Vol. 221 No. 1
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 3: In subsection (1), line 7, "the Act" deleted and "this Act" substituted.
This amendment remedies a minor drafting defect in the Bill. The reason for the amendment which was inserted by the Seanad is self-evident.
If the Parliamentary Secretary says that this is a minor amendment we will accept it.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 16: In lines 44 and 48, "building or enclosure" deleted and "building, enclosure or farm" substituted.
There was a strong feeling in the Seanad to extend over a wider area the power conferred by the section on a farmer who wished to exclude strangers if his land was situated in an affected area. It was decided to agree to the wishes of the Seanad in this particular connection and to extend the powers of the section to include the farm as well as the building or enclosure which originally appeared in the section.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary like to define "stranger"?
Well, somebody who is not the farmer himself.
Would it not be a good thing to have this in the Bill?
I used it more as a form of speech, actually.
I do think the power in the Bill is limited to strangers, is it?
No.
It is in the annotation on the side of the Bill but that does not govern the Bill. He can exclude anybody——
Yes.
——and I think the note on the side of the Bill is a little misleading. It should be "power to exclude" and then a full stop. He can exclude a relative if he wants to without discussing whether a relative is a stranger or not.
There is no reference to such word in the section as it is.
The annotation at the side is a little misleading.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
Section 18: In subsection (6) (a), line 55, "one" deleted and "two" substituted.
It was decided to accede to the request in the Seanad that the period, within which claims for compensation could be made under this particular subsection, might be extended from one month to two months. The request made by the Seanad was considered to be reasonable.
What sort of birds?
All birds.
Wild birds?
The birds referred to in the Schedule.
What birds are referred to?
All those referred to in Part II of the First Schedule.
It was on Part I I wanted to question the Parliamentary Secretary. I wanted to discover whether he learned what all the animals were in Part I since the Bill left this House? Neither he nor his Minister knew what they were at that stage, nor did I, I may say.
I found the Seanad very educational from that point of view.
They educated the Parliamentary Secretary.
I had a full list of the explanations of what the various birds were before I arrived in the Seanad.
You will notice I did not say they educated the Parliamentary Secretary's senior.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
Section 28: In paragraph (a), line 23, "and handled" inserted before "at".
It was alleged in the Seanad that considerable cruelty is occasioned, or could be occasioned, to animals and birds while they are being handled in fairs and market places. It was decided to accept this amendment, accordingly, and to provide that orders could be made covering the handling of birds and animals as well as their transport and the methods and conditions under which they are kept as is provided in the subsection. It was decided to accept this amendment in order to allow the Minister to have control over the handling if, at any stage, he felt it was necessary to do so.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary quite satisfied that "handling" will not be accepted here only in technical offences applicable to hawks and fighting cocks?
We can reasonably expect that.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
Section 35: In subsection (5), page 17, line 14, "other" inserted before "place".
This is a minor improvement which makes it clear that the provisions of subsection (1) apply to streams, reservoirs, aqueducts and other places. It was looked on as being the sort of word that could be used by way of clarification and would do away with ambiguity.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
Section 49: In subsection (1) (a), line 36, "unlawfully" deleted.
It was considered that the word "unlawfully" was unnecessary. It was tautology and really unnecessary in the context.
In any event it is the wrong place to put it. At the moment it is "to unlawfully evade". It should have been "unlawfully to evades," if it were to be there at all.
We got over the problem by taking it out altogether.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
In subsection (1) (h), page 22, line 24, "unlawfully" deleted.
The very same applies here.
Questions put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
In subsection (1) (j), page 22, line 44, "an animal slaughtered" deleted and "an animal or bird slaughtered or of a carcase or eggs destroyed" substituted.
In the original draft, reference to compensation for carcase or eggs which may be ordered to be destroyed was inadvertently omitted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
Section 56: In paragraph (b), lines 25 and 26, "while in a highway or in a place of public resort," deleted.
The paragraph, as amended, empowers the Minister to make regulations in respect of all dogs, irrespective of whether they are on the highway or in a public place or not. There was disagreement during the discussion in the Seanad in this connection. It was felt that the power should not be confined to an order made in relation to the dog being in a public highway or public place.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the paragraph, as amended, applies to a dog while it is on the property of the owner? That is not intended?
No.
The amendment will have that effect.
I do not think it can possibly have that effect.
I think it will.
He has not the faintest idea.
I have a pretty good idea.
You see, it is catching. At least, when he is caught out, he does not descend to personal abuse as a colleague of his did the other day.
Or as Deputy Dillon has done just now.
Nonsense.
It was not a very nice remark. You know what you said yourself.
It was a perfectly proper remark to make. Of course, if the Minister for Finance meant by what he said to refer to the remark I made the other day when I said that I do not like fools or people who do not bother to read their briefs, then he was right.
The Deputy can quite normally assume that the Minister is unlikely to make any order which will——
Does it mean that he is taking power to make an order in respect of the property of the owner of the dog?
There is nothing in the section which prevents the Minister from making an order dealing with animals.
I will go along with the amendment on this. As the section stood, it was defective because if a dog, for example, were on the property of another owner, then the regulations could not apply to it. It could apply only if it were on the public road. The trouble arises in respect of a dog worrying sheep, not on a public road, but on somebody else's land. I agree to that extent that the amendment is an improvement but I do not think that when being amended, it should have been amended to prescribe and regulate the wearing of collars by dogs while on the property of their owners and cut out the reference to a public place. It is ridiculous to provide in a statute that the Minister can make an order that a dog in the front garden of a house in Anglesea Road must have a collar. That is bringing this Bill into disrepute.
I will go all the way with the Minister in providing that the statute will have the power that I think the Parliamentary Secretary wants it to have. I do not think he wants to provide that a collie which is handling sheep on the owner's land must have a collar. I do not think he intends to do that but the Bill permits that. That is not what it should be doing. It should be providing that if a dog goes off his owner's land to a public place or on to somebody else's land, then it must have a collar. I think that is what the Parliamentary Secretary intends. If he can give an assurance that it will be dealt with in that way, administratively, then I will be quite happy.
I think the Deputy can take it it is not the intention of the Minister to assume the power to make an order with regard to the wearing of a collar by an animal on the owner's land. I can give that assurance.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
In paragraph (b), line 27, "or hardness" inserted before "with" and in lines 27 and 28 "on the collar" deleted and "thereon" substituted.
It was stated in the Seanad that the wearing of a collar may adversely affect certain dogs, in relation to its appearance. It was also pointed out that there are types of dogs on which the keeping of a collar would be impossible. They have a type of thick neck, off which the collar could be removed over, maybe, a smaller head. It was decided to accept an amendment covering the inscribing or the placing of the name on a harness by way of an alternative to the collar. It was considered advisable to accept the amendment in the light of this.
Can the Minister tell me whether there is any provision in the Bill or the regulations permitting, at the option of the owner, some type of tattoo name in the ear, because I can visualise some difficulties. Take, for example, a pack of hounds: if you let them out with collars on, some of them would get caught in a fence. If you take a water shooting dog, it is really dangerous to put such a dog into a river with a collar because it is quite on the cards that if there is a bit of an old tree or something in the water, the dog will get a prong of the branch of the tree between his neck and the collar and will drown. There are certain circumstances in which it is dangerous to let a dog out with a collar from the point of view of the user of the dog. I should like to know how that is dealt with. In those cases I think it could be met very easily by the name being tattooed on the ear, at the option of the owner.
There is provision in the Bill for exemption. The Deputy mentioned a pack of hounds——
They are always tattooed in the ear.
The intention behind the section dealing with that is that the Minister may make exemptions if there are certain types of dogs that need not wear that collar.
The type of dog I am thinking of, if it ran wild, could be dangerous, but, at the same time, it could be equally dangerous for a dog to wear a collar.
In the normal run of events, as in the case of the pack of hounds where the collar would be looked upon as an impediment or where, in general, it would not be found necessary, an exemption may be brought in.
While the Parliamentary Secretary may have advertence to the pack of hounds, would he also bear in mind that it would be dangerous to put a dog into a river with a collar on?
That is being borne in mind.
