed if it were shown that a request had been made. It does seem to me that in a matter like that it is very easy to serve a wrong notice. I would ask the Minister to consider whether this sub-section in its present form, is necessary.

Mr. Dillon

The advice tendered to me is that if this amendment were accepted a position would be created whereby every routine inspection of records would require to be preceded by the service of a formal notice on the firm concerned. That would unduly complicate straightforward procedure and would give a firm an opportunity to keep fraudulent records, and to withhold the papers from inspection. Our experience is that in the limited number of firms engaged in this business, our inspectors circulate on pretty friendly terms, and there is no hardship experienced at all in receiving their perennial visitation and inspection of the books which ordinarily only require very cursory survey. In fact, any diligent study of them would only arise in the event of some suspected malfeasance. We would prefer not to have to place upon us the obligation of giving written notice of our intention to inspect books, because we think it is a reasonable requisition to somebody engaged in the production of seeds of this character to maintain their books permanently in a condition and in a place where they may be readily inspected by the supervising authority.

Mr. Cox

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.

Sections 19 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 15th June.