Vol. 52 No. 14
I move amendment No. 1:
In line 11, before "or" to insert "pigs, poultry".
The amendment speaks for itself. I believe that poultry, in particular, should be included in the definition of "livestock" in this section. I do not think there is any other regulation governing poultry in this regard.
There is nothing very revolutionary about this proposal. Speaking personally and for the Department, I have never got a complaint. I have no experience of damage to pigs or poultry. Every situation covered by the Bill refers to agricultural land. Pigs and poultry are to be found on agricultural land but very often they remain so close to the farmyard premises that there is little risk of attack by dogs. I do not feel like extending the provisions of this Bill without some reason and I just cannot find any reason for doing so in this case. As I said at the outset, I have no violent hostility to the amendment but I do not want to extend the Bill in a sort of aimless fashion.
I freely admit that I never heard of pigs being worried by dogs but I certainly have heard of fowl being worried and if the Minister read some of the British farming papers, he would see that considerable damage is done to fowl by dogs. In North Cavan and in county Monaghan, there are some very large poultry stations and I think they would be on agricultural land. I am quite prepared to leave agricultural land as it is described in the Bill and confine the amendment to poultry on agricultural land, that is, where you have poultry stretching over a big area of land and where it might be very necessary to consider the effect dogs have had on poultry across the water. There has been mention of dogs attacking poultry particularly at Christmas time when people are rearing large numbers of fowl and continuing to attack them simply for the fun of the thing. I have seen quite a number of accounts off and on of fowl having been attacked by dogs at night.
I should like to support this amendment because in recent years it has been the practice to put pigs, and especially breeding sows, on ranges out on the farm. Prior to this, they had been confined to land around the farmyard but now both pigs and poultry are put on the faraway portions of the farm, and I think the Minister should consider the amendment.
If there were any volume of opinion in the Seanad in favour of this amendment, I should not feel like resisting it. In the case of pigs, I have never heard of a case where dogs did damage. In the case of poultry, I admit that dogs will sometimes do damage but very often in a harmless way. If you move through a field in which there are poultry, a young dog, even at your own feet, might make a dive at the poultry and kill some of them but I wonder would this justify us in extending the provisions of the Bill to cover something which, if I might put it, is so farfetched?
The provisions are not very severe so far and I think the Minister should include poultry.
Very well; I am prepared to consider it.
Both pigs and poultry?
I think we should take in both.
May I suggest that the House should consider amendments Nos. 2 and 11 together, on the understanding that if No. 2 is negatived, No. 11 may not be moved?
I move amendment No. 2:—
To add at the end of the section:—
"‘the Minister' means the Minister for Agriculture."
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 11 and what is sought in amendment No. 11 is the giving to the Minister for Agriculture of power to make regulations under the Act. The Minister has indicated that he desires to make this Bill as useful a measure as it possibly can be made and he has given further evidence of that in the amendments which he has put down since the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill in this House.
I am always impressed by one fact in regard to legislation of this kind: the Oireachtas with great care enacts legislation of a particular kind designed to help the community at large, or a particular section of the community, but the follow-up on that legislation always seems to me to be lacking. I do not think there is a great deal of use in enacting a piece of legislation of this kind unless we bring it clearly and frequently to the notice of the people whom it is intended to benefit, these people being the owners of livestock, particularly people in farming areas in rural Ireland.
The only way which that can be done is by some authority advertising from time to time a synopsis or a summary of the main provisions of the Act which will have a twofold effect: (1) to advise the owners of livestock of their rights in regard to marauding dogs; and (2) to warn owners of dogs of the penalties which may be involved for them if their dogs are allowed freely to wander over their neighbours' land and damage their livestock. If a summary of this Act were published in the local newspapers, that dual purpose would be achieved.
I quite agree that not every county would require to have a notice of that kind published, because not every county would have the same number of sheep to warrant the county committee of agriculture being put to the expense of publishing a summary of the Act. Consequently, I endeavoured to provide that, while a county committee of agriculture are bound to comply with regulations made under the section, they may write to the Minister for Agriculture from time to time and say: "There is no need for us to publish a summary of the Act" and the Minister may say: "That being the case, I can dispense you from publishing it." That is the purpose of subsection (4).
There are some precedents to be found for the publication of summaries of Acts. Everyone who goes into an inn will see therein a section of the Innkeepers Liability Act advising the patrons of their rights under that Act. In those circumstances, everyone is quite alert to what he can do, and cannot do, when he enters a hotel. I believe if we want to make the best use of this Bill, the proper way to do it is to publicise it frequently during the relevant season every year, in the areas affected by this worrying of livestock.
I should like to support Senator O'Quigley. In most counties, a notice entitled Control of Dogs Order, is published. We have such Orders in our county and probably most counties have similar Orders. They are published every year. Perhaps it would be no harm to read it for the information of the House. It is headed County Cavan (Control of Dogs) Order. I am quoting this to show that although we have this Order in force, it has not been very effective. The relevant sections are:
The Council of the County of Cavan being the Local Authority...
No dog during any of the hours between sunset and sunrise shall be or be allowed to be outside the bounds of the Lands or Premises occupied by the owner of such dog unless such dog shall be under the control and in the company of its owner, or of some person authorised...
If a dog... is allowed outside the bounds of the Lands or Premises occupied by the owner of such dog ... is not under the control... the owner of such dog... shall each in respect of his own acts or defaults be deemed guilty of an offence...
Any dog... may be seized and treated as a stray dog...
Those are the regulations. Presumably a new set could be published under this Bill. What Senator O'Quigley has in mind would meet the situation in preference to these Control of Dogs Orders.
The principle of these regulations is all right, but I fancy that bringing the local authorities into the operation of this legislation is not the best system. The local authority representatives are always saying: "This should be a central charge or that should be a central responsibility." To ask the Minister to require the local authorities to publish regulations like these is not the best system. I suggest it would be better if the central authority, or the Minister himself, published a resumé of the Bill, when it becomes an Act.
The amendment we have inserted makes it more difficult to implement Senator O'Quigley's suggestion because the time of the year is fairly definite so far as sheep are concerned, but when it comes to dogs attacking pigs or poultry, it would be an all year round restriction. Really I think it would he better to remove from local authorities the responsibility of publishing these regulations in the local papers. If the Minister or the Government took on the obligation to publish a resumé from year to year, it would meet my point better. County councils are not too anxious to enforce regulations and the difficulty of enforcing the Dogs Act, 1906, shows that it is difficult for them. I think that if the Minister accepted responsibility for publishing these requirements and not put the onus on the local authority, it would be a better arrangement.
I cannot see what purpose would be served by an amendment of this nature at all. We have to ask ourselves: what are we trying to do here? We are trying to strengthen the law in order that the owner of livestock will have some means of protecting himself and his stock. We are trying to provide that the means at his disposal will be as complete as possible, while, at the same time, not going too far, and not going to the extent where the means could be used unfairly.
The pressure to have the law amended has come from the county committees of agriculture and from farming bodies of all kinds over the years. It is natural to assume that when the law is amended, those for whom it is amended will know how to make use of the law as amended. We shall, of course, from time to time, just as we do in the case of other measures like this, remind the local body concerned—the county committee of agriculture—of the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. To require us to make regulations and so on is something that we do not feel we should be asked to do at all.
We have considered this and I am not inclined to accept the amendment, but I give the Seanad an assurance that so far as the initial publicising of the powers contained in this instrument are concerned, we shall certainly make them as widely known as possible by corresponding with the committees concerned. If it should transpire as it does in other cases, that we should from time to time remind them, we shall do so, but to provide for that in this measure is something I would not take kindly to.
I think the Minister comes a certain distance with me on the principle of this amendment because he does agree that it is necessary to publicise, as widely as possible, and from time to time, the purpose and the intent of this measure. It becomes then very much a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is desirable to enable the Minister to make regulations. County committees of agriculture would be less likely to publicise the provisions of the Act if they are not provided with a readymade summary which the Minister can provide for all the different committees. Therefore, they can have the assurance that the summary they are providing is one which has been sanctioned by the Minister and for which they have no responsibility. For that reason, I felt it desirable that the Minister should prescribe a summary. That summary would be a fairly accurate version of what the law is under this Bill with regard to the shooting of dogs found worrying sheep.
With regard to the point made by Senator Ó Donnabháin, the Chair will appreciate my anxiety always to keep within Standing Orders. If I were to provide that the Minister should publicise the matter, I have no doubt it would be ruled out of order as tending to impose a charge on public funds. For that reason, I could not put it in.
We remind county committees of agriculture from time to time about a number of matters that we regard it as desirable the public should be informed about in order to refresh the public mind. We would, I suppose, in regard to this measure do the same thing from time to time. The very fact that we are doing that would, perhaps, secure publicity far more helpful and advantageous than if it were a question of making regulations.
I think the amendment has served its purpose and I ask permission to withdraw it.
The Seanad is aware of what this amendment of mine aims at securing but I do not know whether it would be——
Perhaps the Minister would allow me to suggest to the House that we might take amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together.
That is what I was thinking of myself. I felt that we should extend Section 3 and my amendment is designed to achieve that. Senator Cole has some further amendments. Would it be in order to allow him to move his amendments first?
The object of my amendment is to make it possible for a neighbour to capture a dog that might be worrying sheep. Apparently, under this Bill if a neighbour succeeded in capturing a dog and brought it to the Guards, they cannot hold it because he is not one of the persons named under this section. I have known two instances where a bus driver in the early morning stopped. Although he was not able to capture the dog, he drove it away before it had actually killed the sheep in one instance. Those are the kind of people who might be very useful if they saw a dog worrying sheep, captured the dog and brought it to the Guards. Section 3 of the Dogs Act, 1906 allows the police—the Guards in this case—to hold the dog and the owner may claim it. If the dog has been worrying the sheep, he will not claim it, anyway.
I can see the other side of the story, too. The Seanad may say that this could lead to abuse. If a person wanted to annoy his neighbour, he could capture his dog, say it was worrying the sheep and hand it over to the Guards. In other words, it would be a source of annoyance but having regard to the very few cases in which that situation might arise, it would still be worth while allowing a neighbour to seize a dog which had been worrying sheep and hand it over to the Guards.
If a person wants to annoy a neighbour by this means and if it is closed to him by accepting the Minister's amendment only, he can find other ways of annoying his neighbour. Because it might be abused in that way is no reason to reject my amendment which allows any person who finds a dog worrying sheep to hand it over to the Guards. That is the effect of my amendment. I have known it to happen that people going along the road in the early morning have stopped and chased dogs away from sheep but were not able to do anything about it. It is possible that a neighbour might catch a dog in the act and it would be perfectly simple if he could hand the animal over to the Guards at the nearest police station, saying that the dog had been worrying sheep on such and such land. The penalty is not severe and I do not think it would do any harm.
I am glad to find that the Minister's amendment to this section has gone a long way towards meeting the points made on Second Reading. He has not yet gone as far as Senator Cole would wish. The Minister now includes in his amendment, in addition to the occupier of the land, "a member of his family or a person employed by him." Senator Cole requires by his amendment to cover anybody who sees a dog worrying sheep. That really was one of the principal reasons for my feeling about the inefficacy of the Bill on Second Reading. It was too restricted entirely.
Might I relate my own experience for the benefit of the House? I am speaking of the time when rabbits were plentiful. A person goes out in the morning to shoot rabbits and he sees, as I saw, dogs worrying sheep on the side of a hill. My idea would be that if that occurred, I could go with my gun and shoot that dog. It would be far easier to shoot the dog than catch him and insofar as catching the dog or a number of dogs is concerned, this section makes it impossible. It would be possible to shoot a dog but we are debarred from doing that. The Minister's amendment goes a little way only to meet representations in this regard. I think that Senator Cole's amendment would be better. I should like to suggest that if I were out with a gun for any reason besides shooting rabbits, which are scarce now but may be coming back again, at least if I am a member of the family or an employee, I should be allowed to shoot a dog. It is very difficult for anybody such as a bus driver to catch the dog and bring it to the Garda station.
I would like to say that I agree with Senator Ó Donnabháin that it would be much better to make an attempt to shoot the dog than to try to catch him. On the face of it, it looks foolish to say that any human being could make any attempt to catch a dog, and it should never have been suggested. I know a good deal about dogs at large, and have fired on them but never with the intention of shooting them. It was for the purpose of keeping them away from my farm yard. I keep seven or eight dogs but none of mine is at large during the night. Dogs come in from other places and that is a very serious matter.
I should like to support this amendment because I think this is the main point in the Bill. I must say that the Minister and the Department have gone nearly as far as they thought they could go. Still I think this step is necessary, for, as the previous speaker has said, it is impossible to catch a dog that is worrying sheep or other livestock. Dogs are very wary animals and you can know by them that they realise they are doing something wrong. Because of that, they are nearly impossible to handle and it is impossible to get within a reasonable distance of them. As has been said here, people passing along the road often stop their cars and go into the fields to try to save animals that are being attacked. Anybody should be allowed to destroy any dogs that are in pursuit of livestock.
The Minister should consider this very seriously because it gives an added protection. As I said on Second Reading, it will have very far reaching consequences. There are people who had sheep for a number of years and found them being destroyed year after year, so they had no option but to get rid of their flocks. This Bill will increase the number of sheep in the country. If the Minister gives power to anybody who finds animals attacking livestock, it would be a great safeguard.
I take the view that dogs are not entitled to any better protection under the law than human beings. That is a fair statement. The ordinary duty of any citizen seeing another citizen committing a felony is to arrest that person. That is the duty imposed by common law on all citizens. If I find somebody deliberately stealing something in a shop, I am bound to apprehend the person committing the felony.
I cannot see why in the case of dogs anybody able to ensnare a dog worrying livestock should not be permitted to do so, particularly when he is only bringing the dog to the nearest Garda station. There does not seem to be any reason why we should not allow anybody nimble enough to catch a dog the right to do so and to bring him to the Garda station. I would therefore support Senator Cole's amendment rather than that of the Minister, which, while going some distance, is less restricted than the section as originally drafted.
The Minister's amendment deals only with the occupier of the land or a member of his family or a person employed by him. By that, you are creating all classes of divisions. If somebody is visiting the land of a person who has sheep and he is not a member of the family or an employee, why should he be prevented when an employee would be entitled to apprehend the dog? Why should a constant visitor be prevented from doing what an employee can do? This creates all classes of artificial divisions which do not exist in the ordinary course of events on farms, where everybody gives a hand in dealing with any emergency that may arise. That would be the sensible approach to this thing.
B'fhearr liom an leasú a thairg an Seanadóir Cole ná leasú an Aire. B'é an rud ba cheart dúinn a dhéanamh ná an smaoineamh a scaipeadh go bhfuil sé de dhualgas ar dhaoine cose ceart a choimeád ar a gcuid madraí. Ní ceart ligint do mhadraí bheith ag fánaíocht ar fud na tuatha istoíche nuair nach mbionn éinne ann chun stop a chur leo agus damáiste á dhéanamh acu. Sin é an fáth go bhfuilim i bhfábhar leasú an tSeanadóra—mar sé toradh a bheadh air go gcoimeádfaí madraí faoi smacht mar is ceart.
I am sure no member of the Seanad regards this Section 3 as a very practical sort of instrument from the point of view of protection, in as much as the likelihood of the owner or a member of his family, an employee or a finder getting his hand on a dog that has done the depradation is very remote. In fact, I was reluctant to extend this to the finder, in case it would give an opportunity for a bit of playacting. You could, maybe coming home at night, if you were out on the prowl as a young lad, lay your hand on some old flustering dog and land him into the Gárda station and say that you found him worrying sheep. In that way, you could give your neighbour maybe a harmless bit of annoyance. That is the sort of dog you could catch without any difficulty. He would not have done much harm. I think Senator Cole also saw the point.
I was anxious that we would not go too far. I do not see much to the section from the point of view of its practical value. I would not be averse from taking a bit of a chance if the House thinks it should be enlarged still further by the inclusion of the word "finder". I have no objection. The likelihood of catching the dog that is doing the damage is fairly remote. The only dog likely to be seized with a bit of ease and security is the dog that would not have done any harm at all. Having said that much, I am prepared to leave it to the Seanad. They can have whatever they want in this matter.
I agree largely with the Minister. The section without my amendment would, however, be more futile still. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. He might accept a later amendment of mine to solve the difficulty if dogs are ever handed in. I do not think the amendment would lead to any large amount of abuse. The Gardaí would probably be able to judge the position and would not accept a dog they felt they should not accept. They have enough experience not to accept a dog which, to their knowledge, was not inclined to worry sheep. They would know when it would be a question of a practical joke. I would be prepared to leave it to the Gardaí to decide.
Dogs which do damage often run in bands and at times are dangerous to man and beast. I suggest that in such cases, the owners or their representatives should take drastic action with such savage dogs.
This section deals with the seizure of a dog.
The word "finder" has not any restricted definition.
I have no objection to that. It is not a very effective section. This will give a fair share of scope. I am not suggesting it would be a very dangerous kind of scope, either, but still I am prepared to accept the amendment.
The Minister is prepared to withdraw his amendment. Would Senator Cole formally move amendment No. 4?
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (2), page 3, to delete paragraph (a).
I move amendment No. 6:
In subsection (2), page 3, line 7, to delete "such occupier or owner" and substitute "the finder'.
I move amendment No. 7:
Before the section to insert the following new section:—
"( ) (1) Where an owner of livestock which has been worried by dogs reports to the Garda Síochána that he has reason to believe a certain dog to have been responsible or partly responsible, a member of the Garda Síochána may immediately seize and detain such dog for a period not exceeding one week and have it examined by a veterinary surgeon or other qualified person.
(2) A copy of the report of the result of such examination shall be supplied to the owner of the livestock and the owner of the dog."
Probably every Senator, with the exception of Senator Sheehy Skeffington, who spoke on the Second Reading debate as well as the Minister, claimed the Bill did not go far enough. I suggest the inclusion of this new section that where an owner of livestock reports to the Gárda that he believes certain dogs are worrying his stock and that he cannot catch them but can give a fair description of them, the Gardaí may seize the dog or dogs and have them examined by a veterinary surgeon or other qualified person. Not alone should the dog be examined but they should be allowed to keep it for at least one week and to have the droppings examined by a veterinary surgeon or other qualified person to see if they contain the remnants of sheep wool. That, possibly, is the only thing that could be gained from such an examination. I agree that it would not be absolute proof but if sheep-wool were found in the droppings, it would be evidence. A case in relation to this matter arose in Northern Ireland. I saw the report at the time but unfortunately I have not been able to procure a copy of the paper in which the report appeared.
A member of the veterinary profession or other qualified person might be able to prove from the wool excreted by the dog what type of sheep it came from. I am not quite sure on that point as I have not been able to get the information I desired. I do not think it would be very difficult for a qualified person, after examining such wool, to say what type of sheep, such as Galway sheep, and so on, the wool came from. It would seem to anybody who had seen the droppings of dogs or foxes, I think, too, that wool is indigestible. I urge this step with a view to making the Bill more effective.
The control of dogs has proved absolutely ineffective in my county. Senator Ted O'Sullivan said the same thing in relation to his county. On the Second Reading debate, as reported at Column 1152, Volume 52, No. 11, of the Official Report, he said:
I had experience of such an order being made by a county council but I could not see any effective means by which the county council could enforce the order. You would want hundreds of Guards working at night to enforce an order like that. It is absolutely ineffective.
That is the difference.
This Order is no good at all unless you can say to the Gardaí: "I think So-and-So's dog is worrying my sheep —the yellow dog, the brown dog, the black dog. Would you take that dog and keep it under observation for a week?" The dog should be examined immediately by a veterinary surgeon and observed for at least a week. Then you would have a certain amount of evidence. It would be a step in the direction of making this Bill more effective from the point of view of livestock owners.
I suggest that this amendment would be absolutely ineffective. I do not think that a veterinary surgeon would be qualified to make the examination, and I do not know of any other person who would be qualified. The finding of wool in the excreta of any dog would be very weak circumstantial evidence and it would be ineffective in any court as an argument that the dog had worried sheep. He could have collected wool from many other sources without actually worrying sheep. I cannot see that the amendment would have any practical effect at all. As I say, without going into details, there are many other means by which a dog could pick up wool, for instance, in a butcher's shop. I do not think Senator Cole's amendment would have any practical effect and therefore I disagree with it.
Might I ask the Senator if he thinks it would be possible to identify the type of wool, that a proper wool expert could tell the type of wool?
I do not think so. You might find colour and say that this wool was from a black-faced sheep but otherwise I do not think anybody could identify a strand of wool.
What about the texture?
Or that the texture of the wool would indicate that it was wool from any specific sheep. I do not think it is at all practicable.
My point was if I had a mountain tawny sheep and my neighbour had a Down sheep of some sort, which are probably mostly the same type of wool, and somebody else had a Galway ewe, would it not be possible to distinguish between those three types of wool? Surely a wool grader should be able to do it. Unfortunately I have not any evidence on that but I should hope it would be possible to identify even a strand of the wool. The wool graders at our auctions are very particular about the grades of wool and can identify the type of wool at a cursory glance and I should think it should easily be possible to identify the types of wool under a microscope.
You have to ask yourself what are all the problems that could arise when giving effect to a proposal like this. The Guards would have to have accommodation for the dogs. I suppose the local veterinary surgeon, acting for the local authority, would be the obvious choice but he is the only one and in this proposal he is only one qualified man. He would not be acting for either party. According to the proposal, he would send his report, if he could make a report of a worthwhile nature, to the owner and to the aggrieved person. What would happen after all that? Where would the aggrieved person go with this report? For whom would the veterinary surgeon who had carried out the examination, even if it were possible to produce technical evidence of a worthwhile character, appear? You could say he was merely going to court to give the court the benefit of his examination. In other cases, where it is sought to establish a claim in court this is the position. If Senator Cole and I have some transaction where there is something wrong with an animal, both of us are entitled to employ our own veterinary surgeon. Unless we do, there is not much benefit to be gained from the sort of report provided for here.
I could not see, nor could we in the Department see, how this would work at all. We heard what Senator Ó Donnabháin had to say from the veterinary side. I could not express any opinion on that but I am sure there are a number of other problems, which as a layman I can see would puzzle the veterinary men, which would not be half as difficult as this one. I know that if they were more accurate in diagnosing some other matters that affect the farmers' interests, it would be far more beneficial to the farmers in general.
No matter from what angle I looked at this proposal, I could not regard it as being practicable at all. As I say, what would it all lead to? It leads to the provision of some evidence to enable some aggrieved person to establish evidence against the aggressor. I do not think that any court would listen to any evidence which it would be possible to tender by these means. Laws and enactments can be interpreted in so many ways, no matter how you endeavour to have the provisions clearly stated, and I should not like to think of the manhandling that a proposal of this nature would receive in a court if somebody were to rely on it for the purpose of establishing a claim for compensation for injury done.
In reply to the Minister, I should like to say that unfortunately I was not able to get a report of such a case. One of the Minister's objections was that the Guards would not have any accommodation but under Section 3 of the Dogs Act of 1906, the Guards are supposed to have accommodation somewhere for stray dogs. If I hand in a stray dog, they are supposed to accept it under that section. If the Guards capture a dog under other sections of the Act, they must have accommodation for that dog. I would envisage that the dog would be sent up to the Veterinary College where it would be examined in detail. I am sure dozens of dogs and live animals of one sort or another arrive at the Veterinary College. They might overcrowd it at certain periods of the year—I do not know—but I do not think it would be outside the bounds of possibility to do that for the sake of trying to put a stop to the worrying of sheep.
We have not got very far yet in improving the Bill and I cannot see that it is impossible to accept an amendment on these lines. The aggrieved parties would at least have that much evidence from a neutral veterinary surgeon or other qualified person. I am sure they could see if the dog had eaten wool, or feathers, in the case of poultry, a certain number of hours before he was seized. There are other places where the dog may have got the wool in those hours, but coupled with that, there would probably be evidence that someone had seen a dog of that colour among the sheep. Otherwise, why would that dog be pointed out at all? It would be evidence. I agree it would not be very strong evidence but if an examination were fully carried out, it could be quite strong evidence in an action for damages for the loss of sheep. The owner might say there were other dogs there, too, but that would be no defence for him, if his dog were proved to be there. I do not know whether it would be possible to get any other evidence. Probably not. The wool would be the most important evidence.
I urge the Minister to consider this amendment again, even if he takes the step of getting a report from the Veterinary College, before he finally deals with the matter. I urge him to accept an amendment on those lines.
Would not the housing of those animals have to be a different type of housing from that which would be afforded to the ordinary dog picked up on the road? These dogs would have to be in isolation and what benefit would be derived from evidence that was inconclusive? Would the evidence produced in the way the Senator suggests not be inconclusive and would it not do more harm than good? Assuming, for example, that this were regarded as a possible approach, if a dog were handed in to the authorities in the manner described here, and an examination were carried out, it would do a great deal of harm if, say, a report were received that was not conclusive evidence that the dog actually did the depredation but which would engender a belief on the part of the man who suffered the loss that the dog did it, even if he got no satisfaction from the evidence so furnished.
If Senator Cole, or any Senator or farmer, suspected that a neighbour's dog, or some other animal, was responsible for an attack upon his livestock, and it was only a matter of suspicion, he would be much more likely to get redress and protection for the future by approaching the owner of the dog and telling him of his suspicions, than by going through this very elaborate procedure which, to my mind, would lead nowhere, in the sense of getting tangible evidence to the extent of enabling the aggrieved person to establish a case and a claim for compensation.
I agree with the Minister. I do not believe this amendment would be much of an improvement. Anyone with experience of dogs which attack sheep knows that if they get the opportunity, they wash themselves quite clean. As a matter of fact, minutes after the assault on the sheep, these dogs go to a river or a stream and wash every sign of the blood or wool or anything else, off until they are quite clean. It would be clearly impossible, as Senator Ó Donnabháin, who is a veterinary surgeon himself, said, to get any evidence that those dogs attacked any sheep. As a matter of fact, I think Senator Cole's profession would have a very busy time looking after cases of this kind. I do not think it would be very effective.
I should like to point out to Senator Cole that I have had 13 sheep killed by dogs and they did not eat anything. Where would the evidence be then?
In the wool.
They would not have eaten the wool.
I move amendment No. 8:—
To delete paragraph (b).
This is an amendment to delete paragraph (b) which says: "that the livestock were lawfully on the land". This matter was discussed on Second Stage. The amendment is intended to deal with a case where I might hear dogs attacking my sheep or cattle and I might go out to find them off my own land and on my neighbour's land and, apparently, under the section I would not be entitled to shoot the dog. On the other hand, my livestock might go on to my neighbour's land and he might send a dog out to put them back, and I might go out and shoot his dog. I do not think that would arise very often, but I think it would be wrong to leave paragraph (b) in the section on the off-chance that that might happen. I should like paragraph (b) to be deleted to allow a person to shoot a dog that might be chasing his own sheep on his neighbour's land, or even quite a distance away.
I would be afraid of this proposal as I am of the opinion that there would be great risks in it. It is possible, I suppose, that if stock were being worried, they could break a fence and move into the land of the adjoining owner. At the same time, that would be an isolated kind of case and we have to think in terms of the other cases. If a man's sheep, cattle, or other stocks are not lawfully on land, to give the owner the right sought here would seem to create a position that would, to my mind, be very dangerous. I was looking at the Senator's next amendment and, although it is not before the House, I am inclined to say that we might perhaps meet him on this matter but I would not be prepared to accept the proposal contained in amendment No. 8.
The only other point in this amendment is that in an action for damages to sheep by a dog, if the other subsections still remain in the section, it is clear enough that, although the neighbour might be using his dog to drive my sheep or cattle off the land when trespassing, at the same time if the dog was not actually worrying sheep and the neighbour himself was there, he would have a good claim then if I shot the dog in front of him. He could prove that the dog was not actually worrying my sheep, with the emphasis on the word "worry." If he could prove he was driving my sheep and I shot the dog. then I am liable for damages for shooting the dog. That would be a good safety outlet. The owner of the livestock could say: "The dog was not worrying your sheep" and that he was there. I would have to disprove his evidence.
Is it not possible where your neighbour's livestock were trespassing on your land, the dog could catch these animals that were not lawfully there and in the normal way would not have any vicious tendencies at all? It would be going fairly far, would it not, to give me, whose stock was trespassing, the right to take that drastic action where, in fact, the dog was merely protecting the territory of his owner?
There is just one point I want to make. I was beginning to wonder about the legal aspects where a dog worries my sheep on my land and the sheep are driven into my neighbour's land. It is a question of being lawfully on the lands. That is an ambiguous sort of thing. However, it is better in that out.
I move amendment No. 9:
In paragraph (d), lines 21 and 22 to delete "the owner of the dog was, when the dog was shot, not known to the defendant or".
We were inclined to delete (d) altogether.
But not the whole of subsection (d)?
Yes.
No, only the trespass.
I am anxious to delete it all.
I agree.
I take it that Senator Cole's amendment is being amended and that it is the amendment, as altered, that is now being accepted, that paragraph (d) in its entirety be withdrawn?
Yes.
Amendment amended by leave to read as follows:
"To delete paragraph (d)."
I should like the Minister to consider inserting further words on the Report Stage after the word "worrying" in clause (a) "that the dog was shot when worrying livestock on agricultural land". What does "when worrying" mean? "When worrying" possibly means that the dog would have to be shot in the actual act of worrying the sheep. My suggestion to the Minister is that he should insert the words "after worrying livestock" or "immediately after worrying livestock" and not to have it simply "when worrying".
I can see the point where a dog worrying sheep in a field is in another field by the time the person catches up with him. In that other field, there may be sheep or other livestock. The dog has escaped capture by the farmer. I think the man should be allowed to shoot that dog. If the phrase I suggested were inserted, it would give an aggrieved person a chance of defending himself in court. I do not want to put down the amendment myself, but, perhaps, the Minister and his advisers would consider it. It would make it more easy for the person to dispose of this marauding dog and not subsequently be prosecuted for shooting the dog because he was not actually engaged at the time in worrying the sheep. It is ten to one that by the time he got near the field the dog would be in the next field and then a lawyer would say that it was not worrying the sheep when it was shot and the person concerned would be held liable for damages.
I do not think I could give the Senator any assurance on that. The Senator may be satisfied that the definition has been considered by the legal people and apparently they have found it impossible to widen it in the way the Senator has in mind. This matter would have to be left to the court to decide on evidence tendered. I should not think that if the evidence were in any way satisfactory a court would be hindered because the actual worrying had just passed, provided the evidence was sufficiently strong to establish that this dog was responsible for the depredation done.
No matter how you attempt to extend this interpretation in the Bill, I do not think you will make very much fist of it. In the end, it would still be a bit vague. A lot of matters would have to be left to the court concerned. It is better to leave it as it is and that is what the people who know more about these matters than I do say.
I was looking at it from that point of view also. Anything we say here about our intentions means nothing when the case comes into court. I have a good deal of experience of how a competent lawyer can conduct the case against a defendant when such a matter comes into court. However, I have to be satisfied if the Minister and his advisers cannot amplify the clauses so as to make them a better safeguard for the stock owners. I repeat that what happens in court subsequently is entirely apart from what any of us may say here.
You may have to fire on the dog before he attacks sheep—if you see a dog setting himself, as they sometimes do, to attack an animal, you would he severely tempted not to allow his effort to mature.
I move amendment No. 10:
Before the section to insert the following new section:
( ) (1) When livestock on agricultural land has been worried by dogs the sergeant of the Garda Síochána at the nearest Garda Síochána station may make an order which shall be published in the local press and/or otherwise, declaring a certain area, which may comprise one or more townlands or urban districts, to be a specified area for a certain period, not exceeding three months in any one order.
(2) Such order shall state—
(a) the reason for making such order,
(b) the date on which it comes into force (not being less than four clear days from the publication of such order declaring the specified area),
(c) the extent of the area,
(d) the time such order shall remain in force, and
(e) that dogs found on agricultural land in the area may be shot or otherwise destroyed.
(3) In an action for damages for the shooting or otherwise destroying of a dog it shall be a good defence if the defendant proves—
(a) that the dog was shot or destroyed in a specified area, and
(b) that the defendant notified the shooting or otherwise destroying of the dog to a member of the Garda Síochána at the nearest Garda Síochána station.
This is to my mind an extension with a little more severe penalties of the Control of Dogs Order. I suggest that in an area where there are one or perhaps two reports of sheep worrying, or one severe one, there should be a right to declare that this area of a townland shall be a special area for two or three months and in that area dogs found on arable land will be liable to be shot.
My proposal is far and away better for the owners of the stock and the owners of the dogs than what usually happens. One person puts in a small notice in a paper that land will be poisoned and lays poison indiscriminately around the district. I know an instance where near a town a sheep flock was persistently worried by dogs and eventually—I cannot say who did it but it was supposed to be—the sheep owner went around the district and poisoned a great number of dogs. If we could select an area like this, the Guards could publish a notice saying that dogs in that area would have to be kept under lock and key and not allowed to roam through the fields.
There is one thing I omitted in relation to Section 3, sub-paragraph (b). I intended to put in a clause stating that the defendant should notify the shooting or destruction otherwise of the dog within 48 hours. That is in the Bill in another section and it should perhaps be added here, and I should like permission to put it in. Otherwise, the proposed section speaks for itself.
I could not accept this amendment at all. It seems to me that the powers proposed to be given would be altogether too drastic. In fact, if it were possible to have an order made in relation to some defined area, dogs appearing inside that area on the loose could be shot at will.
They can be poisoned now.
No. Anyhow, this amendment would be altogether too drastic and I would not feel inclined to accept it.
Could a Garda sergeant have power to make an order such as this?
This would give him the power.
I propose to give him the power under this Bill. Might I point out that five farmers comprising a townland could practically carry this out themselves by poisoning an area, with only a small notice on the paper and a few notices around the roads? It might be a worse situation in the long run, both for the dogs and for the owners, if poison were laid indiscriminately, and that has been the ultimate result of continued damage in an area. Some man finally gets enraged to the extent that he takes poison in his car at night and distributes it widespread in the area.
I know a town not 30 miles away from my own where it happened this year and a considerable number of probably harmless dogs were destroyed. If the Guards in an area published such a notice, more attention would be paid to it than if I were to put in a notice that land in a certain townland was poisoned, and that is all I have to do. I am supposed to lift it in the morning and put it down again at night, but anything could move it— a bird can carry it, or perhaps a dog, and I do not think I could ever be prosecuted for not lifting it if I cannot find it in the morning, if it has been dropped somewhere else and harmless and offensive dogs poisoned-If the Guards could publish this notice of an official regulation that the townlands of so-and-so and so-and-so are a specified area for one month and any dog found in this area is liable to be shot or destroyed, that would make the Bill what it should be.
Even the amendments we have accepted today will not make the Bill anything like what the farmers are expecting. I have asked a good many sheep owners since this Bill was published for suggestions. Two of them, on their own, went so far as to send for the Bill when it was announced that the Minister proposed to introduce it. Their opinion was that it brought us no further than we were before. I do not think we have done a great deal today.
I feel there is a demand for something more drastic and it is not a great deal more drastic than the Control of Dogs Order that I am suggesting here. We can limit the time. If the Minister would like to limit the time he could specify that such an Order would last for only one month and could be renewed. That, perhaps, might make it a little less drastic. Since I have been on the county council, apart from the rates themselves, the matter on which I have had most applications to try to do something about is the control of dogs worrying sheep; it is with sheep that we are particularly concerned. Unless we do something a little more drastic than we are doing in this Bill there will not be a great improvement on the position as it has obtained up to this.
Apart from what we might be able to do in a Bill like this, would it be right that the power to designate should be given to a local Garda Sergeant and if such power were given to him or to somebody else on what evidence would he define the area? What procedure would he follow in determining the townlands that would be included in this scheduled district? What difference does the Senator see? I can see a substantial difference between poisoning a dog and giving the right to go out with a gun inside two or three or four townlands and blaze at the first dog you meet and kill him irrespective of what the dog is doing.
I should like any person thinking in terms of extending the powers in this fashion to ask himself how he would react on finding maybe a harmless dog of his own poisoned. It is not a pleasant thought. However, compare that with seeing or knowing that your neighbour walking through a field with a gun in his hand just raised it because of the existence of this Order and shot your dog.
I am aware that the destruction of animals and livestock and that injury to animals and livestock can be very expensive and a very aggravating thing. I could not imagine anything that would tend to create a worse sort of feeling than to give the right, inside an area to be determined in some fashion, to an individual, when he meets a dog on the road, to raise his gun and kill it. My reaction to that would be that it would be ten times, a hundred times, more resented by the person whose dog was killed in that fashion than if the dog had lifted poison laid in the way the Senator described.
I take it there is no precedent anywhere for giving power of this kind to a Sergeant of the Garda Síochána?
No.
I doubt whether any power such as this is in the hands of senior officers of the Garda Síochána under present legislation. This is an amazing power which Senator Cole wants to give to the Gardaí. I doubt whether an analagous power is in the hands of the Superintendent.
I would be opposed to this amendment for much the same reason as Senator Hayes. I do not think we ought to create this kind of precedent to introduce a police state. I do not want to see sergeants of the police in this country getting any kind of far-reaching powers. In any legislation I know in which power rests in the police it is never below the rank of Superintendent and it is generally in the Chief Superintendent in an area. If we give widespread powers of this character to sergeants or Garda stations for particular areas I think we would begin to go along the wrong road. I am sure Senator Cole does not want to go that road or to push anyone along it. Although we are dealing only with dogs we should be careful not to create any precedent of any kind in the way of vesting extraordinary powers in the police.
I do not think Senator O'Quigley or Senator Hayes need be worried. I do not mind if the power is in the county council or the county committee of agriculture. I put the Gardaí there because I thought it would mean more speed. Things must be done at once if dogs are worrying sheep in an area. The action must be taken at once. I put down the sergeant of the Gardaí because I thought it would mean a swifter step. I am quite prepared to accept the secretary of the county council, the county manager, the county committee of agriculture, the county council or even the Minister himself if the regulation should be made. I do not want this as a method of doing away with a neighbour's dog. I want it as a deterrent. It is the only way I can see. I have thought much about it. I think it will compel people to keep in their dogs—dogs that perhaps even they themselves do not know are worrying sheep.
I had a cousin living in Foxrock in this city. He had two exceptionally coloured setters. One day a Garda came and told him his dogs were killing sheep in the Dublin mountains. He denied it but it was proved to be true. They were exceptionally coloured dogs and they went from Foxrock to do it. My amendment, if accepted, would be a deterrent to people in townlands around which sheep are being worried. I should like to see the Minister accept my amendment or one similar to it.
I was not inclined to argue this on the technical point of whether a Gárda Sergeant or a Superintendent or anybody else should have this right. I would feel like resisting this, irrespective of whether or not it was possible to say that this could be done by the district court, by the county council, by the county committee of agriculture or in any way you like. My feeling towards this proposal is that no matter who was to designate the area in which that freedom would be given I would be inclined to resist it strongly.
For the Senator who is interested in giving the widest power to herd owners to protect themselves, I want to give this example. I am assuming that it were possible to do this and that some one particular farmer shot a dog, maybe a harmless dog. I know the ill-feeling and the harm that could result from that. I would not be prepared to put the proposal into a measure, apart altogether from the type of machinery that would be necessary. I would not like the proposal and I would resist it.
I think seven or eight Senators spoke on this Bill on the Second Stage. With the exception of Senator Sheehy Skeffington and perhaps Senator Louis Walsh, every one of them, including the Minister in his reply, said the Bill did not go far enough. We have not got very far yet.
A bit further.
When is it proposed to take the next Stage?
If there is any desire to postpone the Report Stage, I do not want to object but I do not think there is any need for it.
We have no desire to postpone it.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
