Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 23 May 1947

Vol. 106 No. 6

Clean Wool Bill, 1947—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. Under the Emergency Powers (Clean Wool) Order, 1944, which is at present in operation, it is an offence to purchase or sell wool from which tar, pitch or paint had not been removed before shearing, or to manufacture, purchase or sell sheep dip containing colouring matter which stained or coloured wool. These substances imparted a stain to the wool which could not be scoured out under normal processes, with the result that the value of the wool was considerably reduced.

At the time the Order was being made, buyers and manufacturers of Irish wool pressed strongly for the prohibition of the use of tar, pitch and paint in the branding of sheep and the use of bloom dips. As, however, adequate supplies of alternative branding fluids were not available it was decided that power could not reasonably be taken under the Emergency Powers Order to prohibit the use of substances which stained the wool. The position with regard to the supply of suitable branding fluids has now improved to such an extent that adequate supplies are available to meet the needs of the sheep producers. Under the Bill provision is being made for the making of an Order prohibiting the use of any specified substance in the branding of sheep. I propose immediately the Bill becomes law to make an Order prohibiting the use of tar, pitch, paint or any other objectionable substance in the branding of sheep. Sheep producers were consulted in the matter and have indicated that they would raise no objection on the understanding that supplies of suitable marking fluids were available.

The Bill continues in force the prohibition contained in the existing Emergency Powers Order on the manufacture, sale and purchase of bloom dips. The Bill, therefore, is to all intents and purposes a continuation and an extension of the Emergency Powers (Clean Wool) Order, which has been in operation since March, 1944, and should result in the marketing of Irish wool in a much cleaner manner than heretofore. I need hardly stress the fact that the necessity for marketing Irish wool in the best possible condition has become all the greater in the post-war period. Wool is one of the few raw materials of which there is a large world surplus, and considerable difficulties are likely to be encountered in maintaining a satisfactory market for Irish wool, either at home or abroad, unless the highest standards of cleanliness are maintained. It is understood that certain American buyers now require a warranty of freedom from tar, pitch and paint before purchasing Irish wool.

Mr. Hughes

I think the House must agree that any measure that aims at improving the quality and condition of our wool for marketing purposes should meet with the approval of the House. Nevertheless, I feel that the Bill is a manufacturers' Bill and is drafted in the manufacturers' interests purely and simply. The problems of sale and of the handling of wool by producers were scarcely considered at all. One would think that responsibility should be put on all the people who handle wool, not merely on the producers. Section 5 states that no person shall purchase or otherwise acquire or sell or dispose of any wool on which a prohibited substance is present. Does that mean that every fleece of wool has to be opened and examined? If a man happens inadvertently to buy this wool and the whole parcel of wool was not opened, is he liable to be prosecuted? If that process has to be gone through in the case of every parcel of wool, it means that the producer has to pay for all that examination, and not the manufacturer.

Section 4 says:—

"A person who shears sheep shall before the shearing, separate from the fleece all wool on which a prohibited substance is present."

I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that that section should be drafted in a different way because a person who may shear wool may be an employee of the man who owns the sheep and the responsibility should not be put on the employee but on the owner. Whether it is removed before or after shearing is immaterial, so long as the wool is not marked with objectionable matter from the manufacturers' point of view.

So far as bloom dips and colouring are concerned, the Minister knows that in the vast majority of cases these bloom dips are used at a certain period of the year for breeding stock, mostly to colour rams, and there is scarcely any danger that these particular fleeces will be available before the bloom dip is washed out. Again in that particular section, I think you are interfering unduly with the normal work of the sheep farmer. If a man takes pride in his breeding stock and he is prohibited from exercising his art in decorating a particular animal and making him look his best, I think it is carrying this provision too far. As a practical man the Minister ought to look into this matter and consider what has been the normal practice in connection with the exhibiting of certain animals at shows where a stock owner desires to turn out his animals to the very best advantage. Again, in connection with Section 3 there is no definition of "daggings". If a case comes before a judge or a justice, how is he going to decide what daggings are or where the daggings begin or where they end?

Mr. Smith

They do not end quickly enough.

Mr. Hughes

Possibly the draftsmen have been frightened off from the attempt to define the word "daggings," but surely the term should be defined, otherwise the court may not know the meaning of the word "daggings." I think that most Deputies now present have some idea of what daggings mean, but if there was a full attendance of Deputies there would be quite a number who would not know what daggings are. The Minister may say that the points I have made will not arise in ordinary practice, that the Emergency Order has been in operation and has presented no difficulty but if there is any rigid application of the Act, if purchasers of wool are forced to open every fleece that is offered for sale, then it is the producer who will have to pay for that administration of the Bill and not the people who are going to benefit by it. While agreeing with the Minister as to the desirability of our wool being marketed in proper order, I still say that it is the manufacturers' responsibility to ensure that the wool is clean by means of some price arrangement—by paying a good price for wool properly prepared for market and by inflicting a substantial cut on the man who markets wool to which some foreign matter is adhering.

If the House feels that it is desirable to have such an enactment as this, I think it ought to be drafted in such a way as to make it easy of administration. It is not in the interests of the sheep industry to impose a responsibility on purchasers to open every fleece that is presented for sale to ascertain whether there is foreign matter attached and whether the daggings are there or not. If the House feels that we must put the responsibility on someone to ensure that the wool is presented in a clean condition, I do not think it ought to be put on the purchaser. If you are going to compel the purchaser to open every fleece and examine it, then the man who is doing his job well, who is producing clean wool, will have to pay for the examination of wool that is not properly presented, because there will be a cut in the price. I think the Minister ought to consider that aspect of the matter and put the responsibility on the producer.

Mr. Blowick

Any measure that will help to improve the quality of our wool, especially in view of what the Minister has said, that there is likely to be quite an appreciable amount of wool for export, is a step in the right direction. I cannot see eye to eye on the points that are worrying Deputy Hughes, especially in regard to Section 5. If the man who buys wool does not take the precaution of opening the fleece to satisfy himself, in a reasonable way, that its condition complies with this measure when it becomes law, well, in my opinion, that is his lookout.

Mr. Hughes

My argument was that it was the producer and not the purchaser who will ultimately have to pay for the examination. The Deputy should bear that in mind.

Mr. Blowick

I have some experience of wool, and I think I am correct in saying that such an examination does take place when a man is buying wool. It did in the past.

Mr. Hughes

Not in any great detail.

Mr. Blowick

A certain amount of precaution was necessary on the part of the purchaser when buying wool. The Minister referred to colouring matter in the various dips. Will he say whether that applies to the ordinary yellow dips such as Cooper's and Osmond's?

Mr. Hughes

The Deputy will see that if he reads the section.

Mr. Blowick

I have, and it is not quite clear. We all know that the colouring matter in yellow sheep dips is not of very much importance except that it gives the fleece a nice appearance. I take it from what the Minister has said that the principal colouring matter will be excluded but that the yellow matter will not be excluded. I suggest that Section 4 is wrongly drafted because as it reads I take it that it would be an offence for a person not to remove pitch or other objectionable substances before the sheep were sheared. I do not see the necessity for that so long as the producer offers the wool to the purchaser in a condition that will comply with this measure. Since the Clean Wool Order came into operation, the practice in the West was not to remove any brands from the sheep before shearing. That was done prior to the rolling of the fleece. As the Bill is drafted, if an officious guard or an authorised officer on behalf of the Minister found a man shearing his sheep without having previously removed the brands it would be an offence. I think if the section provided that the brands were removed from the fleece after shearing it would meet the situation.

Is the Minister satisfied that, in the case of black-faced mountain sheep— the practice in their case has been to use ordinary raddle—branding with a fluid would be sufficient? We know that mountain sheep are difficult to brand. The wool on them does not retain either pitch or branding with a fluid mark. I think that in the case of these sheep the Minister should allow a certain amount of latitude. The farmers who produce them have their own peculiar method of branding them with raddle. The prohibited substances for branding are tar, pitch and paint. Raddle cannot be described as paint. Has the Minister any statistics available which would indicate the amount of branding that has been done by tar and to what extent it did damage in the past to the wool clip. I take it that he had such statistics before him when preparing the Bill, and that the damage done must have been appreciable. I, however, cannot see that very much damage could have been done by the use of pitch or tar for branding, or that it entailed any very big loss on manufacturers to remove it. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is intended that this Bill should apply to this season's clip. I suggest to him that it should not apply, but that the Clean Wool Order should remain in force.

Mr. Hughes

It is all the same.

Mr. Blowick

No. This Bill is much wider in scope than the Clean Wool Order. I suggest that the Bill should not apply to this season's clip.

Mr. Cogan

With regard to the last point that was raised by Deputy Blowick, I think that the essential difference between this Bill and the Clean Wool Order is that the Bill imposes a total prohibition on producers with regard to the use of certain substances for branding. The Emergency Powers Order did not prohibit the use of tar or pitch, but compelled the producer to remove it from the fleece before it was offered for sale. In this connection, a point arises which may require attention. This season's lambs may have been branded already with pitch or tar. Some farmers use pitch or tar in order to protect lambs from foxes. If this Bill comes into immediate operation and if, during the course of the summer months, Gárdaí or authorised officers of the Minister find this year's lambs which are branded with pitch or tar, a charge may be brought against the sheep owner. That would be unfair and unjust. As far as sheep are concerned, that may not apply because, if the Bill is to take immediate force, it will have been put into operation before the sheep have been sheared, and the sheep would not have been branded. That is an important matter which occurs to me at the moment. I have not given it very detailed consideration but I suggest that it is a matter that requires to be considered.

I do not think the Bill will meet with any serious objection. When the Order which this Bill continues was first introduced, I attended a meeting representative of Wicklow mountain farmers who used tar and pitch fairly extensively because their sheep have to range over a very wide area and must be very effectively marked. There was, of course, the usual protest against this kind of Order but, after due consideration of all the aspects of the case, the meeting decided that they would not oppose or object to the Order inasmuch as their main concern was to secure the highest possible price for their wool and, in striving for the highest possible price, they naturally felt that they could not object to any thing that would raise the quality of their wool.

There is no doubt whatever the substances such as tar and pitch do enormous damage to wool and lower its value enormously. Their use creates tremendous difficulties in manufacture and I suppose also, to a certain extent, would lower the quality of the wool, even when it had been completely cleaned. There is also the damage that is done by the use of these substances to the plant used in manufacturing the wool into cloth.

The Minister said that the producers were consulted. I should like to know if any particular organisation of producers was consulted or if there was consultation merely with individual farmer producers. In a matter of his kind, it is desirable that some body should be recognised by the Government as representative of the producers and should be consulted whenever occasion arises to make Orders to amend existing Orders. The closest co-operation between those engaged in production and the Department is absolutely essential if we are to secure an improvement in the quality and quantity of output. As I have indicated, one of the most serious matters which concern farmers is the question of price and, as this Bill, presumably, is designed to increase the price by raising the quality of the wool, I propose to refer briefly to that matter. Last year, as happened very often in the past, the price paid for wool was very low having regard to costs of production and all the circumstances, but the great grievance of the producer is that immediately after the clip had been collected from the farmer the price jumped.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now going a bit outside the measure.

Mr. Cogan

I admit that I am, but this matter was referred to in a passing way by Deputy Hughes who pointed out that the additional cost of examining wool imposed by this Bill would be passed to the producer. The unfortunate thing is that additional gains which come to the merchants are never passed on to the producer. If anything should happen immediately after the wool has been purchased from the producer to increase its value, no attempt is made to pass on the increment of price to the producer and I have no doubt that if additional expense is imposed upon the merchants and dealers by reason of this Bill the producer will have to foot the entire cost. With regard to the alternative to having the responsibility placed on the merchant, it would seem to me that it would be very difficult to fix the onus on the producer unless a system were adopted whereby every separate fleece of wool would bear some identification mark when collected by the merchants. If that were done, it would be possible to trace each fleece to the producer. That, of course, is done in connection with the marking of eggs.

These are matters more or less of detail. They will require very careful attention and consideration before the Committee Stage. I would ask the Minister to allow a little time to permit the various people concerned to investigate and to discuss them. Very often a Bill of this kind is not discussed very seriously by farmers and small merchants down the country as they do not see it until it is actually before the House. That is why a little time should be allowed to elapse between the Second and Third Stages, to let any points that may arise on any section and that may seem capable of any improvement be considered by the producers.

The Minister will get wholehearted support and co-operation from all sections in carrying the Bill into force. Everybody in the production and marketing of wool wants to see our wool placed in the highest grade possible, having regard to the breed and the climatic conditions. We cannot produce the very fine type of wool which warmer countries can produce, but no one will deny that it is our bounden duty to see that our product is put on the market in the very best possible condition.

I do not see any great difficulty in connection with the point raised by Deputy Blowick under Section 7. I think the ordinary sheep dips which do not include in their make-up a permanent stain or colour will not be affected. There are, or there were, certain dips in the past which had a colouring matter of more or less permanent effect, or a long-term effect, at any rate, intended to improve the selling appearance of the sheep by imparting a colour to the wool. No one will suggest, for example, that the colouring of ordinary Cooper's Dip is of a permanent nature. Therefore, my reading of the section is that it would not be affected. In conclusion, I would like the Minister to look into the point I raised about this present year's lambs and their branding with tar and pitch.

Mr. Beegan

There is nothing very contentious about this Bill and it will not cause any great resentment amongst wool producers. The change in the type of brand will not make any material difference to them. One of the things they will be inclined to ask is whether they will get the benefit of the change-over. In the past, some farmers all over the country, particularly the good farmers, branded their sheep for a number of years with the type of brand envisaged in this Bill, but they did not see that they got anything for that. A person who branded them with tar or pitch got just as much per lb. for the wool. I know that branding with tar or pitch causes great difficulty to the manufacturers. I happened to see wool that was being prepared for the foreign market and men were engaged in clipping off the tar and pitch. The question is whether the producers are going to get any of that benefit. Not only from the point of view of the quality of the wool should the tar and pitch be abolished, but also because in many instances there were serious accidents in the branding of sheep when tar was hung on a fire. Sometimes the place where the tar was melted—it may be carelessness on the part of the people looking after it— took fire and the whole house went up in flames and even some of the people were injured.

The whole wool position deserves attention and should be looked into. There is grave dissatisfaction year in and year out amongst the producers regarding the instability in the prices.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan was prevented from travelling that road.

Mr. Beegan

I am sorry. As far as putting the cost of the examination over on the producer is concerned, I do not think it will arise seriously, as intimated by Deputy Hughes. My experience is that wool producers sell to the same person from year to year and when a buyer is satisfied that he is dealing with an honest person and was getting an honest product in the past, the examination in that way will be very light. I do not believe he will go into it at all. If there is anything wrong, he knows the person from whom he bought it and can bring it to his notice. I think that could be got over very easily. It is quite right to ensure that neither diseased wool nor daggings should be included. In general, this measure will be welcomed by the producers, but their main interest in it will be to see what benefit will accrue to them. If it is going to benefit only the manufacturers, they will not hail it as enthusiastically as they would do otherwise.

As far as the wool position is concerned, it is not entirely a matter for the Government. The wool producers themselves could do a good deal, just as they have been doing in Deputy Cogan's constituency. I suppose that is a question for discussion some time in the future, but I would like to see one related to the other, as I believe they are very closely connected, even though my mentioning it at the present time might be outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Smith

I intended to ask the House for all stages of this measure and was somewhat disappointed to hear Deputy Cogan inviting me to give some space of time between this stage and the other stages. The reason I intended to ask for all stages was that a good deal of discussion has taken place with the interests concerned, even since I came into this office, on these proposals. As I said in the beginning, we had secured agreements amongst the interested parties. I had a lengthy discussion on the only point on which there seemed to be more or less strenuous opposition by dealers in wool, namely, Section 5, to which Deputy Hughes has referred. The dealers came to see me quite recently and we talked this matter out very fully. I heard their point of view and told them mine and I think they went away—maybe not satisfied, but satisfied that there was no other suitable approach, from our point of view.

Deputy Cogan referred to the legislation dealing with clean eggs. That was the very piece of legislation which was in my mind when discussing Section 5 with the wool people. If we did not put upon them the responsibility of seeing to it that they bought clean wool, Deputies can easily see how impossible it would be to enforce any restriction. If a producer of wool goes to Deputy Hughes with wool and he proceeds to examine the wool fairly carefully, and if, as a competitor of Deputy Hughes, I do not approach the thing as conscientiously as he and it becomes a matter of competition between us, since it was not an offence for either of us to buy wool treated in this way, we will both come down to the very lowest standard and the whole scheme falls through. I discussed that point with the people concerned. They held rather firmly the opinion to which expression has been given by Deputy Hughes, but I think I shook it well before they left me.

Mr. Hughes

I see the Minister's difficulty.

Mr. Smith

It was suggested that making the owner responsible for the acts of his employee or employees was objectionable. I cannot see any way out of it. That seems to be the position in all legislation. If the law can be broken on a sheep owner's premises or on the premises of a man in any business and if he can avoid paying the penalty merely by saying that the act was committed by an employee, enforcement of the law would then be a difficult matter.

Mr. Hughes

Surely he is responsible for his employee?

Mr. Smith

Yes, and for the acts of his employee on his premises.

Mr. Hughes

But you are putting the responsibility on the employee here.

Mr. Smith

On both of them.

Mr. Hughes

Yes, on both.

Mr. Smith

I was asked by Deputy Hughes to give a definition of daggings. I think it is better to leave the daggings as they are and take whatever risks there may be—I do not know whether there are any or not—rather than to proceed to make a definition. If, in giving a definition of some term such as this, which is fairly generally understood——

Mr. Hughes

Perhaps the Minister would tell us what daggings are?

Mr. Smith

I will not have a try at it. I do not think it is necessary.

Mr. Hughes

I want to know where the daggings end and the clean wool begins.

Mr. Smith

I know it was often a source of irritation to myself to find, as I tried to convey when Deputy Hughes was speaking, that they did not end as quickly as I should like them to end. I do not know what Deputy Blowick had in mind when he asked me what was the extent to which damage was done by the use of substances. I do not know that I could give him any figure of the kind he appeared to expect me to be able to give him, but I should say that damage to the reputation of a commodity is the important point. I do not know that it is a proper analogy, but if a sawyer sees a very fine tree in which he knows that iron bolts, nails, screws and nuts are stuck at different places which are not visible, the tree appearing to be very valuable, but the sawyer knowing that, when he puts it on the bench, he may run up against the metals and destroy very valuable equipment and so on, he knows that the tree is of no value at all to him. The tree, if it could be handled, might be all right, but the fact remains that the knowledge he has that it contains these metals means that he will not purchase at all.

If, as we know is the case, there is no market here for the wool of the kind we produce and if the purchaser of that wool, because of the world supply position, says: "I want this wool in a certain condition. I want a certain warranty that it is free from so-and-so and so-and-so. Otherwise, I will not have anything to do with it," it seems to me to indicate the kind of damage done by the use of the substances we seek to prohibit here. That answers the point raised by Deputy Beegan, which is raised by producers, legitimately, I suppose, not only in relation to wool but in relation to a number of other matters—what are they going to get out of it? It is often impossible, and in fact it is impossible in many cases, to say exactly what they are going to get out of it, and the only reply one can give is in general terms the reply I have just given.

Objection was taken to Section 4, and the question was asked why we fix the time when the offence is committed at the point before the wool is removed from the sheep. We must fix a point somewhere. If the wool is removed from the sheep, it could be carried over for a very long time, and it is thought desirable that the point fixed should be before the fleece is taken from the sheep's back.

Mr. Hughes

I would suggest, before marketing.

Mr. Smith

I think that would raise doubts and difficulties. I was asked about consultations. The consultations we have had with producers were with the Irish Farmers' Federation, the South of Ireland Branch of the Suffolk Sheep Society, the Galway Sheep Breeders' Society, and the Munster Sheep Breeders' Society. We have had, as I say, considerable discussions, both with regard to the emergency Order now in existence and the proposals before the House, with all the interests concerned, and, while, some of them may not like some of these provisions, they have all agreed as to the need for them, and I thought it not unreasonable to ask the House to give me all stages of the measure to-day.

Mr. Hughes

I have no great objection.

Mr. Cogan

I have no objection either, but I should like the Minister to clear up the point about this year's lambs which may already be marked with tar. If lambs are marked now, have we any assurance that the people who marked them prior to the passing of the Act will not be held liable?

Mr. Smith

They will be all right, because, if they are marked, they will be selling the wool. The marking will have to be removed, but otherwise they will be all right.

Mr. Cogan

If lambs are found marked during the coming months, there will be no difficulty?

Mr. Smith

There will be no danger.

Question put and agreed to.