I have very little to add to what Senator Johnson said. He stated the matter fairly accurately. In practice, in 99 cases out of 100, the word "may" would mean "shall." But I have reconsidered this question, and I do not think Senators should complain because I happen to change my mind. I think that it is the duty of everybody to listen to a debate and to be affected by it. I do not apologise at all for changing my mind in this matter, and, having considered it, I ask the Seanad to leave the word "may," mainly for the reasons stated by Senator Johnson. If the word "shall" is inserted there, the Department of Agriculture must pay compensation, and full compensation, in every single case, good, bad or indifferent, no matter what the circumstances may be. I do not think it would be contemplated by any Senator, whether he was a farmer or a lawyer, that that should be the case, because we need not pretend that the farmers have either a double dose of original sin or no original sin at all. I suppose they are like everybody else, and the farmers are inclined occasionally to break the law if they find it to their interest to do so. That applies to every class. Under this Bill regulations will be made, and these will, and must of necessity, set out in detail certain duties which will fall on the farmers in certain circumstances. Regulations will be made somewhat similar to the regulations that have been made in connection with the disease known as Black Scab in potatoes. It is provided that the Department shall give notice to the farmer affected in certain contingencies, and these are as follows:—
That all diseased tubers and the haulms (if any) belonging thereto, as well as all packing materials and packages, at any time used for the storing or conveying of such potatoes shall be immediately destroyed on the spot by burning or other effective method prescribed by the Department.
That no potatoes or potato haulms shall be removed or be permitted to be removed out of the area defined in the notice except with, and subject to the conditions (if any), of a licence signed by an inspector of the Department or other authorised officer permitting such removal.
That potatoes shall not be again planted or sown on the affected land without the sanction of the Department.
That no affected soil shall be removed from one part of a farm either to another part of the same farm or to another farm, whether within or without the affected area.
Obviously every single one of these conditions not only would apply, but would be absolutely essential in a case where the Colorado Beetle was, in fact, discovered in a certain area of potatoes. This Bill will apply not only to the first case of Colorado Beetle found in the country, if we have the misfortune to find such a case, but will apply also to any subsequent case. It could well be that in a certain area the Colorado Beetle would be almost endemic, and if we had to take precautions under the Bill to deal with the pest we would have to make regulations that potatoes should not be planted in certain places in the area, or if planted, should be planted under certain conditions, and we would have to make provision so that the stalks of such as were planted were destroyed, that the straw in which they were brought in should be destroyed, that the boxes should be destroyed, and so on. But can it be said that there is no likelihood that in a rare case a farmer will deliberately disobey these regulations? Everybody knows the trouble we had with the outbreak of Black Scab in Louth. On the one hand, a farmer wants to get the best price for his potatoes; he wants to get them to Dundalk or Dublin when there is a particularly good price there. He is quite satisfied to keep the law if there is a good price in England, because we allow him to export to England, but when the prices fall in England and are high in Ireland certain farmers try to evade the law, some in an exaggerated way and others in a small way.
You can very well imagine a case of a farmer who thinks he is going to get compensation in every case, no matter what he does, saying: "Let the officials do what they like. I am going to take no trouble whatever; I am tired of the Department and their red tape regulations and I am not going to obey one of them." Of course we can provide penalties, but we do not want to provide penalties, and it is to meet an odd case like that that we want "may" instead of "shall." I have reconsidered this: I think Senator Johnson is quite right and I would ask the Seanad to support that point of view. In connection with the danger that Senator Linehan foresees, we are not operating in a country where people suffer from a lack of ability to express their thoughts. Everybody can be fairly vocal. The Press is at the disposal of anyone who has anything to complain of. The Dáil is there; the matter could be raised on the Estimates every single year; it could be raised definitely every time a regulation is made, because regulations must be laid on the Table. Moreover, questions could be asked of the Minister responsible; the matter could be raised on the adjournment of the House; the matter could be raised by a motion, and no Minister, except he had a very strong and clear case, could exercise the discretion, which I ask you to leave to me, of refusing to pay compensation. But perhaps there might be a case in which he should have that discretion. Having thought over the matter I am satisfied that the amendment should not be passed. The case will never arise if you leave the Minister the discretion, but if you take away the Minister's discretion the case will arise.
