The Minister has had an opportunity to consider the matter further and perhaps he would give a clearer exposition of his intention in regard to the proposed regulations which are recommended in this amendment?
Animal Remedies Bill, 1993: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 31:
In page 18, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) The Minister shall make regulations providing for the licensing of wholesalers and retailers of animal remedies. Such regulations shall provide for—
(a) requirements as to fitness to hold a licence,
(b) requirements as to the suitability of premises for the carrying on of a wholesale or retail trade in animal remedies, including the security of such premises and their fitting for the proper handling of animal remedies, and
(c) the keeping of adequate records to ensure that animal remedies received at or sold from the premises, or both, can be adequately traced.".
—(Deputy Molloy.)
May I take it that the Minister is not concluding on this point?
This is Committee Stage and the Deputy may intervene as often as he likes.
My understanding was that amendments Nos. 26 and 31 were withdrawn and all of the others were agreed. In response to the points raised by Deputy Molloy, Deputy McManus and other Deputies in relation to the timescale for the implementation of the provisions of the Bill, I had discussions with my officials and we are optimistic that we will be able to meet the deadline of two to three months suggested by Deputy Molloy. I assure the House there will be no time lost in terms of bringing into operation all of the provisions of the Bill. I am sure all Deputies would agree it is very much in the national interest, in the interest fo the agricultural industry and individual farmers that we do this. I hope that meets with Deputy Molloy's request of yesterday.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that every effort will be made to bring in the required regulations within a two to three month period. The Minister can go no further than that. The point I was making last night was that this is merely an enabling Bill. The effectiveness or otherwise of this Bill will depend on the regulations made under it. The enforcement procedures and activities in relation to those regulations will determine whether the Bill will be effective when it is put into operation. The Minister will appreciate that without the regulations the Bill is of little use. The kernel of the intent in this Bill is contained in the power it gives under section 8 to the Minister to make regulations to ensure that we achieve the objective of establishing the strictest systems of controls on the distribution of animal remedies. This will protect the reputation of our beef industry and enhance it in the marketplace and will give an absolute assurance to consumers regarding the product. I am satisfied with the assurance given by the Minister.
I am delighted to hear the Minister give this assurance and I believe it will be a very productive avenue to follow. However, I am not sure about the Minister's intentions in relation to the taking of Report Stage of the Bill. I am sure the Minister will wish to have this as soon as possible. Can he give us an assurance that on Report Stage he will clarify his intention in relation to these proposed regulations? I do not know what timeframe the Minister has in mind but it might be useful if either formally or informally we could have some indication of the draft of the regulations the Minister might be considering. This would be proper on Report Stage and it would help us to advance what we all wish to see implemented in relation to these substances.
In relation to the spirit that has prevailed in this House during the course of this debate and the constructive comments from the far side of the House I assure Deputies that I will facilitate the House as best I can.
Regarding the introduction of regulations it would be our intention to formulate these regulations as quickly as possible in consultation with the consultative committee which will be set up under the provisions of the Bill. There will then be the involvement of the Office of the Attorney General which, hopefully will not necessitate any delay. The Deputy can be assured that we will advance as quickly as possible the implementation of the regulations.
In relation to the point raised by Deputy Dukes, the regulations made under the Animal Remedies Act, 1956, are continued in force under this Bill. In addition, regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972, relating to animal remedies are deemed to be made under this Bill and when the Bill comes into force the additional powers of enforcement and substantially increased penalties will be applicable to these regulations. The regulations under which controls are administered at present will continue in force until we introduce new regulations. They will then be incorporated in the new provisions with the new penalties and the new regulations which will eventually be decided upon.
The Minister has confirmed to the House that among the regulations he will be introducing are requirements for the licensing of wholesalers and retailers, which is the substance of one of the amendments under discussion.
I confirm that there will be licensing of the two outlets to which the Deputy has referred.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".
On a point of clarification, certain legal issues arising from the wording of subsection (6) (a) and the evidential value of the certification referred to in that provision are the subject of discussion between my Department and the Attorney General's office. I wish to signal to the House at this point that it may be necessary to make an amendment to the wording involved, in which case the matter will be raised on Report Stage. Deputy Dukes asked what my attitude would be on Report Stage. I have already indicated, arising from two matters raised yesterday, that I will come back to the House in relation to them on Report Stage and I will facilitate the House in any way I can.
In relation to the methods of analysis is state of the art equipment available in the Department? Does the capacity exist to carry out an adequate number of analysis and assays which are difficult and expensive to do?
The facilities available to the Department in relation to the testing of the various substances, carcases and so on are the most up to date. As the Deputy will know, we use the facilities of the State laboratory and in some instances the facilities of private laboratories.
We approach this crucial area under a number of headings. It has been acknowledged in the House that the whole question of distribution is a serious one and we are anxious to close all the loopholes in terms of the importation of these illegal substances. Obviously, we want to deal also with the distribution of these substances, which is not a straightforward task. The people who operate in this illicit area leave no stone unturned in their attempts to cover their tracks and to use all of the outlets available to them to bring into this country remedies which are detrimental to the good name of our beef and meat industry and detrimental also in terms of the long term effects on the incomes of individual farmers.
We should not over state the level of this activity so far as the agricultural industry is concerned. To the extent that this problem exists — it is at a minimum level — it is appropriate that this legislation is being introduced. I hope this legislation will enable us to eliminate permanently the current trafficking in these substances and alert farmers to the folly of using them. The vast majority of Irish farmers do not give any kind of illegal substance to their animals. I wish to protect the interests of the genuine farmers who have contributed to building-up our quality export meat trade. Obviously I want to tackle the distribution area, and I believe the provisions in the Bill will strengthen my hand in this regard. Of course, the Garda Síochána and customs officials are also involved in the efforts to eliminate the current trafficking in these illegal substances. I acknowledge the role played by them in trying to eliminate their importation. It is well known and recognised that the Garda and customs officials have been very successful in their efforts in a number of areas.
The Department carries out field tests on animals which are suspected of having been given illegal substances and tests on carcases in various factories. Evidence to date would suggest that these tests are very effective. The Department is obliged under legislation to carry out two tests for the purposes of confirming that a substance is present in a product at a level which would warrant a prosecution. This Bill will enable a farmer to appeal a decision and have his own test carried out. I am endeavouring to be fair while at the same time introducing stringent regulations which will control the importation, distribution and use of illegal substances.
I wish to raise a question in regard to offenders who have given angel dust to their animals. The Minister said that he is using current regulations to deal with this problem until the new regulations are put in place. In view of the fact that they were successfully challenged in the Tipperary case, is the Minister in a position to enforce the current regulations?
A number of serious cases are pending before the courts and they will be prosecuted when all of the required evidence is on file. The Deputy can take it from me that under the present regulations people suspected of the illegal importation, distribution and use of these substances can be brought to court and prosecuted. There is no great difficulty in this regard. I am aware of the circumstances surrounding the case to which the Deputy referred. Obviously this case created some problems. We should look forward to the consolidation of all the legislation in this area, which, of course, will be considerably strengthened by this Bill.
With regard to the present tests which are carried out, may I ask the Minister if it is true that it can be very difficult, even with the most advanced technology, to detect these substances, particularly new drugs such as clenbuterol and various other agents which can be used to manipulate growth in animals? Can the Minister say if it is possible to use masking agents which can make it even more difficult to detect these compounds, even with the best technology? I agree with the Minister that farmers who give these substances to their animals are foolish. It is absolutely necessary to get that message across to all farmers.
The people involved in the importation of illegal substances, either for human or animal consumption, are very difficult to catch and are experts in the way they carry out their business. I am sure that that will always be the case. The tests carried out by the Department are effective. Technology is improving all of the time and we are trying to keep abreast of developments in this area. The tests carried out on carcases in factories are as modern and effective as those carried out in any country. The Department is trying to keep abreast of developments in the technology which is used to identify the use of the various substances. The effectiveness of the test relates very much to the amount of the substance given by the farmer to the animal. Obviously it can be very difficult to detect the use of these substances when a low level dose has been given to an animal. The technology used to detect them is being improved all the time.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill".
I wish to make a brief comment on section 10. This relates also to section 17. Section 10 provides that the Minister may appoint authorised officers to carry out certain functions which may be required for the purposes of the Act. I do not have any problems with this; I think we are all in favour of using the resources which are there. I am somewhat concerned that a whole series of different authorisations is apparently being envisaged. I know that one cannot put tags on the ears of authorised officers which would uniquely identify them forever. It is proposed that the authorised officers should be given a card which is equivalent to a blue card. It seems that some officers could be given blue cards while others could be given pink cards. Can the Minister explain why he believes it is necessary to have this variety of cards?
Section 17 (1) (a) requires that a document shall indicate that it is an identity document by reference to its being an identity card, warrant card, authorisation card or such other cognate expression as the Minister considers appropriate. That is wonderful language — the word "cognate" is beautiful and expresses everything very clearly. However, I should like to know why it is necessary to envisage all these different things. One cannot put tags on the ears of authorised officers but there must be some kind of unique identification which would do away with any doubts in this regard. I am not worried about the intentions of the Minister or the intentions of the Bill; rather I am worried that because there are different kinds of cards and warrants that some smart alec might challenge in court whether a card was a warrant card, an authorisation card, etc. The more complex these issues are the more danger there is that technicalities could upset cases in the end. We want to avoid this as much as possible.
Under the 1956 Act all authorised officers enjoyed similar powers. Because of the very extensive nature of the powers provided for in the Bill it may be more appropriate to divide the tasks and to give limited authorisation in certain circumstances. Certain duties which are very demanding in manpower, such as animal handling and sampling and entry onto premises for these purposes, can be readily carried out by officers with basic training under proper supervision. The more extensive police type powers regarding entry into dwellings etc. and carrying out complex investigations may be more appropriately reserved for a smaller group of more highly trained officers. This provision will enable such a distinction to be made. Provision is also made for the withdrawal of an authorisation in the case of a transfer to other duties, incompetence or abuse of position. That was not previously provided for. An authorisation will lapse on expiry, for a fixed period or on retirement of an officer. The Bill provides a level of management flexibility in the Department so that various duties can be assigned to officers who are qualified to deal with limited aspects of the implementation of this Bill. That is reasonable. We should agree on that. It enables us and the staff management section in the Department to allocate manpower or womanpower resources to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the Bill. I hope the House will agree with me.
That is very reasonable and I agree with the Minister's intentions. I would ask the Minister however to have a look at this between now and Report Stage. There are several different kinds of authorisations and I understand the Minister's reasons for this. It worries me that a case might come up where somebody purported to have one kind of authorisation where another would have been more appropriate. I am sure the Minister, like me, would have been half amused to read of a case under the Road Traffic Acts where a person was brought to a Garda station and instead of giving a blood sample he decided to give a urine sample, but as it turned out he was not able to give it and it was found that he was charged under a section which technically did not cover that case. If the Minister needs to do all these things I will not argue with that, but is there any reason for going to such lengths in the legislation where there is a danger that by doing so we might give someone an avenue to get out of a charge on a technicality rather than on the substance of the charge? I understand what the Minister is saying about management and use of resources but I would like him to reconsider this between now and Report Stage to see if it is necessary to deal with all this in the Bill or if he could satisfactorily deal with it in a more general provision which still leaves it within the compass of the Minister and his Department to decide now best they apply it in practice in the interest of good management and the best use of resources.
I am not sure that it is necessary for me to address the matter again on Report Stage. I have clearly explained the background and the thinking behind this section. The composite identity cards apply under some of the Acts already in force. It enables the Department to structure the delivery of services in a more effective and beneficial way. It is not a major issue. This is included in the legislation to ensure that people will not find loopholes in order to take the Department to court to prove that an officer was not an authorised officer to carry out a specific duty on behalf of the Department. Unfortunately, there are too many instances of aspects of legislation being challenged in our courts and our efforts in this House being totally frustrated in relation to the implementation of various provisions. While I accept the spirit of what the Deputy says, it is not necessary for me to come back to this on Report Stage.
Do not forget Murphy's Law.
Under section 10 the officer appointed by the Minister must have a warrant of appointment. The next section outlines the very extensive powers the officer will have and section 17 refers to an identity document which the Minister may or may not issue. In view of the concern of many people in rural Ireland about security, people will want an assurance that an officer coming to search the house is the person to whom a warrant was issued. It should be a requirement that the officer should have an identity document containing a recent photograph of the officer. Will the Minister indicate to the House if it is his intention that the officer must have a warrant to produce when it is asked for and also an identity document with a recent photograph?
That is a very relevant and important point. Every officer from the Department of Agriculture has identification at all times. In most operations it is not sought and it is not necessary to produce it. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, each officer will have identification which can be produced in relation to the investigation of offences under this Bill. Nobody need have any fear or worry that an officer purporting to be an officer of the Department will call with an ulterior motive on a farmer. This is covered in the provisions of the Bill. The Bill broadens the area of operations of the Department and considerably strengthens the hand of individual officers who will enforce the provisions of the Bill, even to the extent of carrying out a search without a warrant. We have clearly stated in the provisions of the Bill that that would be an extreme measure which would only be implemented where an officer of the Department felt that any delay in the investigation would result in the concealment of evidence. That is an extreme provision but it will only be implemented in very special circumstances as a last resort.
While I do not agree that the matter is covered adequately in the Bill I admit that this is not the appropriate section on which to deal with it. This section deals with the way officers may be authorised which is by way of a warrant of appointment which they will have to carry and produce when asked to do so. In the next section we will be giving them powers which very few officers in any Department have outside of the Garda Síochána. These include the power to stop vehicles, to inspect, examine, detain and seize. These are extensive powers and in this case we are not giving them to an officer of the Customs and Excise or a member of the Garda Síochána but to a new category, an officer of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry who will be appointed by the Minister. The only evidence of his appointment will be a warrant of appointment.
I was hoping that the Minister of State would give a quick reply and say that the officer concerned will have to carry an identity card which will carry a recent photograph, but he did not refer to this matter. This would help to alleviate the concerns of those who are afraid that somebody will turn up at their door with a search warrant to search their house because they are suspected of using illegal animal remedies. All the officer will have is a piece of paper; at least they should have an identity document stamped by the Department which would carry a photograph.
The fact that we are giving new powers which the Deputy has identified indicates how serious we take this matter.
That is not the point.
Each officer will carry an identity card bearing his photograph. That is the procedure at present.
Section 17 states, "there may be issued or cause to be issued by the Minister to a person an identity document in respect of one or more than one function conferred on that person ..." It does not say that the Minister "shall" issue an identity document or that the officer "shall" carry with him a proper identification card. The Minister of State has not yet said whether the document will carry a photograph even though I have asked him twice.
The Deputy can take it that under this Bill officers will carry clear identity documents when they call to farms or farmers or when they stop vehicles on the road whenever they find it necessary to act on behalf of the Department in implementing the provisions of the Bill.
Will the document carry a photograph?
Yes, a recent photograph.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 21, subsection (1) (a), line 45, after "is" to insert "taking place".
Subsection (1) states that where an officer of Customs and Excise has reasonable cause to suspect that a certain number of operations which are listed is or has taken place he may do a number of things. My amendment proposes to insert after the word "is" the words "taking place" so that it will be a question of whether something is taking place or has taken place. It is more than a matter of style, it clarifies the matter.
As the Deputy has suggested, it is a matter of style and he has a stylish way of putting things. The amendment is acceptable and improves the draft.
The Minister of State has achieved an economy of words by which he will achieve the same objective.
Economy is the name of the game in this House.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
We come now to amendment No. 33. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are cognate. It is suggested that amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 24, subsection (1) (a), line 25, to delete "where" and substitute "and that".
Each of these amendments makes a small correction in the wording of the Bill. They are merely drafting amendments and I recommend that they be accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 24, subsection (1) (b), line 28, to delete "where" and substitute "and that".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 24, subsection (1) (c), line 40, to delete "where" and substitute "and that".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 26, subsection (1), line 44, to delete "There may be issued or cause to be issued by the Minister" and subtitute "The Minister may issue or cause to be issued".
Again, the purpose of this amendment is to make the meaning a little clearer and I suspect the Minister of State will accept it. I hope he does because the language would run more smoothly.
As Deputy Molloy said, this section deals with the question of identity. A few minutes ago I invited the Minister of State to think again between now and Report Stage. I know that he is an openminded man and did not mean it when he said that he did not think that he would have to think again between now and Report Stage. I understand the reason the Minister of State wants to have the facility to give different powers to different officers is because they have different qualifications, skills and experiences.
It seems that the more one specifies these matters in legislation the more one creates the possibility of loopholes. The less one has to specify the clearer things are and there is less danger of complications. For example, in tax law the more one writes provisions into legislation to prevent loopholes the more one creates the possibility of loopholes. The same applies, as the Minister of State is aware, in the case of the intervention system for beef. The more categories one defines, be it for export refunds, private storage or intervention prices, the more one creates the need to change things slightly so that one can benefit in changing from one category to another.
In many areas of the law there is a direct conflict between simplicity and fairness. In this instance what we want to achieve is simplicity. If the Minister of State has the power to authorise officers to do certain things he might think again between now and Report Stage and decide to make the definition of what individual officers may do a matter for the internal administration of his Department and not a matter that can be haggled over in the courts. If the Minister of State has officers who can be authorised to do certain things he will have to make sure that whenever a charge is brought under this Bill the officer who carried out the job had the appropriate authorisation, that the people drawing up the charge make the appropriate references to the appropriate officer, the appropriate authorisation and the appropriate powers. The more matters have to be looked after in drawing up the charge the greater the danger that something will go wrong technically.
If it is sufficient to show that an officer had authorisation from the Minister of State, which could conceivably cover a multitude, and the charge relates to one specific matter, there is less room for argument in the court about whether it should be done that way. It seems to me, on the face of it at least, not to be necessary to bring the detail of internal cuisine of personnel management of the Department into the legislation where it can be made a cause for argument, when it need not be so. I am not asking the Minister to promise to change things utterly between now and Report Stage but to have his Department, the parliamentary draftsman and the Attorney General look at this again and to question whether it is necessary to specify all these details in the Bill and see if there is a simpler, more foolproof way. "Murphy's Law", as I reminded the Minister a few moments ago, should not be lost sight of. It is very simple: it states if something can go wrong it will. The more details and specification in the Bill the more we are allowing to go wrong. Many years ago when fuel injection cars first came into the country and I saw one of the first ones to come in I was very impressed. I thought my father needed a new car and I told him about this great "yoke" which has a fuel injection engine. His reply, which I think was very wise, was, "that is just something else that can go wrong". I think these details in the Bill might be in the same category.
That advice was certainly sound in relation to the car. Perhaps the Deputy does not fully understand——
That may well be.
——or perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been when explaining the section. On the question of the allocation of duties to staff who are qualified to perform them, an officer may be qualified to carry out a range of duties within the scope of his qualification and for that reason the Department can issue a composite identity card which will cover the range of activities he is qualified to undertake on behalf of the Department. I would have thought that provision goes all the way towards meeting the point Deputy Dukes raised. We are introducing a degree of flexibility in the performance of duties by specified officers in qualified sections in the Department. Let us consider an example, an officer may be dealing with a specific area of operation in the Department, if management now want him to carry out another function within his area of operation, a composite identity card will be issued to cover a broad range of activities. I think that is the thrust of what Deputy Dukes is saying. As I said my earlier explanation may not have been entirely clear. In the spirit of generosity that has prevailed throughout the debate I am prepared to concede to this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I will return to the point I was making earlier. Does the Minister accept that there should be an obligation on the Minister to issue an identity card of the type I mentioned earlier which would include a photograph? Assurances from the Minister in the House are one thing but what goes on the Statute Book is the Bill and not what was said during the debate. What the Minister agrees to in the course of the debate will have no legal standing unless the necessary changes are made in the Bill. I would be quite satisfied if the Minister will make the necessary changes on Report Stage. Will the Minister make it a requirement that the identity card contains a recent photograph of the authorised officer? I think it is essential that those two matters be included in the Bill.
Deputy Molloy has made a very good point. It should be beyond yea or nea that an authorised officer should have identification regardless of any other consideration. That is very important given the way Irish society has developed. Will the Minister look again at this matter and state if it is provided for in the Bill at present and, if not, perhaps he would consider including it in the Bill before Report Stage so that it is put beyond doubt that the authorised officer engaged in this type of work will have to carry an identification card that contains a photograph?
I thought I had made it abundantly clear that each officer of the Department can and will be clearly identified when carrying out operations on our behalf. I accept that it is causing concern and that Deputies are genuinely expressing their concern and I will look at the matter again between now and Report Stage to see if it is possible to meet the views being expressed. However, my personal view is that this is adequately covered in what I have already stated.
I was about to thank the Minister but I became worried when he said he did not see the need for it and this makes me wonder whether the Minister intends to do something about it. I fail to understand the difficulties the Minister has with this suggestion. Is it not possible for the Minister to indicate that officers to whom very extensive and strong powers are being extended should be obliged to have an identity card because, as Deputy Upton stated, people living in remote areas are terrified by the possibility of callers coming and robbing them because of what is happening in modern Ireland. People are reluctant to open their doors at times and now another man can arrive at the door with a document saying he has a right to come into the house and turn everything upside down and there is no way of identifying him. It is essential that they have identity. There is no point in saying that officers of the Department have full identification. I do not know what the situation is at present but they do not have these powers and when these powers are being extended to officers it is essential that they carry identification that contains a recent photograph. I would be surprised if the Minister would not state that he would do this on Report Stage but when he said he did not see the need for it, that made me wonder.
What I meant was that there was no need for further clarification in view of what I had already said. I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever with the viewpoint expressed by the Deputies present and I have clearly indicated that every officer of the Department will be required to produce his identity card when calling to someone's home, as Deputy Molloy has stated.
Will that be a statutory requirement?
To the extent that it may not be covered from a statutory point in the Bill——
That is the point I am making.
——I will look at it before Report Stage. I have absolutely no difficulty in identifying with the views that have been expressed. It is of paramount importance to the officer that he be able to identify himself.
Will the card contain a photograph?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
The Minister of State to move amendment No. 37. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are related and I suggest that amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 28, line 25, after "occurred" to insert "in relation to a class of animal remedy or a class or ingredient for an animal remedy".
This is merely a drafting point designed to make the purpose of the section more clear-cut and operable.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 28, line 26, after "animal remedy" to insert "or ingredient for an animal remedy".
Again, this is a drafting point, the same reason applying here as in the case of the earlier amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 28, line 27, to delete "of a class of animal remedies" and substitute "of such a class of animal remedy or class of ingredient for an animal remedy".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 20 to 22 inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Amendment No. 40 in the name of Deputy Molloy. Amendment No. 41 is related and I suggest that, by agreement, they be taken together.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 29, subsection (1) (b) (i), line 34, to delete "£50,000" and substitute "£100,000".
In the Bill, as drafted, the Minister proposes that where a person commits an offence under section 20 (1) (b), on conviction on indictment, in the case of a first offence under this section he or she shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £50,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both. I tabled this amendment to increase that figure of £50,000 to £100,000 because I genuinely did not feel that the figure of £50,000 was adequate to cover all cases that might come before the courts and a person convicted on indictment. While £50,000 may seem large in certain circumstances, as we know there have been many gangsters involved in the illegal distribution of various animal remedies. It has been stated here in the course of the debate that the IRA have been involved in this, that the proceeds from their illegal activities from selling animal remedies could have been the cause of many people losing their lives, north and south of the Border, because they use their proceeds to purchase arms and ammunition with which to wreak havoc on the community. The level of profits these people have been able to reap can be quite enormous. I wonder what led to the Minister to settle on the figure of £50,000. I also wonder what my colleagues in the other parties here in Opposition, and the Labour Party in Government — if they would offer a comment — believe is the justification for the insertion of the figure of £50,000 or whether it should be increased.
I do not want to delay the House on this but I do feel it may not be an adequate deterrent. I feel that the judge should have discretion to resort to a much higher figure where the circumstances warrant it. I wonder whether there is some particular reason for maintaining the figure at £50,000 in the case of a first offence and £100,000 in the case of a second offence. The increases I am proposing are not enormous. I noticed there was not much comment on the provisions of this section in the course of the Second Stage debate. That may indicate that other Deputies who contributed were satisfied, or that it was merely one section of this Bill with which they did not have time to deal.
My inclination would be to go for a higher figure still. Anyhow, the Minister has inserted the figures of £50,000 and £100,000 and I am suggesting that those figures be replaced by £100,000 and £250,000 respectively. If there are people who can make enormous sums way in excess of these proposed fines, surely the court should be in a position to adequately penalise them with the fines that might be imposed on them. I shall await the Minister's response before saying anything more.
I suppose, in a way, Deputy Molloy's amendment is a further indication of the level of support there is in this House for the purpose of dealing with what is obviously a very serious crime. I agree that this is a critical section of the Bill. The proposed amendments seek to double the monetary penalties for serious offences. The penalties proposed in the Bill, coupled with the option of a ten year term of imprisonment are, in my view, already extremely high. Furthermore, when legislation on the forfeiture of profits of criminal activities is introduced, offences covered under the provisions of this Bill will be included.
In light of this I contend that the penalties outlined in this section are a considerable improvement on the present position and are adequate. For that reason I would prefer to leave the penalties at £50,000 and £100,000, as originally proposed. There is no difference between us on the objective in that we are seeking to achieve — I said this already in giving Deputy Molloy credit for his amendment — the same objective but it is simply a question of the tactics to be deployed. I think the level of penalties proposed is adequate. The real issue is what we can implement effectively. As I said yesterday, the legislation will not be worth the paper on which it is written unless we can implement all of its provisions and receive the backing and support of everybody involved in the industry. I indicated that I would have discussions at an early stage with all those involved, from the producers right up to the processors, in terms of seeking their backing, goodwill and support — which I know we will have anyway — for implementing the various provisions of this Bill.
I am flexible in relation to this. It is a question of interpretation of what is possible, what can be achieved in terms of the legislation. But I would prefer that Deputy Molloy would accept for the moment — perhaps it is a matter that may be reviewed at a later stage — the broad range of penalties which are very substantial and which I hope will act as a total deterrent to the abuses that have taken place to date.
I might compliment the Minister on being flexible but I should like him to exercise somewhat more flexibility than he is doing on this issue and think about it again. There are a few things to be said about penalties like these inserted in a Bill. First of all, the penalties proposed in the Bill, and in the amendments tabled by Deputy Molloy, specify penalties not exceeding certain amounts — £50,000 in the Bill, whereas Deputy Molloy is proposing £100,000. I would be very much inclined to support Deputy Molloy's amendment. That kind of penalty gives a signal to two different kinds of people. First of all, of course, there are the people who might be tempted to break the law and the higher the potential penalty, the more inclined such people might be to think again about breaking the law.
The second group of people to whom it is intended to give a signal are the judges who will sit on cases. Of course, we cannot ever stray into the area of tying their Lordships' hands or instructing them what to do, nor would we attempt to do so. Of course, judges are human beings just like everybody else. If a judge is sitting in a case and finds there is a conviction and the provision is for a maximum fine not exceeding £50,000, he will operate a certain reply to that, a certain number of basis of judgment and, in many cases, will not apply the maximum fine. He or she will apply the same kind of reasoning in the event the maximum fine being £100,000. But the overall consideration is likely to take place at a higher level so that the fine imposed ultimately, even if not the full maximum allowed, might be higher. There is a consideration there which we should examine in terms of both the gravity of the offence and the level at which the fine is likely to be applied.
I am impressed by what the Minister says about the Government's intention to ensure that future legislation on the confiscation of proceeds from criminal activity would apply to offences covered by the provision of this Bill, in the same way as they would to others. I have to say two things about that. The first remark is not directed personally at the Minister at all; it is directed corporately at him. In the light of the experience we have had with this Government and, indeed, with its predecessor, I would not hold my breath awaiting legislation of this kind that the Government has promised.
I think I am right in saying that the proposal for legislation on the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal activity is not in the programme between now and the summer recess. These things tend to get long fingered from time to time. I am not impugning any dilatoriness to the Minister because he will not be introducing it, but I would not hold my breath waiting for it.
Where in a case of any kind there is a provision for the confiscation of proceeds it seems the courts will have an option. Much will depend on how that legislation is drafted and it may require a second action to confiscate the proceeds. I do not think there is any difference for the State at the end of the day whether a bigger proportion of the proceeds has already been taken away by the application of a fine, as in the case envisaged here, or the State waiting until a later date to grab the lot. If that is the road we are to follow I would prefer to see the largest possible amount taken away on their first bite of the cherry, so to speak, by having a large fine. I will not anticipate what may be in the legislation, but one of the difficulties we will have with the further legislation the Minister talked about is in finding out how much of the proceeds are where and how to get our hands on them. From that point of view the consideration that the Bill is coming along is not in itself an argument for not having a higher level of fines, it is only a question of timing. If we add to the question of timing the disincentive effect on the potential criminal of the high level of fines proposed in the Bill and the incitative effect which a higher level of fines would have on the members of the bench hearing the case, there are very good reasons for increasing the levels of fines.
I will say this in as uncontentious a way as I possibly can. I did not detect in what the Minister said any great degree of passion or conviction on his part in arguing for the fines as they exist. There is always a tendency to argue for what one puts in the Bill in the first place and there are varying degrees of passion and conviction in it. Given the Minister's very calm exterior and delivery when speaking about this, I suspect he is arguing for the £50,000 and the £100,000 on the basis that they are what was put in the Bill and that there is no more compelling reason than that. That being the case the Minister should give in to his own finer instincts and accept the amendments proposed by Deputy Molloy.
It is always very difficult to know how high to set these figures and decide whether the fine should be £50,000, £75,000 or £100,000. I welcome the fact that the Minister said he would be flexible. I would have no problem in accepting the larger figure. Something which has always puzzled me about fines which are put into Bills and so on is that they are not in line with inflation and accordingly they get smaller as time goes by. Presumably some method could be devised whereby fines would be linked to the consumer price index and the adjustment would at least keep pace with inflation. As every day passes those figures become smaller. Perhaps that point would be considered in the context of the larger figures. The other point I would make is that the abuse of these substances impacts on the industry. The impact should be considered in terms of the damage caused to the industry. The damage is enormous in terms of its impact on consumers' attitudes and so on. That may be another reason for increasing the fines contained in the Bill. It is really very difficult to decide whether the fine should be £50,000, £75,000 £200,000 or £300,000. It is very much an off the top of the head value judgment.
The Minister said that the figure of £50,000 is a doubling of the existing figure. Did I understand the Minister correctly?
No.
What is the existing figure?
The amendment seeks to double the existing figure.
Without this Bill, what is the figure which the courts can impose at present?
£1,000.
I detect from what the Minister has said that he would not have any great difficulty in accepting the amendments. I thank Deputies Dukes and Upton for their support for the amendments. I am advised that £50,000 is about the value of a truck or two of good quality cattle. We are talking here about people who have been selling the angel dust chemical to farmers as a result of which those farmers achieved very substantial weight gains and so-called improvements in the quality of their animals. There was a reduction in the fat content and they produced more lean meat which was more valuable on the marketplace and there were substantial profits to be made. The intent of the Bill is to kill that once and for all. A fine of £50,000 as the maximum for an indictable offence is pussyfooting with the project. Personally, I would impose a fine of £250,000 for the first offence and £500,000 for the second offence. The figures are much too small when one considers the enormous profits that have been and continue to be made by people who succeed in illegally distributing these lethal chemicals.
I appeal to the Minister to accept the figures suggested in the amendment but I would prefer they were much higher. The Minister has not made any arguments to justify not increasing the fines to the figures I have mentioned. We are not saying that everybody who is fined must be fined £100,000 but rather that it be the limit to which the judge can go. That point has been well explained by Deputy Dukes and it does have an influence on the judge. In many cases judges have said: "In view of the evidence put before me in this case today and the terrible crime you have committed, I would levy a much higher fine on you if I had authority to do so, but I am confined by the legislation that exists". I do not think the fines should be confined to £50,000.
In regard to the point made by Deputy Molloy concerning a truck load of cattle being worth £50,000 and working on the assumption that treating those animals with angel dust puts about £100 on their value, the maximum fine is the equivalent of having treated 500 animals with this drug. There are farmers who have that number of cattle on their farms as we speak. If we are talking about processing animals over a number of years the figures would on a risk benefit analysis, forgetting about all other considerations, make it worthwhile to have a gamble if one had that type of mentality, which of course would be appalling. Unfortunately, there are people out there who have that kind of thinking process.
I have listened very attentively to the logic of the case put forward by the three Deputies. I did not think Deputy Dukes would have any desire to increase my blood pressure by provoking my passion. I can assure Deputy Dukes and the House that I feel very strongly about this issue and I think I demonstrated that on Second Stage. In regard to the points being made, perhaps we should view this section with section 24 and amendment No. 42, which goes to great extremes in relation to the imposition of additional penalties. It is always difficult to come to a definitive figure in relation to the fines which should be applied for particular offences. I am never sure how they are arrived at except that they are always pitched at a scale which is regarded as being sufficiently prohibitive to deal with the offence being addressed.
One of the factors is the view taken in relation to the implementation of the provisions of the Bill by the Judiciary. I take Deputy Dukes' point that it would be highly improper for us to comment on the administration of justice, but in the past judges have commented that figures incorporated in legislation were unrealistic.
On the other hand, a logical case is being made by Deputies in relation to the seriousness of this offence and the profitability of it for the small number of people involved. I have considered it from that point of view and have no difficulty in accepting the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy and supported by Deputy Dukes. If it strengthens our hand and the hand of the Judiciary in the imposition of fines and helps to prevent the commission of these offences, then I accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 29, subsection (1) (b) (ii), line 37, to delete "£100,000" and substitute "£250,000".
It has already been discussed and the points I made in relation to amendment No. 40 apply equally to this one.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 30, subsection (1), lines 8 and 9, to delete "a second or subsequent" and substitute "an".
This amendment would have the effect, if the judge so desires, of enabling the powers provided for in the section to apply following the first indictable offence and not just in the event of a second offence. Under the drinking laws if one exceeds the legal limit for the consumption of alcohol while driving a vehicle and is prosecuted, there is no second chance. If the prosecution is successful the licence to drive a vehicle is withdrawn. The disqualification is for a period of 12 months and cannot be appealed until six months has elapsed. This House had no difficulty in accepting that legislation. As we know, a few social drinks can put people over the limit and they can be unfortunate enough to be asked to blow into a bag and be found to be over the strict limits that we rightly apply, with the result that their whole career is affected. An innocent social event can turn into an absolute disaster, commercially, financially and personally. Here we have gangsters trying to make a fast buck by selling these chemicals to farmers who have no conscience, who are trying to increase their profits illegally. We are saying that when they are caught they can continue in the trade unless they are caught a second time and the judge has not the right to disqualify them from engaging in farming or in the manufacture or distribution of these materials. We are leaving the door open for the illegal operators to dodge the authorised officers. There are tens of thousands of farmers in this country and the illegal operators will continue to find clients who have not been prosecuted twice. They have the assurance that if they are only caught once they can stay in the business.
The legislation is, in a perverse way, encouraging people to take the risk. If they knew that being caught would mean they would be disqualified from continuing in business they would be less inclined to take the risk. We have already accepted that principle in regard to the drink driving laws. Why can we not accept it in regard to this? Why do we make it soft for these people and provide that only if they are caught on a second occasion on an indictable offence will they be disqualified? We are not saying that they must be disqualified. We want to give the judge who is to try the case the right to disqualify them as part of the penalty he can impose. He should not be debarred from disqualifying in a serious case.
I cannot understand the Minister's logic. It is a bit of pussyfooting. It may be that when the Minister and the Department were putting this together they thought there might be difficulty in getting the House to agree to it. There is no difficulty. We are looking for this legislation. My party are looking for this legislation and we fully support it. It should be clear that the House wants to see the toughest possible legislation brought in. The Minister has said that is his objective. I cannot see how he believes we are doing that when a judge can only apply disqualification if a person comes before him for the second time. He should have the authority to disqualify a person on a first offence, if he deems that the case is serious enough to warrant that.
I support Deputy Molloy's amendment, largely for the reasons he has set out. There are a couple of other things we should consider. This provision would be available to the courts as the courts think fit and would not be mandatory; there is a degree of flexibility. Second, if one looks at the circumstances in which this disqualification can be operated, one will find that it is feasible to operate it. Persons could be disqualified from having charge or control, directly or indirectly, of either or both any animal or classes of animal and any animal or class or classes of animal remedy or any ingredient thereof. So far as having control of animals is concerned, there is already in most cases a very substantial set of practices and administrative regulations in force that would allow us to enforce that. The fact, for example, that a person convicted on indictment of any offence under this Act could be deprived of a herd number would be a very effective means of ensuring that they could not carry on that kind of business. If the Minister brings in regulations for the licensing of wholesalers and retailers, the Minister, the courts and the administrator between them could make a disqualification stick under section 1 (a) (2) without any great difficulty because if one does not have a licence to operate, one cannot operate. It can be made to work.
The only area where there would be a doubt is in relation to subsection (1) (b) which has to do with the manufacture, importation, preparation, handling, storage, transport, exportation, distribution, sale or supply of food intended for human consumption or for animal consumption and so on. It is difficult to be sure that this could be made to stick in relation to manufacture where one does not have to have a licence. There are substantial areas of food production where one does not require a licence. The same relates to importation, preparation, handling and storage. The difficulty might not be so great in relation to transportation; there may be a means of making it stick there. Exportation would be difficult, as would distribution and so on.
Even if the courts were to apply that penalty we could not be sure that the ban or prohibition would work in all circumstances. That appears to be just another argument for making the penalty and the threat of it as stiff as possible. For those reasons I support the amendment. It would have the same effect in relation to large fines.
This Bill has received great attention in the farming press and the periodicals dealing with the food industry and the fact that the Minister accepted Deputy Molloy's amendment in relation to the fine will get further attention. If the Minister accepts this amendment I suspect it will also get some attention and will be a clear signal to everybody involved that we are determined to make this Bill work. By accepting this amendment the Minister would help to change people's perception of this House.
I have given much thought and consideration to this amendment both last night and this morning in my discussions with the officials. Deputies Molloy and Dukes made a strong case on this matter. I tend to take the view that it is only through debate and exchange of views that one can be effective in achieving the objectives of legislation. I acknowledge that the two Deputies opposite have strong feelings in regard to this matter and believe that this amendment would strengthen the effectiveness of the Bill and the effectiveness of officials in implementing its provisions. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendment.
I thank the Minister. This is a significant amendment and I appreciate the fact that the Minister has accepted it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
I want to clarify a matter in regard to this section. Certain legal issues arise from the wording of subsection (1), particularly in regard to prohibited animal remedies, ingredients for animal remedies and the relationship of the subsection to regulations under section 8. These matters are the subject of discussion between my Department and the Attorney General's office and it may be necessary to make an amendment to the wording involved. If that is the case, I will raise the matter on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 32, before section 28, to insert the following new section:
"28. —Where it is proposed to make regulations under this Act, a draft of such regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and the regulations shall not have effect until they have been passed by resolution of both Houses.".
I am sure the Minister and other Deputies have heard me refer to this matter before because it is an old hobby horse of mine. It is looked on with a degree of amused tolerance by those on the Government benches whenever I raise it. It is entirely appropriate that I should raise it on this Bill because the Minister has had to go to the trouble of drafting this Bill to make sure that a number of measures we always considered were in force which derive their legal inspiration from the European Communities Act, 1972, continue to be valid. A major part of this Bill is concerned with ensuring that a number of matters that were dealt with under the European Communities Act, 1972 continue to be valid, notwithstanding the doubts raised by recent court cases. The main reason that doubt arose was the determination of the High Court to ensure that Ministers do not have the power to change legislation and that if they wish to alter the provisions they must get the sanction of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister will recognise that many pages of this Bill deal with the question of putting matters beyond doubt. I cannot claim I have carried out an exhaustive survey of the measures that are dealt with in that way in this Bill but I can say, without any fear of contradition, that a substantial number of measures have to be confirmed in that way and would not have to be so confirmed if they were brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas for explicit approval.
That is enough to open the case and identify it as something requiring consideration. There are many cases where important matters — some of which have been overturned by the High Court and on appeal to the Supreme Court — are dealt with under a general power to make regulations on the basis that the regulations in draft form are laid before this House and unless both Houses of the Oireachtas overturn them within 21 sitting days, they are brought into effect. I accept that that should mean that every Member of each House of the Oireachtas should examine carefully regulations laid before the Houses and if they are concerned about any of them, they should start the procedure of having the proposed regulations annulled, in the knowledge, that even if they are annulled nothing done under the provisions of those regulations up to the time they are annulled may be invalidated. It is unconceivable that it would ever happen, but if both Houses rejected the regulations the Government would have the period covered by 21 sittings days of the two Houses to do what was proposed under the regulations. That might be totally objectionable to the Members of both Houses but nothing done up to then under the provisions of those regulations could be set aside by the Oireachtas because that is the form in which power is given in legislation.
Regulations may also be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas in draft form, but cannot take effect until both Houses actively and explicitly approve them. Had that procedure been followed more often, many of the the matters that are now in doubt as a result of the High Court decision to which I referred earlier would not be in doubt because they could not have been interpreted as cases where Ministers took wide powers to change legislation without consulting the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is why I tabled this amendment.
I tabled this amendment on the Roads Bill, the Environmental Protection Agency Bill and many others which have come before this House. In all cases the matters proposed to be dealt with in the regulations were important matters of policy. I would be willing to bet that when I have made my case the Minister will tell me that it would be tedious and impracticable to require all the regulations to implement this Bill to be brought before this House.
I was unable to be here yesterday.
I was disappointed.
Will the Minister, or his successors, be in a position to propose a regulation to change the terms of section 2 (1) to include insects other than Apis Mellifera in the category of animals covered in this Bill? I am sorry I was not here yesterday but my curiosity knows no bounds.
The Deputy would have enjoyed the debate.
I will ask the Minister about this privately. Why is the humble bumble bee the only insect referred to here? What about the ants and other insects?
We referred to them and to worms yesterday.
Why are insects so privileged as to be the only form of life excluded from the provisions of this Bill?
And jellyfish.
The Bill includes birds, fish, reptiles, molluscs, but I will not go into all that. A Minister could at a later date propose a regulation to include some other variety of aphis under the provisions of this Bill though I know that is somewhat fanciful. The Minister may say that we should not bother having a formal discussion about something as simple as that. I know he will make that point, and it is a disingenuous one. If the Minister believes there are matters about which the House should be burdened, he must be satisfied in regard to two points. First, that the substance of the matter is not something that will change legislation already in place. Second, that the matter is something that properly comes within the scope and confidence of our administrative system and is not one that requires a policy decision by the Houses of the Oireachtas. He will also tell me that if this amendment is agreed the time of the Houses of the Oireachtas would be taken up with many fiddly things. That may be true but it is not an answer. Many of the difficulties now facing the Government as a result of the High Court's interpretation of the European Communities Act, 1972 would not have arisen if the procedure I am proposing had been followed more often. I do not believe it is beyond the capacity of our Departments of State, Ministers, parliamentary draftsmen and the Office of the Attorney General to separate the different regulations and subsidiary measures that must be taken between those that can properly be taken as a matter of administrative practice and others which require decisions in this House.
Almost every regulation that falls to be made under this Bill will be made according to the procedure which I call the passive procedure. I am sure the Minister would say the regulations are technically before the House. I defy the Minister who has been here longer than I, to say that since he came to this House he has personally inspected every regulation laid in draft before the House that could become effective immediately and could be overturned by the Houses up to 21 sitting days after they were laid before the Dáil and that everything that had been done with respect to them up until then would continue to have effect. If the Minister can show me even ten cases where he has personally inspected proposals of that kind I will be astonished. If he can show me even one case where he or any of his party colleagues or colleagues in other parties picked up regulations with which they disagreed and brought them to the attention of their Front Bench spokesperson or parliamentary party and asked that the regulation to be raised in the House to have it overturned, I would be astonished. I do not think that has ever happened in the 12 years I have been here.
I can assure the Minister that it will cut no ice with me if he or those who advise him were to say that I was as frequent a user as he of this objectionable provision when I was a member of the Government. That is true, but that was on a basis of collective decisions. I have always believed that this passive procedure for making regulations is wrong. It requires some imagination to draw a clear dividing line between matters of execution and administration which should be dealt with outside this House and be properly provided for in legislation and those that require political decision. If they require political decision it should require an overt expressed political decision of these Houses and not the type of sub rosa procedure of the regulations being laid before the Houses where nobody examines them and they pass into law. This causes problems later when the courts tell us that Ministers do not have the right to do that.
I would like the Minister to accept this amendment. I will be pleasantly surprised if he does so. He was in such an expansive mood yesterday and is today that he might silence me by saying he will accept the amendment, in which case I will be delighted. If the Minister does not accept the amendment I invite him between now and Report Stage to consider the various regulations that should be made here and reflect on the debate we had which has added substantially to the worth of this Bill. He should consider that debates on regulations that fall to be made under this Bill in the future might improve the text of those regulations in the same manner as it has improved the text of the Bill before us.
Throughout the debate on Second Stage, and particularly on Committee Stage, the Minister has come here with an open mind and was prepared to listen to the arguments of Opposition Deputies and where he considered a reasonable case had been made he conceded the point. I applaud him for his approach which has added greatly to the stature of this House and improved the Bill he introduced. In this era all parties are supportive of the need to reform procedures of this House. This, above all other matters, demands change. There is an important principle at stake. It is necessary to involve the House in a meaningful way in important decisions of which it is deemed to approve. The existing procedures are less than satisfactory and not transparent.
In practice many hundreds of regulations are being made from one year to another without the scrutiny of any Member because of the procedures in place, the manner in which business is done and the impossibility of securing time to bring forward a separate motion to seek to have a regulation debated. The initiative must be taken by an Opposition Deputy. I appeal to the Minister to accept the validity of the arguments made by Deputy Dukes in support of his amendment which I fully support.
There is agreement by all parties on the need to reform procedures and practices here. New committees have been set up and matters will be referred to them. We sit on different sides of the House from time to time. I am sure the Minister and his present colleagues in Government do not expect to be in Government forever and for that reason we want to ensure the procedures put into place are fair. The changes introduced by this Government in the establishment of committees can be greatly strengthened and be more meaningful if we insist that the practice of requiring the Opposition or some other Member, to bring forward a motion to object to a particular regulation be stopped. Otherwise, that regulation says in effect and all that was done under it since it was introduced by the Minister is deemed to have effect.
In future, if this amendment is adopted and applied in all other legislation, with the new procedures available to us through the committees, it would not be necessary for all of them to be debated in this House. That would not be possible or practical, but it would mean that all Members of the House would first be supplied with a copy of the regulation which the Minister proposed to introduce. If it required the approval of the House it could be done on Committee Stage. Many of them would be passed without debate and I would see a procedure established whereby the Whips would be given copies of intended regulations which would then be distributed to the various spokespersons in each party to examine briefly. In many cases they would indicate their agreement and it could be a matter for, say, the Order of Business, to have the House approve of particular legislation. I have seen many regulations passed in that fashion. Where Members of parties were not approving the Minister's intent in the regulations they would then be referred to one of the new committees of the House. That would be seen by the members of those committees as a new and valuable role for them. It would give meaning to those committees many members of which have serious questions as to their effectiveness as they are established at present. Unless other changes such as are suggested in this amendment are adopted the idea of the committees will eventually turn out to be a charade. I do not believe that is what the Government wants. There seems to be a mood to introduce genuine reforms. I would suggest to the Minister that by adopting an amendment of this kind, and if his colleagues in Government adopted such an approach in future legislation we could have a more meaningful role for Parliament here.
The House is being ignored in many of the most important decisions made. The House is deemed to have rubberstamped them, but they are never actually debated until the measure is in operation. It is wrong that regulations can come into effect and can have a serious effect on people without the Dáil ever approving them. It is only in the odd case, as has been outlined here, where one has to go to the enormous difficulty of having a special debate that the House is involved in giving its approval. If the House rejects it, everything done up to that point is deemed to have been done legally. I believe that is wrong. I know the Minister's attitude will be that this would be impractical, that it would slow down the whole system, and would delay the implementation of the regulations. That is not so; these are only excuses. If the Minister believes that would happen he should introduce procedures to rectify that.
In the case of this Bill it is essential that this amendment be accepted because it is only an enabling Bill. It has no effect as it stands. The regulations made under this Bill, particularly under section 8, will determine whether the Bill will deal effectively with the illegal practices in animal remedies that are taking place here. It is the regulations that are important. We are now debating this Bill and giving the Minister power to implement these measures; yet it is the regulations that will determine whether the measures will be effective. The House will have no role in this unless it goes through the difficult procedure of trying to initiate a special debate. There is no chance of a special debate taking place on these regulations. We know from practice that will not happen and the number of times it has occurred during my years here is minimal, almost never.
I appeal to the Minister to accede to this amendment and accept the logic of the arguments being made. I would ask him during this discussion to put himself outside of his Ministerial responsibilities. As an experienced Member of this House he must be aware that Deputy Dukes' arguments are valid, logical and will prove to be major improvement, that they will add greatly to the Government's plan for Dáil reform and will strengthen the new committee system.
I wish to thank the Deputies again for their contributions. I become a little concerned when Deputy Dukes takes on the role of fortune teller predicting what I might or might not say in relation to specific aspects of the Bill. I listened attentively to the case he has made, but he has been making this case in this House over a long period of time. It relates in a more general way to the implementation of broad legislation and is not specifically relevant to the Bill, for reasons I will now mention. The acceptance of this amendment involves deletion of the present section 28, which Deputy Dukes has identified. This section already provides for the laying of regulations before the House and provides the Houses with an opportunity of annulling the regulations by the vote of either Houses. The present section 28 is usual for Acts of this type and provides the Houses with adequate control over the regulations made. Therefore, I do not feel this amendment will make the operation of the legislation any more effective.
I wish to comment on another dimension to the amendment which in my view would not be in the interest of having what I would regard as a constructive debate here in relation to the provisions of this Bill. The point was made several times during the debate, both yesterday and this morning, about how long it would take to implement the provisions of the Bill. We all accept there is a great deal of urgency in relation to it. Without taking from the merit of his arguments Deputy Dukes' amendment in effect would take from my determination to conclude the legislation which is before us at present for the purpose of formulating the necessary regulations.
In relation to Deputy Molloy's question on the regulations, we have been clear in relation to the provisions of the Bill. The amendments which I have accepted today highlight the urgency and seriousness which we attach to this Bill. The Deputy can be assured that the regulations, which will be the obvious followup what is being decided here today, will be very much in line with the spirit of the debate and the decisions which have been taken. From the time I introduced this Bill I have responded as best I could to both the amendments and the views expressed by Deputies. These regulations will be positive in addressing the problems we are discussing here today. I cannot accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Dukes, but I am sure the Deputy had anticipated my reply.
This is not my day to be completely astonished. I cannot see why the Minister should be worried at my becoming a fortune teller because on the basis of what he has just said my score is 100 per cent. The Minister has, very succinctly, replied using the very arguments which I expected him to make. His passion concerning these amendments is no greater than that which he had for previous amendments.
I followed it up with a very logical explanation as to why I could not accept the Deputy's amendment.
I know exactly why the Minister would be advised to make the statement he has just made. I would have to say that in all conscience this is another example of blind tunnel vision, it is administrative laziness.
Hear, hear.
This provision which has been inserted here is a convenient one.
It has always been there and used for the making of regulations and it suits the Administration. If one takes the time to inspect legislation one will find that this provision is used in a great many cases to mend the hand of the Minister and of the legislation. It is a nice easy way out. A general power is provided to make regulations and, when matters become a little out of kilter and have not been properly thought out in advance, these regulations are brought in. We know that the Dáil will not bother trying to upturn these regulations after 21 days. We will not even have to explain to any great extent why we have to bring in more regulations or amend the regulations already in place.
The Deputy is forgetting something.
This is administrative laziness. Members of this House, the Minister included, have to get themselves elected. We have to persuade people that we are worth electing and are worth keeping here on the basis that we will legislate. Yet the Minister proposes to hand over an important part of the process of legislation to an administrative system, the Civil Service, for which I have the highest regard, but which is not paid to legislate. We should not hand the Civil Service the power to legislate. We do this every time we pass one of these nonsensical provisions on regulations.
I want this House to take its responsibilities seriously. I want the Civil Service to have a clear definition of what it does, where its responsibilities lie, the extent of its responsibilities and how far Ministers are entitled to go as the heads of Civil Service Departments, rather than as politicians. Unless this House is very careful, passive regulations like these will give the Minister unnecessarily wide powers to hand over this job to civil servants. This will deprive Deputies of their proper function, which is to make political choices about policy matters. The borderline between these two issues has never been properly addressed. The provision in this Bill dealing with regulations does not require anybody to think. More importantly, it does not require Deputies to do the job for which they were elected.
I am not impressed by the points made by the Minister. He made the usual ceremonial remarks made by Ministers. They know this is a hobby horse of mine and that I can always be relied on to make the point. Ministers normally say, "I know you are very well motivated but this Bill is not the appropriate place to do this". During my 12 years in this House I have never found an appropriate Bill in which to do this except on the few occasions when I was the Minister in charge of a Bill. Then I was able to tell my Department and the parliamentary draftsman that I did not want this general passive provision in the Bill and that if we were to make orders under this provision we would do so in an active way. This required a bit more work. In the case of this Bill, it would not have required much more work, but it would have required a great deal more work in the case of the Roads Act and the Environmental Protection Agency Act The fact that this requires more work is not a reason for not doing it. It is an argument in favour of being more careful in the way we draft our legislation.
I am disappointed that the Minister has come into the House and said "not I, Lord". Somebody will have to make a decision on this matter.
Hear, hear.
Somebody will have to decide that the Civil Service will do its job and the Dáil will do its job so that there is a clear borderline between the two jobs. This nonsensical convention has got us into no end of trouble since the decision by the courts on the European Communities Act, 1972. We have to take our responsibilities seriously. I find it appalling that the Minister can be given and has taken advice of the kind he has indicated to the House today, only a few weeks after the High Court told us that much of the legislation introduced since 1972-73 is suspect. Much of this legislation is suspect because we did not go to the trouble of defining properly where politics ends and administration begins or vice versa. The Minister has come into the House and said “Not I, Lord; it is not appropriate in the case of this Bill. It might be appropriate in another Bill. Deputy Dukes can pursue his amiable eccentricity in the debate on some other Bill, but he should leave me alone”. That is not an answer. This practice will not be changed — and I hope it will be changed — by passing an Act in this House, rather it will be changed by a Government which makes it a rule in the drafting of legislation that we pay proper attention to what is administration and what is politics, the borderline between them and that we leave politics where it is. In other words, we render unto the Dáil the things that are the Dáil's and we render unto the Civil Service the things which properly belong to that machine. This practice will not be changed until such time as every Minister is given the instruction by the Government that this is the way we should operate.
Perhaps I was asking too much of the Minister to be a pioneer in this regard. However, I do not think he would object too much to being remembered as an innovator. I suppose it is not the kind of image a Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, with all the weight of that magnificent tradition behind him, would like to get. I am disappointed that the Minister has given this benighted reaction to this matter. I will keep raising it. An old song — I know this is far too uncultured for the Minister — referred to a ram which kept butting a dam until it eventually broke. If there is any concern for democracy or proper parliamentary practice in the Government, I hope the Minister of State and the Minister will, if they have any residual memory of what I have said this afternoon, bring these thoughts to bear on what is done from here on in. As I said, I am disappointed at the Minister's response. I will keep raising this matter. I am tempted to divide the House on this amendment but I will not do so. I should like the question to be put on my amendment.
I am sure Deputy Dukes' diligence will be rewarded in due course. He chose the wrong Bill and the wrong day to raise this matter. We have had a very constructive debate and I have been very flexible in regard to the various provisions in the Bill. I have outlined in great detail the effects of the provisions in section 8. I enjoyed Deputy Dukes' contribution. I was pleased to see that he gained much pleasure from what he had to say. I have to say that neither my officials nor I are afraid of work. It is not because we want to shirk our responsibilities or not face up to the effect of the provisions in the Bill that we have not responded to Deputy Dukes in the manner he has requested.
I am extremely anxious to have the provisions of the Bill implemented as quickly as possible. I thank the Deputies opposite for their constructive and objective contributions during the past two days. I wish to reassure them that no time will be lost in implementing the provisions of the Bill.
Is Deputy Dukes withdrawing his amendment?
No, I wish the question to be put. The Minister can be glad that I will not push this to a vote.
My only comment is that that provision has been around for a long time. I will refrain from making cheap political comments as it would spoil what has been a very constructive debate.
The argument that this matter has been around for a long time is not necessarily a reason for keeping it. Joe Stalin was around for a long time and Communism was around for a long time. That argument may in some cases be one of the best reasons for getting rid of something. In case the Minister is under any misapprehension about this, and he noted with his usual perspicacity that I was taking pleasure in making the case I was making, I would just remind him that it is entirely possible to take enormous pleasure out of doing things that are perfectly proper. My tongue was anywhere but in my cheek. I am warning the Government that I will keep coming back to this every time I see this kind of provision coming up in a Bill. I will attack it because it is basically undemocratic. It is bad for our parliamentary system and for our administration.
I agree that it is not valid for a Minister to argue that a provision has been around for a long time and that therefore it should not be opposed. We are talking about trying to improve matters and about trying to introduce reforms.
There were opportunities in the past. I do not see why we should address this in the context of this Bill.
Some of us did it in the past and some of us never asked for it to be done. Be quiet while you are ahead.
I would hate to think that the tone of this discussion would suddenly take a dip because it has been very progressive and constructive and the Minister has kept on open mind on other matters. I suggest that the Minister should carefully look at this type of provision and try to convince his colleagues in Government that there is a need to adopt a new approach in regard to regulations. They are a vital aspect of the work of the Dáil, an aspect in which the Dáil has a very minimal role. The Dáil authorises the making of regulations and in many cases that is the last say the Dáil effectively has in the operation of these regulations. This will have to change and I suggested that we could change it now because of the introduction of the new committee system. My suggestion does not seem to have fallen on fertile ground. I hope the points Deputy Dukes and I have been making will be taken into account. Deputy Dukes has not pressed his amendment to a vote but if he had he would have had the support of the Progressive Democrats. We will be seeking this kind of reform in all future legislation.
I accept that the views put forward by both Deputies are sincerely held and to the extent that they are I have noted them. There is nothing I can do about them in relation to the Bill today but perhaps I can do something on another occasion in a more appropriate way.
The Bill will come back for Report Stage. Will the Minister come back with a new approach on Report Stage?
I cannot give any assurances.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 32, line 41, to delete "section 23 (3)" and substitute "section 32 (1) (b) (ii)".
This is merely a drafting point and I would ask the House to accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Section 29 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 34, in the third column, opposite Reference No. 4, to delete "and paragraphs (2) to (4) of Regulation 11".
This is simply drafting point for the purpose of correcting a mistake in the drafting.
I am tempted to ask what kind of regulations were they? Were they active or passive and did the Dáil agree to them?
Do not be tempted, Deputy.
He does not know. Nobody knows about these things.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Acting Chairman
May we have a date for Report Stage?
I propose next Wednesday with the agreement of the Whips.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26 May 1993.