Vol. 11 No. 9
I move:—
Section 4. To delete in line 59 the word "may" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."
The object of the amendment is that the Department shall pay compensation to an owner whose crop was destroyed or removed under the provisions of this Bill, and the Acts which this Bill amends. As it stands, it leaves it optional whether the farmer is to receive compensation or not if his crops are destroyed. I think we should ensure that he would be compensated.
I second.
"Shall" always means "may" in legal interpretation in these cases. In a series of Acts dealing with contagious diseases of animals and pests, as far as I know, the word "may" is used, but in fact the payment is always made.
Would not the Minister put it beyond doubt?
Yes.
I oppose the amendment. Paragraph (a) still leaves option to the Minister to pay whatever he likes, or not to pay. In reference to this variation from "may" to "shall," is it desirable that even though a person was a delinquent and introduced an insect of malice prepense it should still be a compulsory obligation on the Minister to pay compensation? I think "may" ought to stand.
I do not think the objection is reasonable. I think that in his objection Senator Johnson displays that he has no knowledge of agriculture. I ask him not to persist in his objection.
There is a point in what Senator Johnson has said. I can imagine a state of affairs, not such a bad case as where a farmer introduced a pest into the country, but where for a long time he hid it and refused to facilitate the Department in any way, I do not think he should get compensation under such circumstances. I am not saying that a case of that kind has occurred in connection with the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act, but I can imagine a state of affairs of the kind occurring. It is for that reason, the word "may" is used in these Acts all along. I have never heard a case mentioned in the Dáil where the Department refused to compensate under the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act, or the Act preceding this measure dealing with destructive insects and pests. I put it that it is not likely to occur. If in any particular case for some reason or another the Department refuses to pay compensation the Dáil and Seanad are there always, and the matter can be brought up and discussed. If that is going to be present in the mind of the Minister responsible is it likely that an exception would be made in a particular case? Before putting himself in the position of paying in 99 cases and refusing in one, he is going to be very careful when he knows that the matter can be ventilated by a motion in the Dáil. The word "may" has always been used by the draftsman and I think it ought to stand.
I think this objection by Senator Johnson is extraordinary. He seems to think it is possible that an Irish farmer would go to the trouble of finding out a Colorado beetle and bringing it over in order to get compensation.
The Senator will appreciate that that was a deliberate exaggeration. Between the introduction of insects and perfect innocence there are other possibilities, such as negligence or refusal to spray, that might reasonably give the Minister a right to refuse compensation.
I have no reason to believe that the Department would refuse payment, but I think it ought to be made clear. An Act such as this came into force 50 years ago. A Bill on these lines was passed in Great Britain and the Colorado beetle has not yet arrived. We are supposed to see that any Act that passes through this House is as perfect as possible. It ought to be made clear that if a farmer's crop is destroyed he will be compensated. No Act of this kind can be successfully operated without the co-operation of the farmers. The officials of the Department will not know anything about this disease unless the farmers report it. I think there ought to be some provision to ensure that a farmer would report a suspicious case so that it would be inspected immediately. The Minister spoke about the farmers not facilitating the inspectors. Such a case is provided for by a penalty. I ask the Chairman to put the amendment.
I suggest there is a technical objection. It explains the reason for "may" in this. If you make it imperative on the Minister then the liability remains with the Minister who has no money—not the present Minister. The Minister, according to the Bill, if it is passed, would be obliged to pay. "May" is introduced because it is imperative there shall be an annual appropriation made by the Dáil. Therefore, you would have to make it really dependent on the votes of moneys by the Dáil.
The Department will not destroy the crop unless it has money to pay for it.
The more Senator Johnson speaks on this question the more I am convinced he does not understand the agricultural community or the motives that actuate them. If the word "may" is put there in order to provide for the contingency of the Minister not having money, I say it is absurd. If an order is made against the Minister under the word "may" or "shall," he shall have to provide money. I ask the House to pay particular attention to what has been said by Senator Linehan on this matter. In cases of diseases of animals or crops, the thing to be desired is to find them out as quickly as possible so as to stop them as soon as possible. The only way that can be done is with the assistance of the farmers. It is possible that if a farmer suspects his crop is affected with a pest he may not report to the inspector unless he knows he will get compensation, and he will take the chance of harvesting his crop. If he is sure of compensation he will report to the inspector, who will decide whether the crop is to be destroyed or not. I think that is the point of Senator Linehan's argument. I again ask Senator Johnson to withdraw his opposition to the amendment. I am greatly surprised that the Minister should have changed his mind when he saw that he had got some support from the Labour Benches.
I also support the amendment. The Minister knows there are grave reasons for being suspicious in connection with compensation cases. We had experience of that in connection with cattle disease. The question of awarding compensation for crops destroyed should be put beyond yea or nay. If farmers are certain of compensation they will be volunteers in the case of disease breaking out, and will cooperate with the Department in every way. There should be no element of doubt left in the matter of awarding compensation, and for that reason the word "shall" is more satisfactory than "may."
The difficulty might be met if the word "shall" were adopted and some words added to the effect "provided unless it shall appear to the Minister that the owner of a crop shall himself have contributed towards the spread of the pest." As the Bill will have to come up again on the Report Stage the Minister might consider that suggestion.
I saw the three amendments to this Bill for the first time only an hour ago. I would like to have the opportunity of examining them, and I suggest to the Seanad that the amendments might be discussed on Report.
With the leave of the House the amendments were deferred for consideration on Report.
