Before we take up consideration of the Committee Stage of this Bill, I should like to indicate that I have ruled that Amendment No. 5, in the names of Senators McDonald and Malone, is out of order on the ground that it involves a potential charge on State funds. The Senators have been notified accordingly.
Diseases of Animals Bill, 1965: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
There is just one minor point I want to raise on this section. There does not seem to be any sort of specific rule about the way things are expressed. In the definition of an airport, there is reference merely to landing and departure of aircraft, whereas in the definition of eggs it is "the eggs". It would be tidier looking if the "the" were left out in the latter case or put in in the former. It looks untidy to refer to "landing and departures". I cannot see any reason why it should not be "the landing and the departure", if they were going to do it that way, or preferably leave out the "the" before "eggs" in line 9 on page 5. The definite article is left out in most cases and there does not seem to be any reason for it here.
Offhand, it seems the Senator has a very good point, and, if he will bear with me, I am prepared to have a look at it between now and the Report Stage.
I have two points in connection with section 2 also. It says;
"Attested or disease-free area" has the meaning assigned to it in section 19 (1) (b).
There is no necessity for the (1) in that definition. There is no paragraph (1) in subsection (b) of section 19 so the (1) is superfluous.
The Senator has a point there.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".
I have another little point to raise on this section. The Minister may make orders "subject and according to the provision of the Act". I think this should read "this Act" because in (a) and (b) below the words are "this Act". I suggest the word "this" in the first case would coincide with the use of the words "this Act" in several cases down along in paragraphs (1) and (2).
This is a drafting point and I see what the Senator is after. I shall have to consult the draftsman about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill".
The section says:
The Minister may grant licences for any of the purposes of this Act, attach conditions to any such licence, vary such conditions and revoke any such licence.
What exactly is meant here by "vary such conditions"? Could there be a situation in which two persons from different parts of the country might have different conditions with regard to licences?
I would not imagine so. I imagine that the section is intended to give the Minister power to issue licences subject to conditions and, subsequently, to vary the conditions set out in the particular licences.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill".
There was previously provision for a Diseases of Animals Fund in the State and in the local authorities. Does this mean it has gone out of existence?
It went out of existence in 1960.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I am not sure whether the point I am making is a valid one but there is a reasonable doubt, I think, in referring to "every order and regulation made under a repealed enactment." It says that "such may be amended or revoked as if made under this Act." Leaving the orders to one side, I am thinking only of regulations; in other words, every regulation made under a repealed enactment. Do I take it the ordinary meaning of that would be that it may be amended or revoked as if it were a regulation made under this Act?
I do not think that is so. There is provision in this Bill for the continuation in force of a whole variety of orders and regulations made under other pieces of legislation which are being repealed now. In so far as those are continued in force, they can be amended or revoked by order under this Act.
I do not quite follow. I am not sure which section is framed in the way that it continues a repealed Act. Most of it seems to be a restatement of the repeal so it is exactly the same as a continuation. There is no power in this Bill for the Minister to make regulations—I cannot see one. The local authority may make regulations under section 38 and the Minister may make them under section 57 but they are described as regulations under the Dairy Produce Act, 1924. This might be looked into because the wording of section 10 does not in fact make it clear. I am not objecting to it but perhaps the Minister would have a look at it.
I shall.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill".
I would point out to the Minister that there should be compulsion on the owner or occupier of premises in connection with the reporting of a disease. There should be compulsion on the owner or occupier also to report confirmed cases of disease. He should be compelled to report every incident of disease which occurs on his premises.
I feel that subsection (1) is rather vague. It deals with the notification of "any particular disease". Perhaps the Minister would elucidate this a little.
It simply gives me power to prescribe by order that notice shall be given.
The Minister knows the number of types of disease he is likely to be dealing with. Why does he not say that if there is a certain contagious disease he must be notified of it?
This gives me flexible powers. From time to time I may decide that a particular disease is likely to emerge or become a menace, and I would prescribe by order that I must be notified of the existence of this disease. I am simply taking power to do this by order. This appears to me to be necessary in regard to any disease.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".
This section seems to me to be extraordinarily wide, or should I say very loosely drafted. Apparently it gives the Minister unlimited powers to do practically anything and to bring in any orders or regulations that one could possibly conceive. There are several rather difficult or objectionable paragraphs in the Second Schedule. I agree with many of them, but I still feel that the section, as it is drafted at present, gives the Minister altogether unnecessary powers. The scope of the section is unparalleled in other fields of legislation. For example, if we take section 13 in conjunction with paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule which reads: "Securing and regulating repair or reconstruction of houses used for the housing of animals and poultry..."——
The Chair understands that the Senator has an amendment down to that particular Schedule. It would be better to postpone discussion until that matter arises.
Perhaps the Minister would give us some indication of exactly why he wants to have this section so wide.
I will when we come to the proposed deletion of the paragraph.
If I may comment on what Senator McDonald has said, on Second Reading I referred to the fact that the implementation of this legislation will mean that the Minister shall make orders. Whereas it was spelled out in other Acts it now devolves on the Minister to make orders in various circumstances as they arise. If either House of the Oireachtas considers that the order is not acceptable, the Seanad or the Dáil can vote to annul it. There seems to be no way out. There is no doubt that the number of orders will be immense. The Minister may make an order and if we consider it unsatisfactory we can bring it to his notice and ask to have it annulled.
Discussion on this would be more appropriate when we come to the amendment to delete paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule. I should like to point out now, however, that the Minister already has this power under section 2 (1) (c) (iv) of the Bovine Tuberculosis Act of 1957. I have this power under that Act in relation to the disease of bovine tuberculosis so this is not a radical departure.
It was used very little under that Act.
It seems a very necessary power to have in regard to the eradication of disease.
Although this section seems to ask for sweeping powers it seems to me that they are very precisely defined in the Second Schedule. I think this discussion would be better on the Second Schedule rather than on the section.
That is very true but my interest in section 13 concerns why it is done in this way. I raised this on the Second Reading. Under almost any section of the Bill the Minister may make an order, and set out in great detail are a great many things the Minister can do by order. Now section 13 is different. In this section the details are shifted to the Schedule and I am wondering why.
It is a neater way of doing it.
Why should this be picked out rather than any other section?
Most of these powers are already there, scattered throughout existing legislation. We are putting them together in this Schedule so that they can be readily identified and related back to the original piece of legislation from which they came.
It is my suspicious mind when I see a schedule. Has the Minister any intention of amending the Schedule by order, because I do not see any power in the Bill to amend the Second Schedule by order? I take it that the reason is that these are little bits gathered from a great many Acts whereas this section deals with a specific Act.
Exactly.
What bothers me about this section is the example we had under the Town Planning Act. The Minister brought in orders which literally shocked the country, orders that Members of both Houses did not dream of. Since then the Minister cannot blame us for being a little suspicious about a section which is drafted very widely and very loosely. For that reason I have very grave suspicions about this section.
I wonder has the Minister power to repeal orders he makes under this section.
Under section 3 subsection (2) there is general power whereby "the Minister may by order amend or revoke any order under this Act".
That will cover it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill".
The section says that the Minister may prescribe various things detailed from (a) to (e) and then says that the Minister may by order alter the limits of an infected area. I think that the words "by order" should be in there, because we have no definition of "prescription". My suggestion would be that the section should say that the Minister may by order prescribe because I think the word "order" is defined and "prescription" is not defined.
If the Senator will look at section 2, line 40, he will find that "prescribe" means prescribe by order.
I see. Still I think that "by order" would clarify it to the ordinary reader, but I am satisfied now.
I wonder if the Minister would explain subsection (a) which says that the Minister may prescribe the cases in which places and areas are to be declared to be infected with a disease. "Cases in which places and areas" seems to be something from a crossword puzzle. I know that the language of the draftsmen is puzzling always, but perhaps the Minister could give an example so that I would have some idea of what exactly is meant there.
I do not really think that it means anything more than it says. I would come along and make an order that if certain conditions obtained in a place or area that place or area would be deemed to be infected with the disease.
Might I take it that there might be a certain level of infection which would be material and the Minister might prescribe that if 20 cases arose in a certain area that would be a prescribed area?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill".
I think I should refer at this stage to the number of sections that deal with orders dealing with disease. We had a discussion already on section 13, now we have section 15 and there are also sections 26, 27 and 28, and orders are again more or less referred to in the Schedule. I must say that the division of this into separate sections is rather confusing.
All these orders deal with infected places and areas. We tried to group them together.
I see.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill".
I move amendment No. 1:
In line 43 before "an" to insert "a townland or adjoining a townland in which there is".
This section is quite a small one but in my opinion it involves a principle that as a farmer is rather close to my heart. I believe that farmers should have a right to private ownership and to exclude strangers at all reasonable times. I do not think that any farm should be looked on as a commonage and, therefore, farmers should have a right to private property as much as everybody else. Urban dwellers would certainly give a very poor reception to anybody they found having a picnic on their front lawn or garden. I cannot understand why the Minister found it necessary to include in this Bill the power to exclude strangers. We see notices in the papers especially in the autumn when farmers preserve their property and gaming rights against trespassers and so on. Reading this section we saw this objection. I am thankful to the Minister for allowing the second and third amendments, but obviously he has not allowed the first one where we sought to give farmers the right to preserve their property if the adjoining property had an outbreak of contagious diseases. If you had a case of foot and mouth disease in a certain area the farmer should have a right to exclude strangers from his property, especially crossing an infected farm. The farmer should have the right to preserve his land to ensure that nobody would trespass on or come off an infected farm. That is what we sought by this amendment, to ensure that in any locality or neighbourhood where there is an instance of contagious disease the farmer should have a right to preserve his property before that disease comes in.
I think the Senator misunderstands the position here. First of all, any farmer under the ordinary civil law has the right to exclude people from his premises, to sue them for trespass and so on. People coming on to another person's property can come in different capacities—as a licensee, a trespasser or an invitee. The farmer has the protection of the ordinary civil law in regard to people coming on his property in any one of those capacities. We are reinforcing his position here. We are saying that in certain circumstances in addition to his ordinary civil rights we will make it a criminal offence for people to come on to his property. To come to the particular amendment put down by the Senator about townlands, the Senator would really be introducing a restriction into this situation which we would not like. If you had an outbreak of disease somewhere and we came along to prescribe in an order that this outbreak existed and that a certain place was an infected area for the purposes of this Act inside which a farmer could invoke this protection, then we would certainly make it quite wide indeed. We would make it sufficiently wide to ensure that no farmer likely to be in trouble because of people coming on his land would be prevented from involving it.
It may not be confined to his own farm?
Certainly not.
Oh, that is a different matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I suggest that amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be taken together.
Government amendment No. 2:
In lines 44 and 48, to delete "building or enclosure" and substitute "building, enclosure or farm".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Would the Minister not delete that part of the section which deals with rights of way? As the Minister says, the ordinary farmer has a right to keep trespassers off his land but, in this case, it might be a very, very serious thing. I remember particularly when the foot-and-mouth disease broke out in England valuable pure-bred cattle were guarded by armed men protecting their farms against any trespasser whatsoever. There could be farms, particularly near the city of Dublin, where there were rights of way, even though it might be only a footpath. I think either the Minister or somebody else should be allowed to have a certain time to prohibit the right of way across a farm because great damage could be done. Somebody might walk or bring a dog across the right of way to a field where there are cattle and then go into another man's land. I think it would be an improvement if they could stop the right of way for a certain time or else, perhaps, the Minister would have power in some way that, on application to him, he could stop the right of way for a limited time. While on this section, I wonder is there any particular penalty enforced more than the ordinary penalty to trespass?
It would be an offence under the Act and offences are dealt with——
Yes, it would be an offence under the Act but the question of the right of way——
It is not just a right of way which is involved here. As the section says it is a right of entry which certainly would exclude other than——
Yes, but it is the right of way I want to stop.
I should like to support Senator Cole in this matter. I think rights of way could be a far greater way of spreading diseases.
Would it be reasonable to make it an offence for a person to exercise a right of way? That is what we are talking about here, making it a criminal offence.
But surely it is also an offence to bring disease through a right of way as it is any other manner? I think the Minister should look at this again. I do not think anybody would disagree if the Minister took power to deal with rights of way.
It might be unconstitutional.
(Longford): I am inclined to support Senators Cole and Sheldon. My view is that if there is an established right of way the exercise of any right or easement must always have regard to the public welfare of the community. If a situation, as envisaged by Senator Sheldon or Senator Cole, should arise whereby the exercise of a right of way or an easement to cross other people's land, the community use of that easement or right of way in a period when you have, say, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease——
I think the Senator is under a little misapprehension here. Under the general powers conferred on me by this Bill, I have completely adequate capacity to stop anybody going anywhere I do not want them to go, whether it is a right of way or not. What we are concerned with here is a private person putting up a notice on his land and making it a criminal offence for a person to trespass on that land. There is a difference between a private person here putting up a notice in regard to his own property and making it an offence to go on to his land and the Minister prescribing that people shall be acting unlawfully if they do certain things. The net point here seems to me to be whether it is reasonable for me to say that I will confer upon an individual farmer the right to make it a criminal offence for any person to exercise his right of way. I am just doubtful at this point whether it would be constitutionally possible to do that.
I think that everything the Minister said was very true of the Bill as it stood because what was envisaged there were buildings or enclosures. The right of way into buildings or enclosures is one thing but, once the Minister's amendment is accepted, and "farm" is brought in, quite a different set of circumstances could arise. I think the Minister should take another look at this so that the acceptance of a sensible amendment to bring "farm" into it does not materially alter the business of right of way.
I presume the Minister has this power under section 15 (b)?
I have all such powers but we are dealing here with the power of the individual farmer.
I think it would be a very necessary thing to do. Let us take the case of a farm just outside an area, defined by the Minister as a danger area, where the farmer decides he is going to do everything possible to prevent anybody carrying disease into his land. There is, perhaps, this right of way. I think he should have the power, if it is possible so to provide, to stop people coming in. I feel that if it were my farm I would stop them and take the risk of an action afterwards. It could be very important in those circumstances.
On the other hand, as Senators know, rights of way are important possessions; they are important rights and can be very valuable from the point of view of particular properties. It does seem to me to be going a bit too far to enable a farmer to more or less, if you like, abolish a right of way in this way.
Could the Minister not close the right of way during the period of disease by order?
The Minister could. Under section 15, I can prohibit any animal or person.
So that any farmer could ask the Minister to prohibit the right of way——
But surely if the Minister is satisfied he can do it, the ordinary citizen can do it, too?
The ordinary citizen can do a lot the Minister cannot.
(Longford): It appears to me that this might be used by property owners to make permanently obsolete a right of way.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill".
There is one point on this section, in line 16. The section refers to "carcases and eggs", and in brackets "other than eggs of pigeons, doves, peafowl"et cetera. The word “carcase” is included above but is omitted later on when we come to the provision in regard to eggs. I think the work “carcase” should be included before “eggs”.
How could you slaughter a carcase? The carcase is already slaughtered. The point is that the carcase of pigeons, doves, peafowl, swans and this unpronounceable word would have no particular value.
As much value as their eggs.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I assume I may not now speak on amendment No. 5 which has been ruled out of order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator may speak on the section.
I do not mind substituting two months for one month, as the Senator's amendment sought. If the amendment can be moved now. I shall have no objection. Alternatively, I shall put it down for Report Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The amendment may be read now as a Government amendment.
Government amendment No. 5:
In subsection (6) (a), line 55, to delete "one" and substitute "two."
I thank the Minister.
The Senator may not move such an amendment but I can. I can spend money ad lib. It is a bit academic. There is no doubt that if a farmer did not send in a claim within a month but did send it in within two months I would almost certainly have to accept it in the normal run of the mill case but let us not argue about it.
I can see the Minister's advisers saying: "This claim came in a month late. What will the Comptroller and Auditor General say?"
We never pay any attention to him.
The Minister might not but his Accounting Officer would. I am glad the Minister has accepted this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
In subsection (6) (b), the words occur:
Where an application for compensation under this subsection is duly made, the application shall be determined in accordance with such order as may be made by the Minister.
The word "order" is ambiguous. The word "decision" might be more appropriate. It certainly amounts to a decision.
I do not agree. The word "order" is necessary. The subsection says the application shall be determined and this envisages a situation in which I have already made an order and am determining the thing within the provisions of that order.
What is the arbitration machinery contemplated?
The whole business of compensation is set out in a later section. Here the position is that it would go to arbitration in accordance with ordinary arbitration law—the Arbitration Act of 1954.
If the Minister looks at section 58, he will find it seems to apply only to sections 17 and 22. I do not know if there is some reason for excepting section 18.
Sections 17 and 22 deal with compensation and provide a special system of arbitration. This section provides for arbitration in connection with the determining of a dispute and it would be more appropriately decided within the terms of the ordinary law of arbitration.
Apparently section 58 does not have anything to say in regard to this section. It seems to be a heavy piece of machinery to put into operation to decide the price of a carcase.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill".
At present in the definition of the Bill no poultry are included in Class B but it might be as well to leave the section as it is because poultry may be included at some future date. I assume that is the position.
Class B are those likely to be dealt with by eradication schemes.
We had experience during the operating of the bovine tuberculosis scheme of the Minister declaring areas by counties. In the midlands, particularly, we found that traditional market towns were cut off. I mention County Laois which was declared an area before Kilkenny. We found markets in Rathdowney and Kill, both on the Kilkenny border, suffering considerably. Similarly, there was Carlow again on the border, and there was Athy. Would it be possible for the Department on this occasion to take into account the traditional areas surrounding the present set-up of fairs and markets so as not to deprive them of their normal source of supplies? Would that be too complicated?
I think that is a very sensible suggestion. Is the Senator talking about future eradication schemes?
I am referring to the bovine TB eradication scheme.
With regard to the brucellosis scheme, is the Senator suggesting that we should decide on our areas, having regard to commercial interests?
Yes.
We can endeavour to do that.
All those who are dealing with markets know it is a tremendous effort.
With regard to the brucellosis scheme, we hope the disruption will not be anything as great as it was in the case of the TB scheme because before initiating the eradication scheme in the north-west, we already have initiated a vaccination scheme in the two main dairying areas of the south and the east. We hope that by the time we come to the eradication scheme in those main areas, the vaccination will have done a good deal of the work and the disruption will not be anything as great as it was in the TB eradication scheme.
Is the Minister proposing to extend the scheme of vaccination to other areas even before the eradication scheme is under way? One would imagine it would relieve the pressure very considerably.
Yes.
(Longford): With regard to what Senator McDonald has said, he has a very desirable point if it could be worked in practice but I am afraid it would be difficult to apply. If it could be applied, it would make for less inconvenience and hardship. Unless the Minister could take a dairying area, say, the north or north-west as one, and certain larger areas than was the case in the eradication of bovine TB, it could not work out. You will always have the situation of a town on the border of Longford and Leitrim, Leitrim being a clear area and the traditional fair being in County Cavan. While I agree that Senator McDonald has a point, the Minister would find quite a lot of trouble in pleasing everybody, unless in the case of the eradication of brucellosis, he made wider areas than in the case of bovine TB.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, to delete paragraph (d).
This paragraph is not very clear and perhaps the Minister would tell us exactly what he means by it and who will be obliged to keep the records?
It could well be, in the case of the bovine TB eradication scheme, that it is the veterinary surgeon we would be mainly concerned with, but it might also be that, in certain circumstances, we would have to compel farmers to keep records as well. In the main it would be the veterinary profession.
Could the Minister tell us the circumstances in which a farmer would be compelled to keep records? Surely there are complete records in the TB office and a certificate is necessary in the case of warble fly and, eventually, under the brucellosis eradication scheme so that there would be sufficient records of all stocks.
It could, in certain circumstances, be individual farmers who are just farmers. It would be much more likely to be the sort of farmer who is doing a bit of dealing in cattle and who is transporting them from one place to another or, for instance, a dealer in poultry, or that sort of thing. It is hardly likely that it would be a farmer qua farmer, if I may put it like that.
Is there any danger that the records envisaged by the Minister will be more than, shall we say, the blue cards we had under the bovine TB scheme? Farmers have enough to do already. I should like, for the purpose of clarification, to ask if marts will be obliged to keep records? If that is so what will the position be regarding fairs?
I cannot tell the Senator in a blanket way all the circumstances in which this particular power is likely to be exercised. In general, it would mean, as I say, that where we were anxious to trace the movement of cattle—when I say "cattle", I include all animals—anybody having a part in the movement of the cattle would have to keep a record of it so that we could, if necessary, track down a particular animal.
Is that not possible at the present time with the blue card system? The cards go with the cattle and from the reference number, we know exactly where they come from. You know the county by the letter and you have the herd number, which is plainly inscribed on it as well. In addition, you have the warble fly certificate.
All that applies to cattle. We will also be concerned with sheep and pigs. We are really only taking the power, in certain circumstances, to make a particular person keep records of movements, etc.
I still cannot see the necessity for introducing the record. For instance, in the pig industry, there are some farmers who already have their pigs numbered for the purpose of grading and who keep their own particular records. If there is to be compulsion and if the person who keeps a couple of pigs has to have an ear tag on them in some way, it will be a burden and the cause of a lot of unnecessary bother for the already overtaxed farming community.
It is not our intention to operate this in such a way as to cause any farmer to sit up at night worrying about clerical records. We are not really concerned at all about individual farmers. We are concerned with the veterinary profession and dealers and, as the Senator mentioned, in certain circumstances, perhaps, with marts. We are really taking power so that, if necessary, we can compel those people to keep certain records which would enable us satisfactorily to pursue our eradication scheme.
Has the Minister any intention at the back of his mind of compelling farmers to keep these records for taxation purposes?
No. We regard ourselves as the champion of the farmers against the Revenue on all occasions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill".
On the section, and again on the question of records, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the present blue cards and also to the necessity for keeping a second card in relation to the scheme for the eradication of warble fly. Next year when the brucellosis eradication scheme is introduced we will have a third card. I should like to urge on the Minister that someone should draft one single card that would carry the three services. It is very difficult to keep track of these things. Would the Minister be prepared to have someone design one card?
I should like to think that we could move around to it some time.
It is all right until the night before a fair when people are looking for these things.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill".
I wonder if it would be relevant to mention at this stage in connection with the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme the very short notice which is given to farmers who might intend changing their veterinary surgeon during the year. This is issued in the form of a circular around the 6th January and they have to notify the TB office by the 12th January. The circular which is sent out is a bit long-winded. Farmers find that they have left it too late to notify the district veterinary office and nothing can be done about it. They should get more time, and the notice should be more prominent. The circular goes out with the Minister's annual good wishes for the coming year and they may even be so preoccupied in reading them that they do not see the notice. I am requesting the Minister to make it more prominent in future.
We will have a look at that. The Senator is not suggesting that I should expand my goodwill message.
Not at all.
It is long-winded enough as it is.
I suppose the Minister would not state what he considers to be a suitable manner in which to announce his intention to make orders. I should like to see more of these orders being made in either House of the Oireachtas if that were possible, especially when the Houses are sitting.
They are not made in either House. They are made by the Minister and laid before both Houses.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill".
Does this relate only to the Minister's power to maintain a register such as the register at present in the district bovine tuberculosis office? Is there anything new in this?
It is extending that sort of power to all animals and poultry.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with powers of authorised persons and officers. I concede that these powers are necessary but I do not see any reason why an officer of the Minister entering upon anyone's land should not introduce himself and say: "I am an officer of the Minister and here is my identity card".
It is dealt with later.
Wait a minute. It says here: "For the purpose of the eradication of a Class B disease, an authorised person on production, if requested, of his authorisation, may at all reasonable times..." I do not see any reason why he should not produce his authorisation.
There might be no one there to request him.
Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. He is going in on someone's land.
I think it is fair enough if he is compelled to produce it on request. He might be well known.
Where he is well known there will not be any difficulty but you do come across cantankerous individuals. I do not see any reason why he should not say: "I am the veterinary inspector. I am an official of the Department. Here is my card". I do not see why public officials should be exempt from this kind of legal courtesy to the citizenry.
A Garda Síochána is not expected to do that.
A Garda Síochána is in uniform, and if he is a plain clothes man he will certainly identify himself. It might be in the interests of the authorised officials themselves that that should be the rule. I really think the words "if requested" should be deleted and it should be obligatory on the inspector.
Say he goes in the middle of the night, is he expected to wake up the farmer and say: "Here I am. This is my authorisation"?
We are talking in a practical context.
I think the Senator is being a little impractical and pushing this a bit far.
No, I am not. If a person is enforcing a right which he would not have in the ordinary course to go on someone's land and inspect his barns or his byres, he should announce himself and produce his authorisation. I do not see any difficulty in that. I object to this kind of thing. It is all right for the Minister to say they can be asked for their identification, but when people are confronted with this type of situation they do not think of that.
May I profoundly disagree with the Senator. I am quite sure there can be cantankerous officials but there are also cantankerous farmers.
I was thinking of the cantankerous farmer.
He has his answer. He can ask to see the authorisation and the official must produce it if requested. I think it would be absurd if he had to produce it on every occasion. My own vet might come to me and I could say: "Out you go, because you have no authorisation".
(Longford) In the majority of these cases the official of the Department would be pretty well known to the farming community and, in the very odd case where he would not be known, he would get the local vet or some other official to accompany him and to introduce him. If this suggestion has any merit it would be that it would prevent confidence tricksters from pretending to act as officials of the Department of Agriculture. There have been rare cases of this. People have also purported to act for the Land Commission, and people have pretended to be policemen and held up motor cars. I know this is very rare but that is the only merit I see in this suggestion.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill".
May I refer to a drafting point that astonishes me. In section 2 we define "prescribe" as meaning "prescribed by order" and in this section we say: "The Minister may make orders... prescribing". I cannot understand why if the parliamentary draftsman defined "prescribe" as meaning "prescribed by order" we now say: "The Minister may make orders... prescribing".
It looks messy. We will have a look at that between now and Report Stage.
Would the Minister be good enough to look at it also in relation to other sections? I came across it in section 14 and in section 15, paragraphs (a) and (c). I got tired of it around section 27. I am glad the Minister shares my desire for felicity of expression.
I should like to ask if this section is for general use or applies to epidemics only. Does it apply only to diseased animals and poultry or animals and poultry that have come into contract with any disease? Paragraph (f) is somewhat on the same lines as paragraph (d) of section 20. Will the Minister say exactly what records he has in mind? If he does, that would put my mind at ease. I should also like to know if it relates to a class B disease. I cannot understand why time and time again this question of records is emphasised in the Bill and I am sure the Minister will agree that we cannot help being a little suspicious about it.
I agree with Senator McDonald. So far as I can see this is the widest section in the whole Bill. It gives the Minister power to make orders, but it is not related in any way to disease or the eradication of disease. I am wondering about paragraph (a) which relates to "animals or poultry newly purchased or imported". When we come to paragraph (f) apparently in any circumstances the Minister may prescribe in relation to dogs, cats, cows or whatever it may be, that the owner must keep records, but there is no background or no reason for it. It does not state that records should be kept because there is a disease or because of the eradication of a disease. It is completely wide.
"Consequences under this Bill".
No reason has been adduced for the order.
In a lot of these contagious diseases a fundamental part of the whole process is to be able to track down the origin of the disease. We try to find either the person or the animal responsible for the introduction and the spreading of the disease, and the ability of the Minister and his officials to prescribe the keeping of records in this type of situation is essential to the whole question of animal health. When we have an outbreak of a disease the first thing we try to do is to track down where it came from and how it was caused. It is an essential part of that process that we should be able to prescribe where necessary that records of movement, and so on, should be kept.
I fully agree but there is not a word in the section about disease or the Minister's wishes in relation to why he should make an order. It gives him power to make an order not only in relation to the keeping of orders, but under section 27 of this Bill the Minister could stop fairs or markets by order. I am not saying that is the sort of thing the Minister would do. He would not last very long if he started doing things like that. I would be satisfied if there was a reference to the outbreak of a disease. This leaves it completely open without any reason stated at all. A fair or a market can be stopped, people must keep records, or these other things can happen.
The regulation and isolation of animals purchased or imported is indicative of the necessity to have control of these things.
Surely there is no question about animals being imported because they have the quarantine stations. In the case of calves each one has a number indicating the herd and there is no difficulty in tracing an animal. You have only to get one single bullock taken to the Dublin market and you can trace it in a matter of hours. I do not understand why the Minister is so insistent on looking for all these powers and I am very suspicious about this.
The Senator must realise that this is one of the most fundamentally important things in Irish farming, the preservation of our disease-free status. This is the most important national asset we have, and I do not think that the Seanad should grudge me any reasonable powers to ensure that to the greatest possible extent our veterinary surgeons and others can prevent the possibility of an outbreak of any major disease here. That is the background to the whole situation. I could not over-emphasise how important a matter it is. If we had an outbreak of this nature in the country the Seanad would rush to give me any possible power I might want to deal with it. Is it not better to be wise before the event? What I am concerned with in this connection is to cope with a situation such as we have at present where there is an outbreak of virulent foot and mouth disease all over Europe. We have not got the disease here. I could clarify this by putting in words to the effect that where disease exists and so on, but I want to take powers even where it is not here but where it exists abroad to do certain things here, to make people keep certain records here or to prevent people doing things here. It might be necessary for me, because we have an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Europe this year, to go along to the RDS and say: "I do not want you to hold any exhibition of cattle this year." We had this before and that is the sort of situation I am trying to deal with.
Take, for instance, the position regarding poultry. There is no difficulty, I maintain, in tracing poultry. The Department has records of day-old chicks and know where they went.
We had an outbreak of poultry disease last year. We tried by every means in our power to isolate it, to identify it and find out where it came from and how it had started. This was our major concern in our approach to the problem, to try to find out where this disease had started. If we had been able to ascertain that, we would have been a long way towards a solution of the problem but we never found out.
But the Minister will agree there was no problem in tracing the chicks which were distributed through the country, at least, in Munster. I still think the Minister is unreasonable in looking for these wide powers.
I am looking for as wide powers as I can possibly get to deal with this situation. I am not going to use these powers unreasonably. As Senator Sheldon says, any Minister who would set out to use those powers in the ridiculous way suggested here would not last very long. It is not unreasonable to seek the widest powers possible. This is probably the most important single matter in Irish agriculture, the prevention of the importation of disease and the capacity to deal with disease if it breaks out.
Has the Minister decided yet on the type of records and record books which farmers could be expected to keep?
How could I possibly decide that? I do not know what any given situation would call for?
Unlike Senator McDonald, I am not one bit worried about the keeping of records. I would be happier about section 27, however, if it began by saying: "For the prevention of the introduction of disease into the country, or any area of it", or some such qualification, so that the Minister—not this Minister but some successor of his who might not be as sensible—would not, for some odd reason which he would not have to state, stop a fair or market. It ought to be linked in some way with the prevention of the introduction of disease.
(Longford): Senator Sheldon referred to the present Minister being sensible and, possibly, Ministers in the future not being so sensible. There may be people who feel that no Minister for Agriculture is sensible but, whether he is or not, we must all be sensible enough to realise that, in the long run, it is the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture which has responsibility in this matter. Our experience is that the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture has used its powers with prudence, wisdom and justice.
——and with success.
(Longford):——and with success in very difficult circumstances of an outbreak of contagious disease. I could not envisage a situation, either now or in the future, whereby a Minister for Agriculture would embark upon a programme to compel small farmers anywhere to keep records merely to punish them or to inflict hardship on them. We all here realise that the powers and functions of the Minister in this matter are exercised only after due consideration and consultation with the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture. That section I think we can say has served this country pretty well, to put it at its mildest. We should have reasonable confidence in it in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th February, 1966.