Vol. 107 No. 9
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—
In Section 1, sub-section (1), page 2, line 13, the words "sheep scab" deleted and the words "or preventive of sheep scab or any other external parasitic disease of sheep" substituted.
What is it? Tell us all about it. What does the amendment do or not do?
It was felt, as a result of the discussion in the Seanad, that the definition should be extended so as to make provision for any new developments in the production of sheep dip that would have the effect of treating sheep for external parasites as well as scab.
Does it put any additional obligation on the farmer, or is it a permissive amendment?
No additional obligation.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—
In Section 2, sub-section (1), page 2, line 26, the words, "of the council of a county or of the corporation of a county borough" inserted before the word "appointed"; and in sub-section (2), page 2, line 29, the words "is an officer of" deleted and the words "was appointed by" substituted.
This amendment provides that the officers of local authorities as well as officers of my Department can be used for the purpose of detection of persons attempting to evade the provisions of this measure.
In connection with this amendment, which increases the personnel of the army of inspectors at present ranging through this country to teach people how to do their own business, I should like to inquire from the Minister for Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that he intends to swell the ranks of this bureaucratic army of busybodies, he will turn his mind to the question of whether he can, by some concessions, compensate the prospective victims of these inspectorial visitors. We could endure inspection; we could endure being harassed on our farms for the benefit of the fellmongers and the wool buyers; because, let no one in this House imagine that the farmers when selling their sheep will get any better price because they have spent their days striving to keep the fleece clean and free from contamination.
The Deputy is away from the amendment. It is a question of whether local officials should be allowed to inspect.
I am asking, if we submit to this additional burden, are we entitled to any consideration. I am surely entitled to remind the House——
The question of compensation does not arise. On the Second Stage, the Deputy had an opportunity of dealing with that.
Very well. I oppose the amendment on the ground that we have a damned sight too many inspectors careering around the country and that the inspection about to be adopted is a device to add to the expenses of the men who rear the sheep.
The Deputy is again out of order. On the Second Stage, the principle of inspection was agreed to by this House and, as regards that, the Dáil is function officio.
I am not opposing inspection. I am opposing an additional number of inspectors. Surely I may do that. We have provided in the Bill for a battalion of inspectors. This amendment is designed to convert that battalion into a regiment. Doubtless, some subsequent amending legislation will convert that regiment into an army corps. But, all the time, whether it is a battalion, a platoon, a regiment or an army corps the poor fools that rear the sheep will pay for them. I think that is true. If the argument were adduced that, although the farmers would be required to pay for the army corps of inspectors, the farmers would get a benefit out of the inspection, I could understand the argument. I respectfully submit that I am entitled to make the case that, when this battalion of inspectors is being turned into a regiment, the burden on the farmers who will have to pay for the regiment is increased, but the benefits that will accrue from the intensification of inspection brought about by the increase in the number of inspectors will not accrue to the farmers who are to pay for it.
The Deputy was told that that precise point is not in order and it must not be returned to in another way.
May I then inquire of the Minister, why are we increasing the number of inspectors? What purpose has the Minister in mind? Is this increase in the number of inspectors designed to secure that wool will be cleaner than it has been heretofore? If that is its purpose, will he commend this amendment to us on the ground that no particular category of the community will derive benefit from it? If so, what category? That is surely not out of order and I am entitled to ask that question. If we are to increase the number of inspectors, who will benefit, apart from the inspectors who get jobs?
The sheep.
Deputy O'Driscoll says the sheep will benefit.
And maybe he is right.
Even that would be some consolation, but I think it highly unlikely that the sheep will benefit in any particular way.
The inspectors.
Another Deputy on my right suggests that the inspectors will benefit. These are all interesting speculations. May I speculate? I think the fellmongers will benefit. I think the wool merchants will benefit.
The Deputy understands the amendment. The question is whether officials of local authorities should be allowed to inspect, as well as others. Who should benefit was a matter which might have been and was discussed on Second Stage and matters discussed on Second Stage, not relevant to this amendment, may not be discussed now.
Would the Minister say why then he wants to increase the number of inspectors? Some purpose must be served. Surely it is not for the purpose of hindering inspection? When the Minister has told us what purpose he intends to serve by increasing the number of inspectors, surely the House may discuss the likelihood of his objective being reached? I invite the Minister then to tell us what purpose is to be served by increasing the number of inspectors. Is it designed to benefit anybody and, if so, who?
I am as strongly opposed as Deputy Dillon to bureaucratic control, but, so far as this amendment is concerned, the House has agreed to the principle of inspection, and it is immaterial financially whether the inspection is carried out by local inspectors or by inspectors of the Department of Agriculture, because if we do not agree to inspectors of local authorities doing the inspection, the Minister can increase the inspectors in his Department. There is a much more objectionable amendment, amendment No. 6, which we will come to later.
I want to add my protest to the protests made by Deputy Dillon against any attempt to enlarge the huge army of inspectors who are already invading every farmer's holding. The Minister has given the House no indication of the value of these additional inspectors who are now to trespass on farmers' land. In my opinion, the vast majority of farmers are occupied in interviewing inspectors and if some effort is not made to reduce the number of inspectors parading around the farmers' places——
It does not arise.
——and if the officers of local authorities are to have power to inspect a farmer's wool or sheep, we shall be reaching a stage at which the farmers will dismiss their agricultural labourers and erect offices for the purpose of interviewing these inspectors. Farmers are becoming displeased by the visits of these inspectors and it is only right that the House should join with Deputy Dillon in opposing any amendment designed to add to the number of inspectors already parading the country.
One point in connection with this amendment is that the number and variety of inspectors is to be increased. The farmer at present labours under a great number of difficulties, one of which is the difficulty of preventing trespass on his farm. There are people—be they tourists or tinkers —who go on the farmer's land when they require firewood and who take it without the farmer's permission. Others go after rabbits and walk over his land without his permission. The farmer may eventually lose his temper and may decide to assert his authority by bringing out his gun, but he will not know before he shoots whether he is shooting an inspector or a tourist. That is a position which should not be allowed to continue. It would be better if the number of inspectors was reduced, so that the farmer will know exactly the personal appearance of the inspector who is likely to come on his farm. No matter how carefully he studies faces—and he is not educated in such a way as to enable him to study the general personal appearance of the various people coming on his farm— he will not be able to distinguish between inspectors and people who are trespassing for the purpose of taking some of his property. That is a difficulty I see in connection with the Bill. There is another difficulty in that the Bill provides for an inspection during the shearing operation to see whether a farmer removes tar from wool during that operation.
That is another amendment.
The position is that the inspectors will not be aware when the farmer is carrying out shearing operations and they will be prying on the farmer, looking over his fences and possibly visiting his sheep every day to see if they can catch him in failure to remove the tar while carrying out shearing. The whole thing is making the position more confused and it would be better to narrow the number of inspectors, so that the farmer would be able to identify the particular inspector dealing with this problem.
The principle of this measure has been approved by the House. Its provisions, therefore, must be desirable.
That is a considerable assumption.
On that assumption, which is a perfectly legitimate assumption, it is desirable that its provisions should be made effective when it becomes law. The most effective means that can be taken within reason, then, should be taken and this amendment proposes that the existing veterinary officials now employed by local authorities should have power to assist the officials of my Department in implementing these desirable proposals.
The amendment does not mention the word "veterinary".
The Minister's point is that the principle has been agreed to, and that, therefore, the proposal is desirable. But he left out a third requisite, that the proposal in the amendment is practicable. The Minister refers to this work being undertaken by veterinary officers. I do not know if they would be veterinary officers functioning under the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Local Government. In a great number of cases the offices are combined. The Minister, if he is not already aware, merely has to consult his colleague to ascertain if there is not a case made already, arising out of the Milk and Dairies Act, that these men are overworked, that they are not able to cope with the work that has been allocated to them. There is a suggestion in this Bill to increase their duties. That may be all right if it is practicable, but if there is any substance in the case made that they are not at the moment able to reach on the work which they have, then it is unreasonable to ask the Dáil to extend their duties.
It is refreshing to hear the Minister for Agriculture, with the brazen-faced audacity for which he is notorious, attempt to lay down the principle that because a Bill has been passed by this House it is, therefore, a good Bill. Did he read the observations of Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy in the High Court?
That is not in order.
The reference is in order.
If he did not, I hope he will.
I would prefer to see the Taoiseach reading it.
The House has heard the eloquence used in justification of this proposal to expand the battalion of inspectors into a regiment. The House has heard that the additions to be made to the battalion of inspectors are to be the overworked veterinary officers of the local authorities. Does the House imagine, if added duties are to be imposed on the veterinary officers of local authorities, who are already overworked discharging the duties they at present have, that those local authorities will not be required to appoint more inspectors and, when they have accumulated a sufficient number of inspectors, can the House doubt that, following the well-established practice, we will be called upon to appoint inspectors of the inspectors? I was visited on my land by two inspectors and I was astonished to meet a third. I asked him: "What, in the name of God, did you come to inspect?" and he told me he came to inspect the inspectors.
When I look around the galaxy of agriculturists sitting in the Fianna Fáil Benches, I wonder does it not occur to any of them that these local authority inspectors and the inspectors who will be appointed to inspect those inspectors will have to be paid for out of the rates levied on the county and that those rates will be paid by the proprietors of the sheep? We may not inquire as to who will receive the benefits of these inspections. We do not have to inquire as to who will pay the cost. We know that. If the Minister for Agriculture is left free to choose whether he will apply to the Department of Finance for authority to expand his estimate to pay inspectors of his own department to do this work, or simply tell the local authority to do it and, if necessary, increase their staff of veterinary inspectors does anyone here doubt that the Minister will shuffle off the responsibility for increasing the cost of his estimate and leave it to the local authorities to explain to the ratepayers, in what way they can, why it has become necessary to raise the rates in order to pay for the regiment of inspectors and the inspectors to inspect the inspectors who may be required under this Bill? Deputies may not have noticed that not only are we widening the ranks of the inspectors, but simultaneously we are amplifying their powers.
Not by this amendment.
No, Sir, not by this amendment.
The Deputy must then deal only with the amendment.
Then we cannot even contemplate, when proposing extra inspectors, the probable number that will be required? Surely, I am entitled to direct attention——
The Deputy is dealing with alleged extended powers of those inspectors, which do not come into the amendment.
Then I will deal simply with what these inspectors are required to do, with a view to determining how many will be required. Under this Bill it can become the duty of this regiment of inspectors to manicure each individual sheep in Ireland. Do Deputies realise that?
The duties of these inspectors were fixed on the Second Stage.
No, Sir, they are being fixed now.
Not by this amendment.
They are being fixed at this stage. Surely, you will not require me to discuss this Bill on the basis of what was done in the House on an earlier stage when you know that what was then done will be undone within ten minutes? I should not be asked to argue that what was in the Bill when it left the House will continue to be there. I am not asked to discuss this amendment on that presumption, well knowing that it will be altered very shortly. Surely, that would mean reducing Parliamentary procedure to a farce? One should not say to me; "Read the Bill and there you will see what will be the duties of the inspectors," when the Chair and I both know that these will not be the duties of the inspectors. It is not what was in the Bill when it left this House that will be the law; it will be something utterly different.
In considering amendments from the Seanad, the discussion is confined strictly to the subject-matter of each amendment. This amendment proposes that officials of local bodies may inspect just as well as Government officials. Whether that is advisable or not is the matter under discussion, not the duties of these inspectors as laid down in other sections.
This amendment provides that the veterinary officers of local authorities may inspect in accordance with this Clean Wool Act, as it will be. What is the meaning of the word "inspect"?
Get a dictionary.
I will tell you. You do not want a dictionary. Poor Deputy O'Driscoll is an innocent, simple kind of fellow if he thinks that a dictionary will help him; when dealing with legislation proposed by the Fianna Fáil Government, he will have to think again. Only silly billies imagine they can unravel the purpose of this Government with a dictionary. The dictionary which will unravel the problems propounded by this Government will not have to be written by a Samuel Johnson but by Eamon de Valera, who is the only man who can put the true meaning to anything.
And he is usually referred to here as the Taoiseach.
Yes, Sir, in this House, but not in his capacity as a lexicographer. "Inspect" in this context does not mean what Deputy O'Driscoll expects it to mean.
Address the Chair and do not be looking at me.
"Inspect" in this context means that the officer appointed by the local authority has the power, and may have the duty, to go through the wool of every individual sheep in Ireland.
He would be woolgathering like the Taoiseach.
Like Deputy Dillon.
Deputy Peadar O'Loghlen here interjects incredulously that Deputy Dillon must be wool-gathering if he believes that, and yet Deputy Peadar O'Loghlen will trot into the Lobby like one of the sheep and vote for this proposition, because that is the proposition in the Bill.
The definition of "inspection" does not arise on this amendment. It arose on another stage of the Bill and the meaning of "inspection" was then laid down. The Deputy must confine himself to the question of whether it is or is not advisable that officials of local authorities should have power to inspect.
And Deputy O'Driscoll asks——
I am not concerned with Deputy O'Driscoll, but with Deputy Dillon and order.
Deputy O'Driscoll inquires about inspection. May I not, in reply, state what it means?
Am I to understand that I am to discuss the duties of inspectors to inspect without speculating as to what the meaning of inspection is?
I do not know what the Deputy understands but the question before the House now is, not the definition of inspection, but whether or not local officers should be allowed to inspect.
If I do not know what to inspect means, how I can argue as to whether local officers may be permitted to inspect or not surpasses me.
The Deputy might have learned all that when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading.
What I am submitting to you is that what was debated on the Second Stage of the Bill has now been rejected. What we listened to and understood on the Second Stage of the Bill has now gone.
The Deputy must keep within the rules of order.
What is the use of arguing that we are confronted with the same Bill if something which was in the Bill when it left the House is no longer there?
He is trying to educate the gallery.
I have an easier job than educating what is sitting in front of me.
They never heard you before.
You would not educate the gallery anyhow.
What gratifies me is that the less sophisticated members of Fianna Fáil are at last beginning to realise what they are required to trot into the Lobby for. It is embarrassing for them to have to do it, but they will have to do it. Of course, some of them will not find it embarrassing. They will trot anywhere for anything when told to do so.
The Deputy must return to the amendment.
Yes. I am speculating as to what the members of the Fianna Fáil Party will do in regard to the amendment. Deputy Dockrell maliciously suggests that they will go where the bell wether leads. I suppose in these circumstances it is not much use talking any longer about sheep to sheep.
I am anxious to know if it is the intention of the Minister to appoint additional inspectors and, if so, if these inspectors will be appointed by competitive examination. I am not asking that for propaganda purposes, like some other Deputies here.
It is not the intention.
For the time being.
Does it mean the utilisation of local inspectors and a reduction in the number of Department inspectors?
It means that if, in the course of the performance of a local officer's duties, he comes across a case in which the law is not being observed he has power to take action.
I merely want to stand up here to defend the rights of my own constituency.
Does it mean that the cost of these inspectors will be discharged out of central funds?
The inspector has duties already to perform. If, for instance, an inspector of the Dublin Corporation in the course of his duties should discover in some particular case that the law was not being observed in relation to this measure, he has power to take action.
If further additional duties are being imposed on an inspector surely——
No further additional duties are being imposed upon him but further powers are being given to him.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—
In Section 3. sub-section (1), after the word "paint" in line 38, the words "incapable of being removed by scouring" inserted.
It was thought that the word "paint" was somewhat wide and, as a result of pressure during the discussion in the Seanad, I agreed to insert the words set out in the amendment—"incapable of being removed by scouring." There are many kinds of paint and it was held— I think rightly—that, if the word "paint" were allowed to stand, it would cover all kinds of paint, whether harmful or otherwise. The words set out in the amendment will render the position more satisfactory.
Who is to determine whether paint is capable of being removed by scouring or not? See the position now. A farmer brings his sheep to the fair. He has got a raddle-stick and marked the sheep in one circumstance or another, and he exposes them for sale. He is approached by a butcher who tells him he will buy his sheep, but instead of giving him five guineas each for them he will give £5, because the fleece of the sheep has been reduced in value as a result of its having been branded with paint or marked with paint. The farmer tells him that it is raddle that can be washed out of the fleece without any trouble whatsoever, but the butcher says it is not. The butcher will say to the farmer: "I cannot sell that fleece. I cannot deal in that fleece. I cannot handle it because Section 3 of the Clean Wool Act defines prohibited substances and Section 5 provides that no person shall purchase or otherwise acquire or sell, or otherwise dispose of any wool on which a prohibited substance is present" Who is going to settle, for the benefit of the parties, the question as to whether the paint appearing on the fleece of the sheep in the fair is capable of being removed by scouring or is not? Do we, in this House, believe that every fellmonger's agent coming into a fair in this country is so solicitous for the welfare of the farmers of this country that he will differentiate scrupulously between the paint which is incapable of being removed by scouring and the paint which is capable of being removed by scouring.
The Minister himself realises that to penalise every farmer would be unjust and so he seeks to put in these qualifying words. Of what use are qualifying words if there is no means of enforcing them against the person who wishes to evade the overriding proviso? Do the members of this House imagine that when a fellmonger's agent in this country buys a sheep he will go up to the farmer and say: "Your sheep will be worth only £5 if it was marked with paint which is incapable of being removed by scouring, but I am glad to notice that the quality of paint on your sheep is the quality that can be removed by scouring and, therefore, your sheep is worth £5 5s. 0d., which I am delighted to have the opportunity of paying you"? Can any Deputy envisage such a conversation taking place on a fair day in this country? Now let us picture the other scene. Can any Deputy doubt that there will be a copy of that Act in the hands of every butcher in Ireland when he goes buying a sheep hereafter? He will be as familiar with the provisions of that Act as the Supreme Court is with the Articles of the Constitution and more familiar than some members of that august body appear to be. When he sees the trace of paint on a sheep's back he will be able to recite Section 3 of this Act by heart and if the farmer challenges his recollection he will have a copy of the Act in his hip-pocket to show to him. Then the farmer will say: "Oh, but the Minister for Agriculture had foresight because when he went to the Seanad he provided that the paint used must be capable of being removed by scouring." Whereupon the butcher, with righteous indignation, will reply: "Prove that that paint can be removed by scouring." Before the farmer could prove that, he would have to skin the 60 sheep he has in the fair, scour the wool, put the fleece back on the sheep and then make his sale. I am told that this proviso is a mark of the Minister's solicitude for the farmers who will have to sell sheep to the fellmongers' agents hereafter at the fairs of this country. Is it not rather amazing that 80 per cent. of the Deputies of this House come from rural Ireland? Eighty per cent. of the Deputies of this House come here to represent the raisers of live stock, yet, every proviso in this Bill which is designed to enrich the fellmonger and increase the intolerable burden which the farmers of this country have to bear in order to be able to live is passed with acclamation.
That does not arise now. The Deputy must deal with this proviso and nothing else.
This proviso is the most obnoxious of all.
The Deputy must deal with this proviso only. The Deputy has referred to the other matters already.
This proviso professes to be a relief for farmers. If the farmer can establish that the paint is capable of being removed by scouring then the fellmonger can be reassured. Does any Deputy in this House imagine that on the fair green where the price of the sheep is being determined it will be easy to reassure the fellmonger or his agent? On the fair green the fellmonger and his agent will be as sceptical as it is humanly possible to be. True, when the fellmonger comes to sell the wool that he has taken off the skin he will point out that this prudent provision was put in by the far-seeing Minister for Agriculture in the Seanad before the Clean Wool Bill finally passed Oireachtas Éireann. He will get his profit out of it, because by the time he comes to sell the wool it will be wool detached, not only from the sheep, but from the sheep-skin, and if his certificate as to the possibility of scouring this fleece is challenged he can give a demonstration there and then without any inconvenience whatever. Not so the much despised farmer. What is the net result of that proviso? It means the farmer will get 5/- less for his sheep and the fellmonger 5/- more for his fleece. What is its only consequence?—exploitation. Victimisation of the people who have the effrontery to earn their living on the land of this country is familiar in this House. It has become a crime in this country to be independent and to earn your own living without crawling on your stomach to a Fianna Fáil T.D., but I am accustomed to watching those who scorn to prostitute themselves——
The Deputy is wide of the amendment now.
This amendment, Sir, in the guise of relieving the circumstances of hardworking farmers, in fact does nothing for their relief but merely provides a legal way for fellmongers more cruelly to exploit them than they have done heretofore.
Have the Department provided a substance suitable for the branding of sheep, in substitution for those already in use, that can be used with safety as against the tar or pitch used in days gone by, or is it the intention of the Department to introduce some such substance for branding which will last for a period?
I was asked for that assurance on Second Reading and I think it is on the records of this House that I gave such assurance. Approved substances are available for that purpose.
I mean approved substances that will remain on the wool over a period.
Yes.
And what guarantee does the Minister give as to the price that will be charged for the substance and the circumstances under which the farmer will be able to buy it? Does the Minister propose to make it available from the Department or must it be bought from a protected manufactory in this country or will the Minister give the House a guarantee that the substance will be available to those farmers who desire to buy it from whatever source they may choose to procure it at the lowest price and the best quality available?
The Minister has satisfied himself that the conditions under which it will be available are reasonable.
That is not sufficient satisfaction for me. We have made provision for the fellmonger. We have made provision for the wool merchant. We have made provision for every human being in this country who can possibly come in contact with a sheep. The only person for whom no thought must be taken is the man who bred the sheep and reared the sheep. We are told now that the Minister for Agriculture has satisfied himself that there is available a substance which will fulfil all the requirements stipulated for by him but he cannot tell us what the substance is; he cannot tell us where it is to be got and he cannot give us any assurance as to the price that will be charged. In that vacuum how are we to arrive at a knowledge of probability except by comparison? Remember, if the farmers do not use this approved substance, it will be very hard for the average farmer to satisfy authority, to satisfy the regiment of inspectors, that his sheep are properly marked and if the farmer is compelled to purchase this approved material, which will satisfy all the inspectors and the inspectors of inspectors, from one source, from one monopolist, may he not have the same experience that we have all had when we were constrained to buy electric lamps from one monopolist?
The Deputy is outside the amendment.
May I speculate on the price that will be charged for this approved material?
I have just stated that the Deputy is out of order in his reference to the price of electric bulbs.
Very well, Sir. This commodity which the Minister has declared to be satisfactory——
What is the commodity?
He does not know. I have a pretty shrewd suspicion that it is the product of a monopolist in this country. I want to warn this House that that arrangement, if my experience goes for anything, is liable to result in the farmers being charged a price for the commodity approved by the Minister 200 to 300 per cent. greater than it would cost were the farmers permitted to purchase it wherever it could be procured cheapest. Observe, then, the endless benefits which we bestow upon the agricultural community. The bucolic fellmonger is protected.
The Deputy is repeating himself. We had that on the last amendment.
It is for the Gallery, Sir.
The categories I have mentioned are protected. We now hasten to the aid of the oppressed industrialist. He is going to be protected because the commodity he prepares for the marking of sheep is going to carry the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and the implication that any other commodity will get the farmer into trouble. But the man who had the effrontery, the indecency, the reckless improvidence to breed a sheep, the public enemy who fattened a sheep upon the land of this country——
The Deputy must deal with the amendment, not make a general speech on industry and agriculture.
The Gallery, Sir.
I am sure he can do it without being prompted.
He could if he wished. He does not want to.
There is a new Gallery to-day.
Listen to the elevating interjections of Deputy Killilea. Why would not the Deputy enter the debate?
To-day's Gallery have never heard the Deputy before.
We have never heard Deputy Killilea now, before or ever, since he first started drawing £480 a year for sitting in this House. Now, I would invite him to intervene and to give us his opinion.
I would invite the Deputy's opinion on this amendment.
I am giving it to the House. I am submitting to the House that this amendment is merely another instance of the burdens imposed on farmers for the benefit of industrialists who are given a monopoly. The individual who is doing something useful will be required to pay whatever the monopolist chooses to charge him. I do not believe that this amendment was introduced by the Minister for the purpose of relieving the agricultural community. I believe that this amendment has been devised for the purpose of enabling a monopoly in this country to get a fat profit on a product which the Minister's approval will make indispensable to anyone who dares to raise or fatten sheep in this country. All this makes one sometimes despair. I know that certain Deputies who have experience of business, as I have, understand that subtle purpose, while others who do not realise the devices that can be employed for the exploitation of simple people down the country are being misled into the belief that this proposal—which, on the surface, appears to be designed for the relief of farmers—is, in fact, designed for that end, when really it is merely an additional device for the consolidation of the right and power of parasites in our community to suck the blood of those who seek to earn their living without protection, subvention——
The Deputy has repeated that three times.
——or assistance from the Government of the day.
I should like to know from the Minister if this substance is available at the moment, and where is it to be had. Can it be obtained by sheep-breeders at the moment?
The provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will only remain in operation so long as such a substance is available.
But if it is not available?
If and when such substances are not available the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will not apply.
I would like to ask the Minister for a little information on this particular matter. We all know that farmers in various districts have been in the habit of using tar and pitch as a suitable brand for sheep. Can the Minister assure us that the substance that he has in mind as a substitute for tar will be readily available to the farmer, and is he satisfied that it can be used by the farmer as easily as the old method of branding by tar? Is he satisfied that the substance which he recommends will not run? We all know that if you attempt to brand sheep with some substances that the substance will run—one letter will run into another, so that the brand will not be distinct. Further, I would like to know whether the substance that he has in mind will be accessible to the farmer. Will he be able to get it at a shop in any country place?
I should also like to know from the Minister whether the substance which he recommends can be procured at as cheap a price as the old method of branding by tar? That is an important consideration for a farmer who has a big flock of mountain sheep. If the new substance is more expensive than the old, it will be a serious matter for him, and, therefore, I suggest that the House ought not lightly pass a simple amendment like this which may mean a great deal of additional expense on the farmer. I would like to have some information from the Minister on these points. The first is, can the substance which the Minister is recommending be used as readily as the old method of branding, which was a mixture of tar and pitch; can he say whether, when it is used for lettering, it will not run, and whether it will be procurable in any shop in a country village? Can he also say whether the cost of it will be somewhat equivalent to the cost of the old method of tar and pitch?
It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could give us some information with regard to the price of this marking fluid in comparison with the price of other substances which were formerly used— tar or pitch. With regard to the lasting qualities of this marking fluid, I think it may be taken for granted—so mountain farmers assure me—that it has not lasting qualities as far as mountain sheep are concerned. These sheep are exposed to a free run through the heather and the gorse, which has the effect of tearing the wool and removing the brand. This marking fluid will, I am sure, work out somewhat more expensive—it may be considerably more expensive—than either tar or pitch. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister for comparative figures as between the two types of branding.
I know it is important that the wool should be produced as pure as possible, particularly as quantities of it may be required to provide white coats for highly placed people with immaculate souls who want to demonstrate how pure they are by wearing these white garments; but the people in the mountainy areas will resent, and will have very good reason to feel deeply aggrieved, if a substantial additional charge is imposed on them for this purpose. During the past four or five months the farmers in the County Wicklow lost no less than 5,000 sheep. I do not think it would be fair or right at this particular stage to impose any additional burden of expense on them. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the Minister should take steps to assure us that this change in the method of branding will not prove more expensive to the farmers.
I would direct the attention of the Minister to the practical application of this amendment. As a matter of fact, I did not think the discussion on it would have taken such a wide scope because the provisions as to the substances that are prohibited are contained in the Bill. So far as any easement of the application of the section is concerned, how will it be determined in actual practice whether a particular substance used in the branding of sheep washes out by scouring or not? If a particular substance is sold to a farmer as a substance that is suitable under the provisions of this Bill and afterwards proves to be a substance that does not wash out by scouring, is the farmer responsible although he bought the article in good faith? I have never taken this Bill very seriously because I think that in the main it will not operate in practice. There is a lot of "cod" attached to it. It is certainly not introduced in the interests of the people who rear sheep and, therefore, we are wasting time here. If it is, then the amendment is not practicable. I should like to hear the Minister tell us how this will be determined at a fair. If the farmer says that he is perfectly satisfied that this is a substance that will scour out, will someone come along with soap and water and scour a particular sheep to see if it can be scoured out? Will the Minister tell us what is the practical application of the amendment?
Not only have I assured myself with regard to the three questions raised by Deputy Bennett, but I consulted with the four organisations representing sheep breeders and I satisfied them also as to the availability and the general conditions under which these substances can be procured by them. Not only did I succeed in doing that before the introduction of this Bill, but whether Deputy Hughes agrees or not that this measure will have any beneficial effect so far as the producers of sheep are concerned, these people also accepted my reasons for the introduction of it.
I think the Minister is dealing generally with the Bill now.
I am replying to the allegation that has been made here by certain Deputies. I have no complaint against Deputies holding that view, but I want to repeat the circumstances under which this measure was introduced and the consultations that preceded its introduction. I want to assure the House also that this amendment was introduced by me in the Seanad following the urgent representations of individuals who are associated with the Party opposite and who would regard themselves as expert, if not more expert on these matters than we are ourselves. Therefore, I think that the defence which I have made, the reason which I have given, and the assurance that I have conveyed to this House on previous occasions should be adequate.
I asked the Minister a categorical question and I should like a reply to it. How will this amendment operate in practice?
I will answer that.
Let the Minister answer.
He will not answer.
At least we will give him a chance of answering. Will the Minister answer my question: how will this amendment operate at a fair? Will the Minister make some attempt to answer that?
The amendment is designed to ensure that a farmer or sheep owner will not break the law if he uses paints other than those that are prohibited.
Surely the Minister has experience of standing at a fair and selling sheep. He ought to be realistic enough to give a picture to this House of how the amendment will operate in practice. I think it is a "cod" amendment. If it is not a "cod" amendment, the Minister ought to be able to defend it. That is my case. I do not want to waste any time over it. It is time for this House to cut out "cod" when talking about production.
The Deputy is quite mistaken if he thinks that this is a "cod" amendment.
It is a "cod" amendment for the farmer.
This amendment has no more to do with the sheep-raisers or the sheep-sellers than it has to do with my foot. I see now what this amendment is about. Do you imagine that the Minister for Agriculture, the gentle turtle dove we have to deal with in this House, out of love of Fine Gael Senators brought in an amendment in a spirit of sweet reasonableness to meet their views? Do you imagine that the Minister, who used to arrive at the Phoenix Park with a load of butties from Cavan to install them as under-gardeners, will introduce amendments in the Seanad to please Fine Gael Senators? The Minister is a "tough egg" and boasts of it. I know what he is up to now. It took me some time to dig it out of him. The Minister has some butty now who is interested in the production of articles of this kind at the moment, not shoe findings; he has fixed up some of his friends in that monopoly. Now there is to be a new industry.
I will tell Deputy Hughes how this amendment will be worked on the fair green. It is perfectly practicable and absolutely water-tight. The dullest dud in the whole army corps of inspectors will be able to enforce it. The monopolist will produce a material for branding easily indentifiable by its appearance. In practice, this amendment will work out that, unless your sheep are branded with that particular product, they will be deemed to be branded with paint which is not removable by scouring. But, if they are branded with this particular product, then your sheep are branded with a paint that is capable of being removed by scouring. If any fellmonger or wool dealer hereafter alleges that, when he attempted to scour this material out of a fleece, it would not come out, he will be a West Briton, he will be a saboteur, he will be one concerned to defame and undermine the Taoiseach, he will be certain to destroy the indestructible Irish Republic, and, finally, he will be alleged to have dishonourable intentions on the person of Kathleen Ní Houlihán, and his only means of delivering himself from that barrage of slander will be to bring whatever pressure may be requisite on every individual with whom he deals to ensure that every person who brands a sheep again will brand it with the material manufactured in the monopoly controlled by the butty of the Minister for Agriculture.
I will make a practical suggestion. It is as easy as falling off a log to put into operation and it removes all traces of injustice associated with this proviso. It will ensure that no sheep-farmer can suffer injury of any sort, kind or description. The only persons to benefit are, admittedly, the wool merchants and the fellmongers. Nobody denies that it will result in substantial benefit to them. I make this proposition. Let the wool merchants' and fellmongers' association undertake to supply this material free to any farmer applying for a supply of it to brand his sheep. Is that unreasonable? I direct Deputy Hughes' special attention to this proposal, which I think is fair. The fellmongers and wool merchants, all are agreed, will benefit substantially. Nobody seriously argues that anybody else will.
That is not an amendment to the amendment we are discussing.
No, but it is a request to the Minister as to the securing of an agreement——
We must deal with this amendment — accepting, rejecting, or amending. That is not an amendment.
Surely we can say that, if the Minister is in a position to assure us that a body will do so and so, we withdraw our opposition to the amendment. I am not asking for an amendment of the law; I am not asking for new legislation; I am merely asking for the Minister's guarantee. Will he say to the House: "I recognise that the beneficiaries of this proposal are the fellmongers and wool merchants. Given that this amendment is accepted by the House, I undertake not to direct my inspectors to enforce it, unless and until the fellmongers and wool merchants undertake to supply, free, gratis and for nothing, a quantity of the specified material to which the Minister has made reference proportionate with the number of sheep in the farmer's possession on the date of his application."
Does the Deputy think that the Minister could give that assurance without legislative authority?
Certainly. He has told us that he justifies this Bill for that he sat for days with representatives of all interests and secured their approbation. Let him go hatching again. If we can get that, my objection to a good deal of this Bill, and to this amendment especially, is withdrawn. Otherwise, I invite the House to observe that this amendment is a dirty, devious device securely to plant another parasite on the backs of our people.
After Deputy Dillon's dramatic and picturesque description of how this amendment will operate, I still want to press my question. Will the Minister give us a description of how this amendment will operate in practice?
I have given you a description of what it is intended to do.
Will the Minister reply to this simple question: how will it operate in practice at a fair?
If I understood the Minister aright, he said he was satisfied that the three points I mentioned would be met, and I think that answers the question put by Deputy Hughes. My three points were: that the substance or substances are as readily procurable as tar or pitch and can be got in any ordinary village; that they will not cost any more than the tar or pitch commonly used; and that they will be as easily and as satisfactorily used as tar or pitch—in other words, that, if they are used to brand sheep, the brand will not run. If the Minister is satisfied with regard to these three points, I am satisfied.
Is Deputy Bennett satisfied with the answer he got from the Minister on these points?
If he says that he and his advisers are satisfied, I, in accordance with ordinary Parliamentary practice, have to accept it.
The amendment envisages the owners of sheep making up branding material of their own. That was the idea which prompted it. I ask the Minister, if he agrees to them, how is it to operate in practice? If an inspector decides that they are not substances capable of being scoured out and the owner of the sheep holds that they are, how is the point to be finally determined?
Is the Minister aware that the reason tar is used on lambs is to save them from foxes? What are farmers to use to save their lambs from foxes? In my parish, we brand all our lambs on the back of the neck with tar.
The Deputy is now discussing a section which is law.
We cannot use tar any more and we have no safeguard against foxes, except that of branding the lambs with tar on the back of the neck.
That matter was decided already.
Can the Minister say if this new material he refers to will have the same discouraging effect upon a fox as the pitch at present being used has?
That was raised on Second Stage.
The Minister speaks of the new material of which he has knowledge. Will it contain, in addition to the other qualities he speaks of, that quality of repelling foxes from striking a sheep at the vital point on the back of the neck? Surely the Minister will answer that question?
I should love to get a substance which would deal with foxes of all kinds.
The softening-up process is weakening.
I do not understand the Minister.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—
In Section 4, sub-section (1), line 7, page 3, the words "before the shearing" deleted and the words "before or during the act of shearing" substituted therefor.
Some members of the Seanad contended that, as Section 4 stood, it imposed, or might impose, certain hardships on sheep-owners. I could not see the point myself, but the amendment made the section a little more clear, and I, therefore, had no objection to it. The section proposed that, before shearing, certain prohibited substances should be removed and I was asked to accept the phrase "before or during shearing."
Deputy Allen took the Chair.
When this section was being debated in the Dáil, it was strongly urged that it was unfair to impose this regulation by which tar should be removed before shearing. Deputies suggested that there was no reason why the farmer should not be allowed to remove it while shearing, but, although they argued as reasonably and as earnestly as possible with the Minister, he stood firm and refused to accept any amendment. Yet, it appears that when he got to the Seanad there was some sort of influence there that enabled the Senators to impress their views upon him so as to get this amendment accepted. It shows how necessary it is to have some means of avoiding rushed legislation and letting the Minister get away with any idea that comes into his head. He was very firm in resisting any suggestion in the Dáil. I do not know what softened him in the meantime.
Is there no instinct of outrage left in this House? This amendment proposes that farmers, under heavy penalties, must remove from the fleeces of their sheep, if they themselves shear the sheep, all wool on which a prohibited substance is present. Sub-section (2) provides that if they fail to do so, they are liable to penalties. There are two conditions under which wool, for sale as wool, is produced. One is the shearing of sheep by the farmer and the other is the separation of wool from a sheepskin by the fellmonger. The shearing of a sheep is an agricultural operation. If the farmer does not remove any offending material, he will be instantly penalised, and penalised heavily.
The Fellmongering Act which we passed does not deal with farmers; it deals with industrialists, but they produce the same commodity—wool. Is there any provision in that Act to the effect that if the fellmonger does not remove any prohibited material while he is separating the wool from the sheepskin he will be guilty of an offence and punishable by heavy penalties? Not a line. How dare Oireachtas Eireann suggest that its officials will have the right to go into the sacred precincts of the fellmonger's premises and teach the fellmonger how to do his business?
We are not dealing with that aspect in this amendment.
You bet your boots we are. We are dealing with farmers.
The Deputy must not deal with fellmongers on this amendment.
We are not dealing with fellmongers but with farmers. It is no crime for the fellmonger to produce wool with any contamination that happens to be in it, but if a farmer does it, to the scaffold at once. Are we all gone daft in Leinster House?
No, only one or two.
Upon my word, I think the Deputy is right. It is not in Leinster House we have gone daft; it is the people down the country who send the creatures we have here to Leinster House. Just imagine a community consisting almost entirely of farmers who will send here a body of men who will vote for a Bill which makes it a crime for a farmer to do something which a fellmonger is perfectly free to do.
The Dáil and Seanad have already decided that.
It has not been decided yet.
Both Houses have decided the principle of the Bill.
I am talking about the amendment.
The principle has been decided upon by the Dáil and Seanad. It is the law.
What is the law? Surely, no section of the Bill is yet law?
Yes, it is the law; it was passed by both Houses.
Really, this is preposterous. Are we to proceed on the assumption that we are now discussing an enacted statute? If we are, what function have we? None. This is not the law, and it may never become the law.
The section has been passed and there was a slight amendment and the Deputy must discuss that amendment only.
The amendment is designed to provide that if a farmer, before or during the act of shearing, removes obnoxious material, he is not a criminal. May I not compare that with what the law requires of those separating wool from sheepskin?
You may not. The section has already been agreed to by the Dáil and Seanad. The Deputy may not.
May not what?
Compare it with any other piece of legislation. He can discuss only the principle of the amendment; he must confine himself to that.
Quite. This amendment provides that a person who shears sheep shall, before or during the act of shearing, separate from the fleece all wool on which a prohibited substance is present. I ask the House is it equitable to provide that a person who shears sheep must carry out, before or during the shearing, the separation from the fleece of all wool on which a prohibited substance is present if the law of this land provides that a person who shears a sheepskin has no such liability? Has it not been laid down time and again that if we, as An Oireachtas, impose on any person in the State an obligation during or before the shearing to separate from the fleece all wool on which a prohibited substance is present, that must be a general obligation and not one laid upon an individual or a restricted group?
Laid upon an individual who shears sheep.
We propose to separate the persons to carry out this operation into two classes—the aristocrats to whom this section does not apply and the untouchables who must thank their lords and masters for permission to carry out this operation. Goodness knows, the extravagant lengths to which bureaucracy gone mad can drive an incompetent Government and an ignorant Minister is astonishing.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—
In Section 7, sub-section (1), page 3, line 28, the words "preventing or treating sheep scab" deleted and the words "remedying or preventing sheep scab or any other external parasitic disease of sheep" substituted.
This is consequential on amendment No. 1, which has been already approved by the House.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:—
Section 9.—1: Before sub-section (2), the following sub-section inserted:—
(2) An authorised officer may at all reasonable times enter any lands on which sheep are kept and may examine any sheep which he finds on the lands.
Under this section an authorised officer shall be entitled to enter premises in which wool is kept for sale or for disposal. It is felt that this authority is too limited inasmuch as it does not authorise an officer to enter lands on which sheep are kept for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have been branded with prohibited substances.
Amendment agreed.
Amendment agreed! Agree to an amendment which quite casually gives to an inspector the right to go into every farm in Ireland, round up a man's sheep, inspect every individual sheep and if he finds upon the fleece any material which appears to him to resemble a prohibited substance, prosecute the farmer! And the farmer is fixed with knowledge that when he comes to the appropriate criminal court to meet charges brought against him it will be his word against the inspector's. Nor is that all, because an authorised officer can enter your land in accordance with this amendment any day between sunrise and sunset. If you are down in a meadow, half a mile away from where you have the sheep, and some member of your household looks out the window and sees a fellow in knee-breeches and gaiters picking his way around amongst the sheep and sends a messenger down to the meadow, back you must tramp that half mile. It does not matter whether you have ten or 20 men in the field. It does not matter how urgent the work is or how broken the weather may be. You will have to come back to meet that fellow who has nothing better to do than to pass a comfortable hour or two, picking his way through your sheep and arguing the toss with you as to whether the substance is an objectionable substance or not. Unless you are very humble, unless you make it manifest to him that he is welcome, that you recognise his right to come in and cross-examine you, and that you are very respectful—I need hardly say apologetic because you are paying his salary—you may be deemed to be obstructing him and have to pay the appropriate penalty.
Does any Deputy in this House remember the day of universal rejoicing when we established in this country that the landlord's bailiff no longer had the right to cross the threshold of any man's door without his leave?
That is long forgotten.
And it is not in this section.
What we gloried in was that at last we had established that if a man was law-abiding and respectable, satisfied to earn his own living honestly, he had one citadel into which he could retire, claim the right to run his life in his own way and earn his living honestly and respectably without interference from anyone.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
So far as I know, there is nothing suspect, nothing disreputable in keeping sheep, but the minute I take a sheep in on my land every veterinary inspector in the service of the Roscommon County Council, every inspector authorised by the Minister for Agriculture, has a statutory right to enter on my lands and to stay on my lands as long as he likes, to cross-hackle me and cross-examine me about every sheep in my possession. No landlord's bailiff ever dared to make such a claim. Why do we multiply classes of persons now, authorised to assert the bailiff's claim against our people, authorised to enter at the entrant's will?
I have a bit of land and I have 50 sheep on it. Is that any crime? Why should the fact that I have 50 sheep on my land open my gates to every warrior the Minister for Agriculture cares to authorise to enter thereon? Do you take that as something natural? Mind you, the constitutional rights of the black marketeer functioning in this State are carefully respected. You cannot go in on his premises without a search warrant. If any inspector wants to go into a black marketeer's house to seek out illegal material, or goods improperly held, he must first go to the appropriate officer of the law, get a search warrant and produce it. Until he produces that search warrant that black marketeer is within his rights in throwing the inspector or the policeman out and using such force as may be necessary to exclude him.
Not so the farmer. The very fact that he keeps sheep gives every inspector an absolute right to enter on his lands at any reasonable time. Why has it become a more suspect occupation to raise sheep than to traffic in the black market? The house of the thief or the receiver of stolen goods cannot be entered without a search warrant. Suppose the police in this city believe a person has property on his premises which he received and accepted, well knowing it to have been stolen, I think I am right in saying that they cannot enter that man's house until they get a search warrant. The whole machinery of the law would be invoked against any public servant who attempted to enter without a search warrant. Not so when you keep sheep. The very fact that you have a sheep on your land entitles an authorised person to enter your premises and to remain upon them so long as he pleases. Why, why? Why can everybody kick the farmers about? Would not all the Deputies here react vigorously if an amendment were proposed to a Bill which would entitle the inspectors of any Department to enter their private houses without let or hindrance? Would we not all be on the qui vive, wondering when they would come knocking at our door and marching in through the house to satisfy themselves that there was no impropriety? Would we not in the next breath say: "Why should they have this right; are we all suspect?" On that question being put, such a proposal would be laughed out of the House. Yet, when we propose to invest all the inspectors of the local authority and of the Minister's Department with power to enter the lands of any farmer who dares to keep sheep, nobody seems a bit put out. Why?
Is all the glory and all the pride in fixity of tenure, fair rent and free sale forgotten? How often has the tale been told that an essential preliminary to enabling our people to be free is to make them secure in their own homes and independent of everybody. Is not that true? So long as the individual could be intimidated in his own home by the agents of oppression, is it not true that it was impossible effectively to organise the community in defence of the nation as a whole and that, therefore, the whole struggle for independence was laid aside in order to put our people in possession of their homes on terms which would enable them to bid defiance to all comers at their own threshold? Now, we are undoing all that. We are giving back into the hands of the agents of a very real, potential oppressor—the Government of the day—power to enter our premises at any time during the day. Do not Deputies realise how short a step it is from that to the position when, if a man in Cavan acts in a way acceptable to the Minister for Agriculture, his farm will never be entered and he will not be suspect? Do you imagine that Mr. L.'s farm in Cavan would ever be entered by an inspector? If any inspector contemplates that, he would be well advised, during his next lunch hour, to run around to the Board of Works and ask some of the inspectors there what their experience was when they were reckless enough to attempt an analogous operation.
I presume this is under the Bill.
Yes. This amendment is designed to permit an inspector at all reasonable times to enter any land on which sheep are kept and to examine any sheep which he finds there. Is it not true that the lands of any notorious sycophant of the Minister in Cavan will be free from entry under that section? That being so, is it not also true that anyone who notoriously opposes the Minister in County Cavan will be likely to have his lands so inspected? I have a good memory. I know that so long as people took off their hats and stood bareheaded in the town of Ballaghadereen while Charlie Strickland was passing through, no bailiff ever dared to enter their lands. But if a man dared to join the Land League and, when Charlie Strickland rode into Ballaghadereen, kept on his hat and said he took it off to nobody but the God who made him, the bailiff entered his land the following Monday and always found something on the land to justify the ejection of that man on the next gale day. Do we accept the proposition now that those who serve the Minister in Cavan, who take their hats off while he passes through Cavan, will be free from the visitation of our latter-day bailiffs? On the other hand those who keep their hats on and maintain their independence will find themselves unwilling hosts to this latter-day bailiff system. I will never sit silent while a proviso of that kind is incorporated in the legislation of this country. I heard enough of that from those who fought with all they had to deliver themselves of that kind of tyranny 60 and 70 years ago. I hope never to see it reimposed, not now in the service of a landlord's cabal, but in the service of a dirty Tammany organisation designed to maintain a decrepit political party in power.
I am not going to follow on the lines of Deputy Dillon. I am surprised that the Minister accepted this amendment. Surely the Minister is aware of the condition in which the farming community finds itself at the moment. The farming community is hard pressed in the production of essential foods and commodities, including, I admit, clean wool. Surely the Minister is aware that the greatest objection to the compulsory tillage code is that an inspector has the right to walk in on a farm of land. Now, this means further inspection. I do not care how diplomatic an inspector may be, if he calls upon a good day—and dear knows they are few enough—to inspect sheep the farmer must go with him. Is it not presupposed that he will not let the inspector go unaccompanied around the farm? He will, therefore, have to leave his work to go out with this inspector to see whether there is any foreign matter attached to the animal. I suppose that "foreign matter" is what is laid down in Section 3, namely, tar, pitch, paint, daggings, and so on. To my mind that would be an unwarranted intrusion on the ordinary farmer. It shows, on the part of the Minister, a grave lack of faith in his own people. Does he himself not know that the farmers generally do their best to have the wool as clean as possible and that the making of this regulation and more inspection will not make it any cleaner? The trouble is that it is being made an offence. I do not think the Minister is taking a wise step in this connection. I cannot see why he agreed in the Seanad to such an amendment. If the Minister has put it up himself it shows a grave lack of judgment on his part. Inspection has been the bugbear of the farmers and an extra burden, added to the existing ones, will one day break their backs. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister not to accept this amendment. Certainly it is not essential. It will not achieve the object for which it was designed and it will create a feeling of hostility on the part of the farmers towards the Government. That is something we want to avoid now when all the activities of the farming community should be directed towards the production of food and of the other agricultural products which are so essential for the life of this nation and of the world. I again appeal to the Minister to withdraw the new section.
This is, by far, the most far-reaching of the amendments which have come before the House to-day and, incidentally, it is the most unnecessary of them all. The Bill, when it went through this House, was considered adequate to deal with the situation without the addition of this very drastic power which is being given to officers of the Minister's Department. Why, may I ask, did the Minister at the last moment decide to change his mind and provide that not only should sheep and wool be liable to inspection when exposed for sale, and the wool when stored in the various wool stores, but in addition that the very land on which the sheep are produced should be open to inspection at any hour of the day? It seems to me that this is bureaucracy gone mad. There is an authority for the official to enter the land at any time with no restrictions on his movements. He is not compelled to enter the land by the appropriate gate or gap. He can cross the fence anywhere he likes—break it down if necessary. Only a few weeks ago I visited a farm and spoke to the farmer. During the course of the conversation we noticed a man crossing the land. He crossed the field where sheep were grazing and proceeded to cross the fence surrounding the field. The sheep, immediately after he crossed it, proceeded to follow him, as sheep will. The farmer advanced towards the trespasser—naturally with an aggressive attitude and with an aggressive expression on his face. He reached the man and asked him who he was and when the man told him that he was a tillage inspector the farmer pulled in his chin and touched his hat. That is the thing I dislike most of all about recent legislation. It is making the farmer a slave to any man who dares to cross his land even though the man may be damaging fences or causing injury to crops or to stock. This power ought not be given to any officer; it is quite unnecessary. If the wool exposed for sale is damaged by pitch or tar or any of the other prohibited substances the matter can be dealt with there and then. There is no need for an officer to go in on the land and to start worrying the sheep.
This section provides that an officer shall examine the sheep. Sheep are not the kind of animals which, when a strange inspector comes into the field, can be called and will come to have themselves examined. They have to be collected and perhaps got into a corner which sometimes requires athletic powers on the part of the inspector and possibly some assistance from a dog. Now, all this worrying of sheep and of the farmer is going to be legalised under one short section which is being inserted in this Bill at the eleventh hour. It is a matter to which the House should take strong objection. The more our people are independent and in possession of their homes and able to earn their livelihood the better for the country. The more independent they are the freer the country will be. The more the ordinary citizen is subjected to restriction, control and inspection the lower will be the standard of freedom. When a proposal like this is rushed into a Bill, without any explanation or justification, it is the duty of every free Deputy to rise up and protest. The Minister would be well advised not to force this amendment to a division. Sheep have a tendency to follow the particular member of the flock that assumes leadership but it may happen that some of the sheep of the Fianna Fáil Party may eventually assert their independence and display some sense of freedom and some sense of reality and it may be on this particular amendment, as I hope it will be, that some of them will revolt.
Deputies will have heard me described here by Deputy Dillon as being tough. Deputy Dillon may have described me outside the House in that way for all I know. He promised the House and he promised me in particular that he was about to start on a softening-up process. That term was used in the war years by people with whom perhaps Deputy Dillon has no sympathy but it suited his purpose here. Is this evening's display the commencement of the softening-up process? I do not know whether it is or not or whether it was provoked by the fact that this is Horse Show week and there are visitors in the Gallery. Some members of this House find it difficult to get an audience and could not miss an occasion like this, when the Gallery is fairly full, to impress those present with their fluency. Deputy Dillon has also almost accused me of being a Cavan man. I remember when the motion for my appointment as Minister was before the House, he raised that matter. I am very proud to be a Cavan man.
The Cavan men are very much in the picture now.
When I meet my neighbours I am glad to meet them and very anxious to help them. The nearer they are to me the more I am anxious to help. I do not mind confessing that if I met a Cavan boy, the son of a Cavan farmer, who, in his younger days may have foolishly decided to offer his services to some of the businessmen who address themselves to this House, or if I should meet in the future a Cavan boy who strayed down to the village of Ballaghaderreen for the purpose of what is known as serving his time to business or what was once described as "starving your time" to business——
On a point of order. Surely we are going to do business in this House and the Minister, having the responsibility of Minister, ought to speak to the amendment that is before the House. He is not discussing it now.
I am replying to a charge that was made, not only on this occasion, but a charge that the Chair has seen fit to allow without any protest from him or from Deputy Hughes.
The House has listened to a great deal of irrelevancies this evening.
I am afraid the whole discussion was rather irrelevant.
I only wanted to finish by saying that if I should meet such a boy as I have described and if it was within my power to help him because of his being thrown out of the place in which he had served his time, when he had reached the stage that he should be on the pay-roll, I do not mind confessing here that both as a Cavan man and as Minister for Agriculture, I would be prepared to assist. I would always be prepared to assist any unfortunate individual who had been treated in the way in which I have described by some of those who come into this House and, as I have stated, use it for the purpose of holding themselves out here and to the public as those whose hands are clean when in fact the records of the courts of this country——
I think we are going a bit beyond the amendment. This is a question of an authorised officer entering lands for the purpose of examining sheep.
I have said my say. I want to assure the House and Deputy Dillon or anybody else who may take the course he has told us he would take——
The House is not interested in these matters and I submit the matter was completely out of order.
I think so.
I have only to assure the Chair and the House that if that course is pursued, Deputy Dillon is welcome to it and if he should succeed in that legitimate effort of softening up the new Minister for Agriculture, he is welcome to it.
These personalities should be avoided.
I think Deputy Dillon will have a fairly tough job. This amendment is perfectly legitimate, perfectly understandable, perfectly defensible and perfectly just to anybody who wants to see the justice of it. I cannot help those who do not want to see it from that point of view but who want to use it for the purpose of making speeches here.
I want to protest against that. I am not objecting to it for the purpose of making a speech and I resent the Minister's allegation that there is any such intention. I am putting it to the Minister that this amendment is a further intrusion on the class to which he himself belongs at a time when they are suffering grave hardships and inconvenience.
At any time.
I am appealing to the Minister on their behalf, not for the purpose of scoring.
I speak to this amendment not for the purpose of making a speech but because I believe it to be entirely unnecessary. Anyone who understands farming realises that farmers are very well able to mind their own business. Sheep flocks have looked after themselves with the care and attention of the farmers for thousands of years. Are we to understand that they will suddenly become contaminated overnight and that, therefore, there must be hordes of inspectors leaping across ditches into the farmers' fields rounding up flocks to examine them? Examine them for what? That is what I want to know. Does the Minister as a practical farmer believe that the average sheep owner does not know more about his flock than the inspector who will come to inspect them will know? He knows perfectly well that the farmer, or the sheep owner, in his own interest will protect his flock. If there is a case of scab or any other contagious disease outbreak in the flock, he will report the matter immediately. We seem to have gone mad on inspections. We had a reference to hordes and battalions of inspectors earlier in the day. Now they are being increased to regiments. It seems that we are going to have another regiment. Not long ago we were told at a meeting of a local authority that we were going to have a new scheme for sheep dipping. If an inspector can decide to get out of his motor car and go across a field to see what is wrong with a flock, I wonder who is going to pay all these inspectors? How long are the farming community going to stand for that? I regard the sub-section as being totally unnecessary. I believe that the sheep owners who have looked after their flocks so successfully in the past should be left alone.
Over many years we have had inspectors of all kinds in the case of farm produce. I think it is time that we called a halt to the appointment of all these inspectors. If there is money to be devoted to any purpose, then instead of devoting it to the appointment of inspectors, we should apply it in such a way that it will be of help to sheep owners and to producers. We do not want another regiment of inspectors, of people going around finding fault with things that they know nothing about. I am honestly and sincerely opposed to this amendment. I represent sheep owners and I have a very good knowledge of what inspectors do. I can assure the Minister that they know nothing about sheep, and the Minister knows that as well as I do.
Having regard to the importance of this amendment, it is astonishing that the Minister did not attempt to advance any arguments in support of its inclusion in the Bill. He did not advance even one argument except to say that the amendment was justifiable. He did not attempt to justify it. He treated us to a long history of the Cavan boy. The Minister is quite at liberty to help the Cavan boy at his own expense. He was quite justified if he helped him at his own expense, but if he helped him at the expense of the general taxpayer then he was not justified. This matter should be further investigated.
There is another aspect of this, which is, that it will mean further interference with the farmer in the management of his farm. That will add further expense so far as the operation of the Bill is concerned. If the Bill, as originally conceived, was put into operation, I suppose a number of inspectors would be appointed. If, in addition to the inspection of the wool and inspections at the time that the wool is being offered for sale, we are now to have an army of inspectors who can walk in on a farmer's land, that certainly is going to cause a steep increase in the cost of the operation of the Bill.
Has the Minister made any estimate of what that increase will amount to? If you are going to have inspectors tramping over the Wicklow, Kerry, and Donegal mountains, rounding up sheep and inspecting them to see that they are branded, and to test the nature of the brand, that is going to add enormously to the cost of the Bill. It is an aspect of this matter which, I think, requires further investigation. If the Minister is replying again, I should be anxious to hear him explain whether that Cavan boy was helped by the Minister at his own expense or at the expense of the taxpayer?
I am putting the question.
Wait a moment. This amendment creates a new class of sheep inspector. We are now to be deluged with inspectors. We have the warble fly inspector, we have the weeds inspector, we have the sheep inspector, we have the sheep-dipping inspector.
The Deputy is now beginning to make a Second Reading speech on the original purpose of the Bill.
No. I think the Chair will agree with me that, under this amendment, we are creating a new category of inspector.
He is an authorised officer under the Bill, and that principle has been accepted by the House.
Under the original Bill, there was no power given to any officer referred to in the Bill to enter any man's land to inspect his sheep. You may say that the Minister is going to bestow this power on some authorised officer as he has bestowed other powers contained in the Bill on him. Remember that the Minister, by his own amendment, is adding largely to the number of inspectors authorised under the Bill. We began this Bill in the Dáil and we passed it out of the Dáil by restricting the Minister to authorise officers of his own Department. In the Seanad, an amendment was adopted extending the category of persons who may be authorised officers for the purpose of this Bill to veterinary officers of a local authority.
That question does not arise here.
No, but I would point out to you that the Minister now says that "an authorised officer may at all reasonable times enter any lands on which sheep are kept and may examine any sheep which he finds on the lands." The point that I am putting to the Chair is that a different individual can be an authorised officer. It does not matter a fiddle-de-dee to me whether the first fellow has a long red beard and the other fellow a long handle-bar moustache.
The House has accepted the principle of an authorised officer.
But it did not say that he could come into my land and examine all my sheep until this amendment came before it. Suppose an authorised officer comes to me in the morning to do one thing under this Act, that he then gets up on his bicycle and cycles around the Circular Road and after lunch comes back to do another thing authorised under this Act. The fact is that I have had two visits not, I agree, by two different individuals, and in the meantime I have had another inspector with me—the warble fly inspector.
This Bill has nothing to do with warble fly inspectors.
No, because I have got them all on my back already, and this Bill proposes to put two or three more on it. Suppose, as Deputy Cogan suggests, there is a queue of inspectors waiting to get into my premises, all lining up, and suppose I get rid of one and in pops another. Whether he comes from Cavan or not——
Cavan has nothing to do with this.
The Minister is a Deputy for Cavan.
I put it to the Deputy that he is reading into the amendment much more than is in it.
With profound respect, I make the submission that I am entitled to submit my view on the implications of this amendment and that it is for the House to decide whether I am reasonably apprehensive or not Surely it is relevant and appropriate to direct attention to the fact that the multiplication of occasions upon which an inspector can have an absolute right under statute to enter my land is creating a situation in which I may have a queue of inspectors. Why is it that if a man engages in agriculture a queue of inspectors may line up at his door, all of whom have a statutory right to enter his premises and cross-examine him? But if his brother sets up a factory to manufacture shoe-findings or approved materials for branding sheep, no man may enter his factory. He is sacrosanct. Nominally, he is liable to be visited by the factory inspector—one inspector. Will the House refer to the statistics supplied by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to the number of factory inspectors available for the inspection of factories and the other work they have to do?
That has not any reference to the amendment.
My case is that we are multiplying the inspectors.
The multiplication of inspectors does not arise. All this amendment asks is that an authorised officer at all reasonable times may do certain things.
He may enter on lands on which sheep are kept and examine any sheep which he finds on the land.
Is not that very simple? Why read into it something that is not in it?
I read into it that an inspector may enter my land and examine my sheep.
An authorised officer at a reasonable time. Surely that is simple.
Too simple for my point.
Deputy Dillon is very much afraid of inspectors. They caught him out once before.
No, nor the bailiffs either.
They caught you out once before.
The bailiffs never intimidated us, nor their spiritual successors.
This is a simple amendment.
This amendment gives an inspector the right to enter my land if I have sheep upon it. It is simple enough, but it involves a very solemn principle. There is no use in minimising it and in Deputies pretending that they are so busy that they cannot be bothered wasting time over trivialities of this kind. This is a more important matter than any rational man would dream of committing to the custody of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. Unhappily, this matter is within the dominion of that Party. It is of vital importance and all the implications of their abuse of the power they have should be ventilated and examined. Why is it that a farmer, because he is a farmer, is to be harried by inspectors, while his brother, if he leaves the land and engages in protected industrial activity, is not susceptible to inspection at all? Why does Dáil Éireann, again and again, at the behest of bureaucrats, adopt that principle?
I see no reason why responsible farmers who are honestly earning their living must submit to perpetual harrying and persecution by people who believe themselves competent to teach the farmer his business. I believe farmers have as much right to run their business in their own way as any other section of the community. Why does Dáil Eireann think that farmers require to be inspected in a way they do not attempt to inspect any other section of the community? Is there no Fianna Fáil Deputy who resents this claim on the part of the Executive or its bureaucrats to control every farmer in his constituency and to imply that none of them can be trusted to do their work competently unless there hangs over their head daily the threat of inspection and prosecution by bureaucrats in the employ of either the central executive or the local authority? I reject that proposition categorically. I protest against its enactment by this Parliament, and anything and everything I can do to prevent that principle being given the sanctity of law I will do now and shall continue to do so long as I am a member of this House. Those who think their time is being wasted and that they are being unduly delayed by being constrained to deliberate on these matters at length had better make up their minds not to introduce proposals of this character, because, as often as they do, they will sit in this House so long as my constitutional rights enable me to hold them in it contemplating the iniquitous character of their proposals and until they have their minds fully opened to the contemptible betrayal of their own constituents of which they are guilty when they walk through the lobby for the purpose of enacting outrages of this character.
An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:—
Before Section 12, page 4, a new section as follows inserted:—
12. An Order under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the Order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the Order is laid before it, the Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This amendment provides for the laying on the Table of the Houses of the Oireachtas of Orders made under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
