I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, to delete line 40.
This is a small matter arising out of a discussion on the Committee Stage. The Minister indicated that some tightening up of the definitions was required. In line 40 of page 5, "prescribe" is defined as "prescribe by order". Everywhere in the Act where there is provision for the Minister to make orders, it is stated that the Minister may make orders. Once he is entitled to make an order, it does not seem to me that there is anything to be gained by putting into the Bill that he may make orders "prescribing and regulating" as appears in sections 27, 33 and elsewhere.
If "prescribed" means "prescribed by order", then I feel you are bound to take the words "prescribed by order" and transfer them to where "prescribed" occurs. If you do that, you get an outbreak of tautology for which any Leaving Certificate student would have considerable marks deducted by examiners of the Department of Education. There is an outbreak of it in section 27 and it increases until there is an absolute epidemic of it in section 33. I am told here that it is a torrent of tautology. I do not see for the life of me how if "prescribed" means "prescribed by order", the Minister may make an order in section 27 prescribing and regulating. I think it is utterly tautological to translate that to mean that the Minister may make orders prescribing and regulating the issue and production of licences in regard to the movement and removal of animals, poultry, eggs and things as set out in paragraph (b) of section 27.
Then you find in section 33 and other sections that "prescribe" is used in a different sense. The Minister may make orders, in section 33, in relation to other things prescribing for the supervision and control of animals. In that kind of context I do not know how you can say the Minister may make orders prescribing by order for the supervision and control of animals. That, to me, does not sound like English at all. Therefore, the way to get over all that difficulty—it is obviously bad draftsmanship—is to delete "prescribe" altogether. It is quite redundant since everywhere the Minister is empowered to make an order under any section of the Bill. I would hate to have to try to explain to any member of the public how the definition can be justified as it stands. I think the cleanest and neatest way, to borrow a phrase of Senator Sheldon, is to delete line 40. As I say, it is only a drafting point and I do not think we should be asked to assent to this slovenly kind of draftsmanship.