During the Second Reading debate, Senator Stanford alleged that animals are sometimes savagely beaten at fairs and markets and in the normal run of transport and the suggested the subsection might be suitably amended. The Minister subscribes to this view and proposes the adding of the words "and handled" to the subsection. Section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, makes it an offence cruelly to beat, kick or otherwise ill-use any animal or to permit any animal to be so abused. It would appear that that Act does not cover the situation the Senator had in mind and that is the reason for the amendment.
Diseases of Animals Bill, 1965— Committee Stage (Resumed).
Government amendment No. 7:
In paragraph (a), line 23, before "at" to insert "and handled".
I should like at the outset to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Seanad. He is a fellow Laois man and bears the honoured name of one of the seven septs of Laois. I wish him well in his career. As far as the amendment goes, I have no objection to it but I think it is wholly unnecessary. As far as Senator Stanford's fears are concerned, in rural Ireland in general there is no cruelty whatsoever inflicted by farmers on cattle.
Will this mean some overlapping of the activities of the Garda who, under existing legislation, cover cruelty to animals?
There is no question of overlapping.
Who is to decide who will take action in particular circumstances?
It will be a question of interpretation. The point made by Senator Stanford was that there was no power whereby the Minister could order action against somebody found mishandling animals. There was quite a share of discussion as to the methods of proving an allegation of that kind. The Minister feels that the addition of this amendment would give him the power to take the necessary action in the event of the mishandling of animals.
This is to be welcomed if it will help in abating the exaggerated ideas many people outside this country hold relevant to our habits as a people and relevant to our dealings with animals. I do not think it is fully appreciated as a rule by many of those critics that, as a people, we are more than humane in our attitude to animals. There is no doubt, having regard to our very large livestock population, that there is an appreciation amongst urban dwellers of the extent to which rural people cater for their animals and of the protection and care which they give to all animals under their charge.
It is also true that there is a growing civic consciousness of the need to eliminate many of the abuses and many of the instances of cruelty which existed in regard to animals. Certainly it could be brought home to our people by way of reporting and admonishing in any instances in which actual cruelty takes place. This could be brought to the attention of the authorities concerned and they could bring those people to court so that action could be taken by civic minded citizens in the abatement of this abuse. If the amendment is passed it should help to bring in a greater element of realism in relation to abuses and it should bring into focus those well meaning and well intentioned people who have exaggerated ideas regarding the illtreatment of animals.
I should like to support Senator O'Sullivan. If Senator Stanford were here, I think he would agree that it was never his intention to suggest there was widespread cruelty. He would welcome very much the Government amendment which gives power to deal with unnecessary cruelty by mishandling which can often arise as much from inattention and from carelessness as from actual cruelty.
Senator O'Sullivan said that the rural population handled animals cruelly. If this is so it is certainly unjust but I rather fear, as an urban dweller, that in so far as this kind of mishandling goes on it goes on very often in Dublin in the cattle market. While I agree with Senator O'Sullivan that this is minimal, I welcome the Government's concern in this matter and their intention to include power to deal with the mishandling of cattle as well as actual cruelty.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill".
Paragraph (f) of this section reads:
Prescribing and regulating the conditions in regard to detention, resting and inspection of animals and poultry prior to export.
There is no mention here of food and water so I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether provision for food and water is included when cattle are being exported. The provision of food and water is not specifically mentioned in this paragraph. I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to that fact.
I would draw the Senator's attention to the fact that it is specifically mentioned in paragraph (b).
Question put and agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill".
We have a good reputation in this country in relation to our cattle exports. The point I want to raise really refers to exports as opposed to imports which is in this part of the Bill. We should like very stringent regulations with regard to the care of cattle exported from this country. Would the Minister have power to compel cattle going out to undergo certain tests that would satisfy his Department that the cattle were suitable for shipping? Would there be a guarantee that they were free from any disease whatsoever? I am not quite sure whether this is relevant to the Bill or not.
Section 29 covers the power the Minister has or would have. Subsection (g) gives him power to prohibit the export of animals and poultry and I would take it that that particular power would entitle him to take action if he felt that the quality of the animals going out was not up to scratch. I presume what the Senator is really anxious to line up is that the Minister would have power to prevent the export of any animals which he felt might do harm to our export trade and harm the good image our stock has abroad by reason of the stock not being up to the proper quality.
There might, for example, be fowl pest in the west while at the same time pedigree fowl were being exported from Dublin, Cork or Shannon. Would the Minister be empowered, even at the last moment, to have all the necessary tests made on such birds and delay their export until he was absolutely certain that there could not be any possibility of infection in order to uphold the good reputation which the Department have in this country?
The paragraph deals with imports and not with exports.
I agree, but it is the only section on which I thought I could raise the matter.
I think the Senator is dealing with hypothetical cases to a great extent. If there is any question of disease in any area we do find that, under international regulations, we are generally prevented, one way or the other, from exporting cattle or animals from any area which may be in danger of being affected. I do not know if any other power, apart from that contained in this particular section, is necessary from that point of view because I imagine that the prohibition contained in paragraph (b) is probably sufficient to cover what the Senator has in mind.
Perhaps the Chair would allow me to put this one further thought before the House. Supposing —to take the extreme case—pedigree animals had to be exported to, say, Canada from Ireland. One of those animals arrived there and, some time afterwards, contracted foot-and-mouth disease. There might be an allegation that the disease had come in some way from here. Now the next time we are exporting from this country, would the Minister have power to say: "I shall not let these animals out until they are put under the most extreme test we can devise; they are going out with completely clean certificates from my Department"?
Under section 26, subsection (a), the Minister can prevent a suspected animal from being exported. Surely, in the circumstances envisaged by Senator Cole the Minister could devise an order to the effect that any animal coming from an area in which there was an outbreak could be a suspected disease carrier.
We are on section 30 which deals entirely with imports. I should like to refer to section 29 and to the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary that my point was covered in subsection (b) dealing with the provision of food and water. It reads:
for ensuring for animals and poultry carried by sea or air a proper supply of food and water and proper ventilation during the passage and on landing;
That indicates "during the passage and on landing." I refer also to subsection (f) which reads:
prescribing and regulating the conditions in regard to detention, resting and inspection of animals and poultry prior to export;
That deals with the situation prior to export. So there is a difference in what I suggest and what is contained in subsection (b). Subsection (f) deals with the situation prior to export and it was explained to me that it was under subsection (b) which is "during the passage and on landing."
Actually, it is section 31 we are dealing with.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."
In relation to the carrying out of the necessary slaughter consequent on certain diseases, such as fowl pest, is there an understanding with the Department of Health relative to the manner in which burials are carried out? I have a specific case in mind, which is pretty appalling, of the contamination of human water supplies as a result of the manner in which flocks of diseased birds were disposed of. This is something those responsible should take particular care of.
All the paragraphs in this section give the Minister power to make orders. When we specify particular instances, we do not know whether or not they will be covered but we are giving the Minister full power to make orders dealing with any situation that may arise. We, in this House, have power to reaffirm or reject them, so we are really discussing matters in the abstract. I want to emphasise again that every paragraph in this section seems to give the Minister power to make orders and it becomes a legislative instrument then if it is accepted by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Senator O'Sullivan mentioned the danger of water supplies being contaminated as a result of diseased carcases being disposed of. The maintenance of health regulations from this point of view is the responsibility of the local authority, and the County Medical Officer in the particular area is responsible for seeing to it that that type of thing does not arise. I do not think it is an issue which concerns the Bill. The Minister may make orders with regard to the disposal of these carcases but he does not normally dictate actually where the carcases are to be buried. It is worked out by arrangement, possibly, with the veterinary surgeon employed by the local authority in conjunction with the County Medical Officer of Health. I do not think this Bill could cover that. It is a matter more for action by the Minister for Health, or the Department of Health.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, but, if the matter arose in the circumstances I described, surely there is some onus on the Department responsible rather than that it should be thrown on the local authority to provide, in the course of time, an alternative supply of water.
Yes; but it was a matter for the local authority, in the first instance, to make sure that such a situation does not arise.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill".
Subsection (a) of section 35 reads:
prescribing, regulating and securing the periodical treatment of all sheep by effective dipping or by the use of some other remedy for sheep scab;
This is a problem with which practically all farmers were confronted last year. It was compulsory to have sheep dipped before they could be offered for sale this year. I feel that the Department made this Order without first ascertaining what facilities were at present available and ready for use in different counties. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that, while in this subsection no time is specified, the sheep dipping periods in the coming year will be made to suit the majority of the farming community. The farmers feel that if the time for the first dipping was brought forward to the 1st June and was from, shall we say, the 1st June to the 31st July, the one dipping would, perhaps, suffice for the files as well as sheep scab. Therefore, the sheep farmers would be saved a considerable amount of work and energy. This is not a very big point and, if I could have any assurance at all from the Parliamentary Secretary, I should, indeed, be very happy.
I should like to mention another matter, which is a very sore point with many farmers, and, that is, that many people consider the one dipping to be quite sufficient. I am quite satisfied that it is in most counties. In County Laois, the Parliamentary Secretary's own county, there were only two cases of sheep scab last year and each case originated with sheep brought in from other counties. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to expect all the 6,000 or 8,000 farmers in that county to dip their sheep twice, if they are quite satisfied one dipping would do.
I am behind the Department and the Minister in their efforts to eradicate sheep scab, but in these rather difficult times for the farming community it is most important that we should not impose any unnecessary burdens on them. All these operations are costly, not only in money but in time, which is very important. The consensus of opinion in the Midlands is that one dipping is quite sufficient except where sheep are brought in from other counties. If we could have some understanding that a farmer need not dip his sheep a second time unless he brought them from another county, we would save a lot of money and time.
I should like to add something to what Senator McDonald has said on this subject. In the coming year the sheep dip will contain a dye——
It might.
——which will show on the wool of the sheep. Because of that I consider it would be sufficient to have one dipping, and that one dipping would suffice for the season. One brand of sheep dip which has been on sale for a great many years is described as a single dip. I am quite sure that company are prepared to stand over their claim that one immersion of the sheep in this dip is sufficient to provide immunity against scab for a full year.
I also consider that the proposed dip which will leave a dye on the wool should eliminate the necessity for certificates of dipping. Sheep cannot be offered for sale unless they have been dipped and if they have been immersed in this dip which contains a dye, the dye will show on the wool. Therefore, there should not be any necessity for certificates. This should also eventually eliminate the necessity for having inspectors because, as I said on Second Reading, unless the sheep are completely and thoroughly immersed in the dip, the dye will not show sufficiently on the wool to indicate that they have been thoroughly dipped.
I should also like to know how long it is proposed to carry this on. Last year was the first time sheep had to be dipped twice in the same year. Senator McDonald said that in Laois they had only two cases of sheep scab and that it was brought in from an outside area. I am quite confident that it was not brought in from Kildare because if there is one danger to the sheep in Kildare it is that they will be drowned. We dip them not once or twice, but three times.
I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the recommendation from the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture to have the first dipping period—if he is going to continue to have two dippings—brought forward to at least mid-June. That in itself will help the lowland farmers in that they will not have to dip for fly strike. It will also assist the mountain sheep farmers who will be gathering their sheep for shearing if they can dip them at the same time. That is a most important point because they will be very reluctant to gather them in a second time and bring them down from the hills again for a second dipping.
Under subsection (4) of this section local authorities may provide facilities for dipping. At the same time, farmers erecting dipping facilities on their own farms can avail of grants. Because this is a financial matter I could not put down an amendment, but I fail to see why the local authorities who will be benefiting quite a group of farmers cannot avail of these grants also and save putting this expense on the rates. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us how long this dipping twice a year is to continue.
I have been interested for practically my whole lifetime in the eradication of sheep scab. One of the functions of a veterinary inspector is to check on sheep dipping. If affected sheep coming through the Dublin market were passed without being detected by the municipal veterinary inspector, it would be detected at the North Wall and the sheep would be handed back to us. I discussed the question of the checking of sheep dipping with the director of veterinary services on many occasions, and I wondered was there any chance of getting a pigment that would remain on the wool of the sheep, which would not be injurious to the fleece, a pigment which would not have any deleterious effects on our clothes, or on ladies' growns, when the wool was subsequently used for articles of clothing. There used to be a single dipping and I do not know why we had to go back to double dipping. It seems to me that there cannot be a satisfactory check on the second dipping unless a considerable period has elapsed and the pigment with which the wool has been impregnated is obliterated sufficiently. I hope that the pigment which is to be used for the eradication of sheep scab will be proof that the sheep have been satisfactorily dipped. No one will simply put the pigment into water and spray it on the backs of the sheep. If the sheep are properly immersed this should be evidence that they were satisfactorily dipped.
We all hope that this scheme will be a success. The Minister told us he hoped that this system will be a satisfactory method of dealing with the problem of ultimately eradicating sheep scab. It is a pity that although down the years there was so little infection with sheep scab in the country yet—I do not want to hurt the feelings of anybody about this—we had sheep on the Wicklow hills coming down to the Curragh or elsewhere and bringing sheep scab with them to new areas. They could come, too, from Cork, Kerry or the mountains of Connemara. Nevertheless, there was very little sheep scab in the country and it is unfortunate that we could not eradicate it at the source without it being disseminated widely. This will again be dealt with by new orders, and I hope that when they come they will be satisfactory in achieving permanent eradication, because I fancy that if we could get rid of sheep scab once and for all there would be no danger of its reintroduction into the country.
We are in exceptional danger from foot and mouth disease because you do not know when or where or how it might break out. Birds can bring it in. There is no such danger if we once get rid of sheep scab. Sheep are dipped not compulsorily by order of the Minister in connection with sheep strike, maggots and other parasites. I would hope that we would as a result of this diseases of animals legislation succeed in eradicating both warble fly and sheep scab once and for all.
I have a marginal note here in connection with subsection (5) of section 35, and I would like clarification about the very last phrase in it dealing with the effluent from sheep dipping tanks to a water supply. It says that we do not want it to enter into any water used for drinking or other domestic purposes. Might not the interpretation of that mean drinking by humans only, because domestic purposes simply indicates the domestic purposes of the human subject? There is, however, as I think farmers will generally admit, a danger to neighbouring land from the effluent from a sheep dipping tank going into a water course, stream or river to otherwise soaking into the property which would endanger the lives of other animals. I have a note also dealing with fish. Some of these effluents may have an effect on fish in the streams or cause danger to animals located downstream from where the effluent enters the stream. My suggestion is that the phrase should be widened to cover danger to other animals downstream or any neighbouring property.
Subsection (4) of section 35 would appear to indicate that the Minister may by order involve local authorities in considerable expenditure, and I am wondering whether there is any way of recoupment for local authorities that may be involved in expenditure as a result of an order made under the subsection, because sections 36 and 37 indicate that the Minister may make many orders which I believe will involve authorities in considerable expenditure.
The last line of it indicates.
I should like first to deal with the question raised by Senator McDonald and Senator Malone in connection with the question of times for dipping. In this connection four Senators, I think, commented on the Second Reading Stage, as they have done on the Committee Stage, that the times for dipping were fixed last year by the Minister without any consultation at all with the interested parties. I think it would be no harm to point out in the first instance that the times were fixed after consultations with the NFA and the different sheep breeders. Senator McDonald asked for assurances in this regard about the coming season. I can assure the House that the question of the timing of the sheep dipping periods will be fully discussed with the interested parties for this year. Arrangements for that are in train at present and it is expected that discussions will take place shortly. These discussions will be with regard to the question of when we will have the two sheep dipping periods, if it is decided to have two periods, and they will go hand in hand with discussions as to whether in actual fact it is necessary to have two dipping periods.
The research and veterinary section of my Department are of the opinion generally, taking it from a nationwide viewpoint, that it is necessary to have two separate dippings. It may be claimed that in certain parts of the country we have not quite such difficulty with sheep scab, but it is very difficult to make a different type of regulation for one part from another. That does not say that it is impossible to do so. The only thing I will say is that peculiarly enough Senator Malone in a way supported the decision of the Department for having two dippings in so far as he said that they have not any sizeable incidence of sheep scab in Kildare because of the fact that the Kildare sheep farmers often have three dippings, which indicates that they are alive to the dangers and believe in having these two or three dippings to make sure of avoiding sheep scab. This in a way justifies the action of my Department in laying down two dippings. It is only right to make clear to the House that certainly there will be no rushed dictatorial decision made in relation to this.
The second point on this question was that raised by Senator Ó Donnabháin, who referred to the use of a dye in the dipping. Unfortunately, we are not quite satisfied yet following quite an amount of research and investigation that we have found an effective dye for which it can be claimed that it will do no harm on the lines mentioned by the Senator. Quite an amount of work is going into research in my Department in this regard in an effort to find a suitable dye. As Senator Malone pointed out, having the sheep easily identified from the point of view of testing would not be the only advantage, but in the second place it would probably do away with the necessity for having inspectors for the certification of the fact that they had been dipped. Both of these are decided advantages, and there is an additional advantage that it would go far towards solving the problem from the Pharmaceutical Society as far as the sale of the dip is concerned, in that it would once again be an across the counter job. These are the three advantages that can accrue as a result of being able to find a suitable dye. Against that we have to ensure that the dye will not subsequently do harm to the wool, and that is one thing about which we will have to be quite satisfied, too. Every effort is being made to expedite the finding of an effective dip.
Senator Ó Donnabháin raised the question of drinking water and water for other domestic purposes. I think this matter is reasonably clear in the subsection and I do not think it would be wise to get ourselves further involved. The point is that water for drinking and other domestic purposes covers quite a wide area and the danger of pollution is covered in other enactments without the necessity to have recourse to this Bill. Senator Fitzgerald mentioned the question of this being a burden on the local authorities. There is, of course, a 50 per cent grant in regard to the provision and the repair of sheep dipping tanks. It will be noted that in the subsection it is stated that the local authorities may provide. There is no compulsion and it is not usual in such cases to make provision whereby the Exchequer would meet a case by way of full grant. One might say the local authority have a fifty-fifty responsibility with the Department for the improvement of conditions for farmers in the local authority area. There are grants for individuals and the very same is applicable to them as to local authorities.
Perhaps I may comment on that. It seems rather hard luck on farmers who will have to provide their own dipping facilities and then have to come along and pay through the rates to provide dipping facilities for their neighbours. It seems to me they will be paying through the nose. Is it proposed to implement the regulations governing dipping in the coming year? Does the Parliamentary Secretary hope to have the necessary dye available in time?
I am afraid not.
In regard to subsection (5), Senator Ó Donnabháin raised the question of possible pollution of drinking water. I take it from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the intention is to cover the various sources of water for drinking and other domestic purposes—that he is not thinking of river pollution.
I think Senator Ó Donnabháin was visualising the waste flowing out from the sheep dipping tank into a stream or river and doing harm to fish.
That is right.
Existing legislation covers that.
That is what I thought and it might not be any harm if we looked again at the subsection to ensure that it does what the Minister wants it to do. I think it might be as well to add the word "other" before the word "place" in the subsection. As it reads now, a stream could be left as it is on its own without being related to the use of water for drinking or other domestic purposes. If it is intended to protect water for drinking and other domestic purposes, it would be surer if "other" were placed in front of "place" which would make the relevant phrase read "stream or other place." Stream would then definitely be tied to the supply of water for drinking and other domestic purposes. At the moment it could affect fish.
As I understand it, down the years farmers were very careful not to let the waste from dipping tanks into any stream to become a danger to animals, birds or fish. If this clause is inserted, it seems to me it will operate only if the effluent is a danger to human beings. I should like to see it widened sufficiently to indicate that the waste from a local authority dipping tank for the community would not be allowed into any stream. Individual farmers having their own facilities would be very careful not to let effluent enter any stream from which their own animals might drink. It seems to me this provision is not restricting regulations so much as making them less effective.
I do not think there can be any question about the effect of the subsection—that it makes it wrong to provide a dipping place in any location that would be likely to interfere with the supply of water for drinking or other domestic purposes. The adding in of such words as "stream", "reservoir" or "aqueduct" would introduce a degree of ambiguity. I do not think therefore there is need for further elucidation. I can see the point made by Senator Sheldon but, quite honestly, I do not see any necessity further to amend the section which is clear enough.
I can describe myself as an interested party as far as this section is concerned. I should like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary in a very definite way that the sheep dipping committee set up by the Department in Laois discussed this section at one of their meetings and unanimously decided that an effort should be made to ensure that no farmer would be compelled to dip his sheep after the end of October. It may be all right for An Foras Talúntais to dip sheep into tanks at that time of the year—those fellows will get their salaries even if the sheep are injured—but many people in the midlands feel that late dipping can affect early lamb crops. They have a grievance and I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will take their objections very seriously. As I have said, we believe one dipping is sufficient, but if there must be two, I do not think the second should be later than October.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 36.
I move amendment No. 8:
To add a new subsection as follows:
"( ) A local authority may delegate its powers under this section to its County Committee of Agriculture."
Last year when the Minister brought in the order about sheep dipping, local authorities were given responsibility for implementing it and each county council formed a local committee to handle the matter. It would be much more satisfactory if it were written into the section that local authorities may, mark you, delegate their powers to county committees of agriculture. The county committees of agriculture, as the House is aware, are a subsidiary of the county councils and they are composed of men and women who are au fait with all aspects of agriculture. I think, that in relation to any matter pertaining to agriculture and any order made under this Bill which the local authority is required to implement, there should be discreation to the county council to delegate its powers to the county committees of agriculture who have the men and the facilities to implement it.
I should like to support this amendment. It would be regrettable if we were to have, as it were, a duplication of services. The agricultural committees as at present constituted well represent the farming community. In addition, they have excellent staffs of trained agricultural advisers who are on the farms in their respective areas five or six days of the week. Those men, if this additional work is entrusted to them, are more equipped to handle it than the new committees which the Department have directed. In addition, not only could the Department transfer those functions to the county committees of agriculture but the Department of Local Government could allow county councils to have their veterinary inspectors, for the several purposes of dealing with agriculture on the farms, tying in with the county committees of agriculture, as there would be a more expert knowledge of the problems. Our agricultural advisers are not looked on as inspectors; they are more or less the farmers' friends. If the Department really wanted to put across those schemes, I can think of no people better equipped than these, who, if they believed in the job they were doing, would certainly get the full cooperation of the farming community.
It is a pity that new bodies should be set up, especially since they have so few powers and functions. This is a case in which the Government could have directed that those additional functions would be carried out by our county committees of agriculture who, as it is, do quite an excellent job. They give advisory services in all parts of the country and the effect of their work can certainly be seen as one drives through the country every day.
I do not think I would support this amendment, remembering the fact that the county committees of agriculture, after the next election, will be composed of only half of the members of the local authorities. The rest will then be co-opted. I think that is the position. The result is that some members would impose quite an expense on the local authorities and very few of the elected members would have any say, if the amendment were accepted.
I must, of necessity, oppose this amendment. I do so, despite having a certain amount of sympathy with it. One of the things mentioned by Senator McDonald in making his case was the fact that the agricultural advisers, who are now employed, if you like, by the county committees of agriculture, have come to be looked on as the farmers' friends. That, in actual fact, is one of the principal reasons why I am inclined to reject the amendment. The county committees of agriculture might possibly find it necessary to introduce certain regulations in connection with dipping which might not meet with the approval of the farmers. Automatically, then, there are the public relations officers, as we will call the advisory officers for the time being, who will then find themselves in the position of being agents of inspectors.
I agree with the sentiments of Senator McDonald when he said that farmers basically have an objection to inspectors as such. As well as that, at the moment, the veterinary officers attached to the local authorities have to deal with meat premises and with milk, and with this matter also of the direct relationship with the farmer as such. The only thing about this is that you would be splitting responsibility. You would have county committees of agriculture who would have, of necessity, to take on separate veterinary officials—maybe not, but such a man would be subject, if the same man were appointed as the county council appointed, to two different bosses. As 80 per cent of his work would have to do with his functions under the local authority, as such, that is, meat premises and milk premises, in general, the amount of time he could devote directly to looking after the interests of the county committees of agriculture might suffer as a result.
There is also the defect that our veterinary surgeons are a rather scarce commodity also and are likely to be for some time. From that point of view, a diversification of authority in the manner suggested in this amendment would not be a good thing. However, my principal objection to it is that the county committee of agriculture is an advisory service and going away from that would be undersirable. There is also the fact mentioned by Senator Cole, that a local authority might find additional expense heaped on it as a result of this amendment and powers being handed over.
Senator Malone mentioned "may" in his amendment and it would be a matter for the county council to decide. Mind you, with Senator Cole's objections in mind, it is quite likely that the bulk of the county councils would be very slow to do so. I still think some county councils might find themselves too soon steamrolled into handing over this particular function and this particular authority. I think they could regret it at a later stage when they would find expense piling up. My basic reason, again, is that you are taking on a sort of "compulsion" which, certainly, county committees of agriculture could do without. For that reason, I find it necessary to oppose the amendment.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied regarding the application of this authority in local authority areas, other than county council areas, such as the rural part of Cork County which carries quite a formidable sheep population and is now within the extended boundary of Cork Borough?
I think the Senator's question is—am I satisfied that Cork Corporation are quite capable of looking after the farmers. I never came across more intelligent people than those in Cork city.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in consequence of these farmers coming within the confines of the city boundary, they lose certain access to grants and other facilities? Are they still in a position to meet all the requirements of the current Bill before us? If the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that he has not come up against any difficulty in that regard, I am too.
The Corporation has the same power as the county council, in this particular regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."
I did mention this on Second Stage but I should just like to put it again to the Parliamentary Secretary here—I wonder is Part III really necessary? As far as I can see, no order will be made by a local authority under that Part of the Bill which is not, in fact, made by the Minister. It seems to me to be a sort of duplication of authority in some way to make it more plausible for the fact that the money is being demanded from the local authority to pay for this. That, to my mind, is all it is doing. In the past when demands have been made on local authorities, under the Diseases of Animals Acts, they have accepted them and paid them. Therefore, I wonder is this necessary?
There are several functions which the local authorities must be responsible for. With regard to the basic question asked by Senator Cole as to whether Part III of the Bill is necessary or not, I must reply that it is necessary, as such. There would be a lot left wanting if Part III were left out. I agree it is mainly an explanatory section showing how the local authorities have to subscribe their share to the enactment. Nevertheless, you could not accept the fact that Part III, as such, could be left out of the Bill.
May I ask a question with regard to the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has used the words "their share". I take it that the local authorities will get a share because, in Part III, it appears that this is what the local authority must do—they must publish this; they must publish that; they must publish everything at their own expense. Again, the question—is there any recoupment to the local authority for the expenses incurred in publishing these orders, and any other expenses they may incur as a result of these orders?
Under this section, I should like to say that the central authority depends on the local authority to a great extent for the carrying out of many of the duties.
Yes, but the local authority depend on the ratepayer— that is the difference.
Yes, but the local authority can make too much about the rates as well. If you do not pay out of the one pocket you have got to pay out of the other so it would not ultimately make much difference out of which pocket you paid. I think it is reasonable that the central authority should rely on the local authority for a lot of the assistance they could not supply themselves. I have had experience of that in my own lifetime. You cannot expect the central authority to carry out all this work without the collaboration and assistance of the local authorities. As a House of the Oireachtas, you cannot suggest that the central authority should do all this and that you would not ask anything from the local authority, even if it were very expensive to publish in the local papers everything the Minister tells them they should publish. At any rate, you have to depend on the local authorities to assist the central people.
In an effort to, maybe, clear this up but, maybe, get myself more deeply involved—first of all, I think Senator Fitzgerald took a different interpretation of the manner in which I used the word "share" from that I had intended he should take. I said something like—the local authority must do its share. I think Senator Fitzgerald's query was—what share do they not have to do, or what way will we assist them in that particular regard? What are laid down as the duties of local authorities in this particular section of Part III are much the same as the responsibilities which local authorities have had up to now. As far as is possible, the Department have, and will continue to, relieve local authorities of responsibility in that particular regard, which would be financial responsibilities. We do know also, of course, that the very moment the Department would go out and endeavour to relieve local authorities of certain responsibilities there would be resistance from the local authorities to their so doing— such as, we have the power and we do not want it taken from us.
In this particular regard, we have such diseases as rabies, anthrax and so on. These are all diseases which can be communicated from the animal to the human being. Therefore, of necessity they come under local authority control; again from the point of view of the County Medical Officer of Health. It is necessary, in that particular regard, that the local authority should have control, or, if you like to put it this way—are burdened with this control, so that they can synchronise, or act with, the County Medical Officer of Health in taking action which does not cut across any order the Department has made. From that point of view, it is still necessary for the local authority to have its share of burden in this particular respect. It can be taken that no misuse of this will be made from the point of view of the Department. If there is an outbreak of some disease it is necessary that the local authority in the area have the power, the right, and be in a position to be able to publish certain notices in the paper and put up certain notices. At the same time, local authorities might even resent Part III being taken out. If the Department or the central authority took over from the local authority responsibility for the paying and financing of certain requirements, it is possibly something which the local authorities might resist.
While I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the responsibilities of the local authorities in the past, what I am concerned with now is the number of new responsibilities that may be foisted upon them, or imposed upon them, as a result of the passing of this Bill. I think there will be many more responsibilities than the local authorities have to carry previously.
It seems to me that by reason of the fact that a great many of these sections and subsections allow the Minister to charge the local authorities with the complete cost, there could be a great deal of expense for the local authorities, particularly if any particular disease were prevalent in a local authority area. Will the Department pay a proportion of the cost in those cases, or will the Minister simply push it on to the local authority as he seems to be able to do under this section?
There is no doubt that the Minister can. I do not know whether there is any use in my saying —but I shall say it so it will go on record—that it is not the Minister's intention to do so. This maintains the status quo. We have to consider any contingency that might arise, for instance, the outbreak of a particular disease in some confined or restricted area. I can well imagine that if something happened in a particular county which involved quite a share of expenses for the local authority, there could be a successful application by the local authority for recoupment from the Department of that expenditure which they had at the direction of the Department, and which they would not have had if the Department had not inflicted it on them. While it is not written into the Bill the fact is that it is the Minister's intention to maintain the status quo and, at the same time, if there is any huge increase in expenditure as a result of any orders he might make, which puts a burden on a particular local authority or a number of local authorities, the Department would endeavour to assist the local authority. I think Senators can be quite happy about that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 37.
Question proposed: "That section 37 stand part of the Bill".
I do not agree with subsection (1) and I do not agree with section 36 either. Members of local authorities are an excellent body of men and women, and in the vast majority of cases they are entirely capable of carrying out the duties for which they are responsible. If for some valid reason a local authority by virtue of their expert local knowledge felt that an order of the Minister was unnecessary, or thought it was unnecessary in their particular administrative area, I think they should have the right not to carry it out if it would impose extra expenditure, or an extra burden on the rates or the ratepayers. It is unfair of the Minister to put the gun to the heads of the local authorities in this way.
Many members of local authorities feel that they already have too limited powers, and they certainly will not be thankful to the Minister for these extra orders. This gives them no credit for having any brains of their own. For that reason I think the section is in very bad taste. On the other hand if the Minister thinks that political opinion might influence the local authorities to oppose his order, he can stipulate that the local authority by a two-thirds majority, or some other figure, may decide against it. This section gives the bureaucratic machine too much power over the local authorities, and gives them directions which in many cases will amount to nothing more than red tape.
This section is exactly the same as section 34 of the 1894 Act. Since no Minister in the past 70 years found it necessary to invoke this section, I think it is rather wrong to suggest that the Minister is in any way putting the gun to the heads of the local authorities. As I said, this section is in the existing Act under which we are working, and I do not think there is any need to be in any way excited about it. In view of the fact that it has not been necessary to invoke it for the past 70 years, I think it is unlikely that it will be necessary in the next 70 years.
In view of the experience over the past 70 years, would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it is not necessary, and surely he is not so pessimistic as to expect that it will be necessary right away?
There are new fellows coming on to local authorities every day and one never knows when it might be necessary.
The Minister would need more than 70 years favourable experience before coming to that decision.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill".
I feel that this section is another blank cheque for the Minister, and I am very much afraid of this kind of section, because we all remember, in the case of the Planning Act, 1963, that the regulations that the Minister for Local Government sprang on the country were a grave shock— regulations dealing with petrol pumps, milk stands and various things. The very same thing may well happen under this section and it is regrettable that the Government find it necessary to provide such sections as these, which are so wide.
I can only say that the very same situation exists with regard to this section. It is exactly the same as section 31 of the 1894 Act. As I said in reply to Senator Cole a few moments ago, it is maintaining the status quo. These kind of sections are written into all sorts of legislation as protective provisions empowering the Minister to do something in the event of some very unlikely thing. There is a necessity for it to ensure that the tail does not wag the dog from that point of view. I can only say, as I did in connection with the other section, that it has proved unnecessary to use it. I do not think that the case of the local government legislation bears comparison with this. Granted that it gives power to the Minister to make any sort of direction he so desires to a local authority, it is a protective section and it is quite necessary.
The section says that the Minister may make such orders as he thinks fit directing or authorising a local authority to make regulations for any of the purposes of this Act or of an order thereunder. If the draftsman cannot do anything better than that we should look for a new draftsman. It is ridiculous.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill".
Section 1 (a) says that a regulation of a local authority may be proved by the production of a newspaper purporting to contain the regulation as an advertisement. Surely you can prove it by the production of a copy from the secretary of the county council. This seems a very slovenly way of doing it, that you must produce a newspaper which quite possibly, perhaps because of some dispute, might not have the exact wording. One newspaper might be different from another. It seems a very slovenly procedure when the secretary of the county council could easily give a copy to the officer concerned.
The point is covered by subsection (b).
Subsection (b) is an alternative
We do not want subsection (a) at all.
I agree with Senator Cole that subsection (a) is slovenly. As Senator Cole says, there could be a misprint in one particular newspaper and anything could happen. There does not seem to be any particular reason for this. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what possible administrative facility it is. I suppose that this would arise in court, and you would hardly bring in some newspaper to prove regulations purporting to be made. Surely when things have got to that stage it should be possible to produce something more authoritative than a copy of a newspaper. I cannot imagine any circumstances where there would be any administrative necessity for anything as slovenly as this.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how a newspaper can purport to do anything? A newspaper as a matter of fact either does something or it does not. It cannot purport to do anything. The editor could perhaps purport to do something but the newspaper cannot. What does the subsection mean?
You have the Parliamentary Secretary in a bit of a hole in this regard.
So I was hoping.
I admit that, but in point of fact I come up with a similar defence to that which I used on the last two sections, that it is already in the 1894 Act.
That only makes it worse.
Queen Victoria was not at her best.
I cannot visualise an occasion, quite honestly, when subsection (a) would need to be used, when subsection (b) could not cover it, but could I put it that it is just possible, and I would ask the House to accept it in that manner because it is the only thing I can offer. I feel that my draftsman felt that it was necessary that it should be in, and I accept that.
There are two separate points here. One is whether the subsection is necessary at all, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to suggest any circumstances in which it could be required. The defence that it was in the 1894 Act is the only suggestion he can make. The second point is that if it were required, which the Parliamentary Secretary is not able to show, the words do not seem to have any meaning. I am trying to visualise a cartoonist picturing a purporting newspaper. I can understand if there were circumstances in which this subsection had some function to perform when the production of a copy of a newspaper containing the regulation might be relevant, but I still do not understand what on earth is "purporting to contain".
Perhaps it might be remedied by a slight change of wording, to say "by the production of a newspaper containing an advertisement purporting to contain the regulation."
We can recommend that for the Report Stage.
The only thing I can say is that I shall have it looked into for the Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 9:
To delete subsection (1).
This section states that an inspector shall have for the purposes of this Act all the powers which a member of the Garda Síochána has under this Act in the place where the inspector is acting. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot say in defence of this that it was in the 1894 Act, and had it been there I would certainly be moving an amendment that it be removed on this occasion. It seems very strange that in this year 1966 when we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of our freedom an Irish Government are giving to inspectors of a Department powers exercised only by members of the Garda Síochána. I cannot see or visualise any circumstances in which these powers are required. We have had emergencies in the past and we have got by without an inspector of any Department, not to mention the Department of Agriculture, having to go out and lay hands on the people and tell them: "I am arresting you and will detain you later on". If this section is allowed to stand I can see at some time—I hope a very long time away—when it is being used by an inspector of the Department of Agriculture it will lead to a very serious breach of the peace to say the least. The farmers of this country are a law-abiding lot of citizens. They respect the law and have the utmost respect and admiration for the members of the Garda Síochána. If by any chance there is an outbreak of disease in an area and it is declared a prohibited area and some unauthorised person is trying to gain access to it or to leave it and a member of the Garda Síochána comes along they will immediately obey him. But let a civilian try to apprehend them and I tremble to think of the list of charges that may be preferred against them. Only Senators O'Quigley, O'Kennedy, Ryan or Nash—who said Fine Gael were made up of lawyers?—could possibly visualise the number of charges that would be levelled against such individuals.
To my mind there is no justification for its inclusion. When the Bill was going throught the Dáil, on the Report Stage the Parliamentary Secretary agreed to a suggestion by Deputy Sweetman that inspectors should be furnished with authorisation of such powers. I am afraid I cannot go along even with that. During the past 50 years the people have come to realise very fully their responsibilities not only to their own families but to the community at large and they will be very slow to break any regulation made by the Minister in regard to the isolation of areas. They understand and are only too anxious to co-operate in every way in the prevention of disease and the spread of disease.
On the last occasion we met, the Minister stressed that in this Bill he wanted all the power he could possibly get to help to keep out disease and to eradicate it wherever it may arise. This House, I am quite certain, will be prepared to give the Minister every possible co-operation and help in that respect. We have gone a long way with him in this Bill so far and we shall continue to do so because we realise that agriculture is the backbone of the nation, that so much depends on it that no risk can be taken. However, we are not prepared to give the Minister power to extend to his inspectors the powers of the Garda Siochána—powers of arrest and detention. I, therefore, put the amendment that the subsection be deleted.
I support the amendment which is a fundamental one and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to remove the subsection. The Bill will be all the better for it. The real question is why bother to train young men in the Garda at all if inspectors, be they veterinary surgeons or otherwise, are to have the same powers and are to carry out the same functions. It would be a deplorable step if once again in this part of Ireland we were to raise up a force that could be equated to the B Specials in the North, whether they be supplied with sten guns or not. In this day and age there is no need to raise such a force against our farming community. The progress that has been made in the field of agriculture in all spheres has been tremendous and we, the farmers, certainly know our obligations to the community.
For that reason I think this is a very dangerous power to give to any section of the Civil Service. I sincerely hope the Parliamentary Secretary will drop it. He may put forward the excuse that inspectors, perhaps, may be impeded in their work in apprehending animals or finding lorries that may have contained diseased animals or some other such excuse. The fact that the Garda force is so highly organised and efficient—the entire 26 County area is not covered with radio link-up to all stations— leaves no excuse for a subsection such as this because the Garda are more than capable of tracking down in a very short time any people who break the law in this respect.
As the son of a veterinary surgeon and the brother of another, I strongly resent the comparison made by Senator McDonald between veterinary surgeons and the B Specials in Northern Ireland. Senator Malone painted of the farming community a picture of honourable men and during his contribution he seemed to think that the inspectors, who in this case would be veterinary surgeons, are a bunch of thugs who should not be let loose on the farmers.
I never mentioned the words "veterinary surgeons".
Or thugs.
That is the point I am getting at. He did not mention the words. It is not very often serious disease occurs in this country but when it does it becomes urgently important that every possible precaution is taken. When a disease is first reported, the first man on the scene is the veterinary surgeon who will call in the veterinary inspector. This happens long before the Garda enter the picture. Let us take a disease like swine fever. If the veterinary inspector suspects swine fever, a period must elapse before it is confirmed and the inspector must make regulations that must be listened to. If the farmer decides to move some of the pigs knowing they have swine fever he is spreading that disease. Those honourable men Senator Malone mentioned have done it in the past. I have known where such pigs were taken out during the night across the Border and sold there, costing the 26 Counties and the Northern Ireland authorities thousands of pounds. If we take this power from the veterinary inspectors it is possible that when they make requests in future, before the Garda are on the scene, they will not be listened to. The inspectors will not push themselves on the public unless the matter is very serious and if it is very serious every Member of the House will agree all possible steps should be taken to prevent the spread of disease.
I should like to make it quite clear that I only said I deplored the thought of our veterinary surgeons being turned into B Specials.
The definition section defines an inspector as a veterinary inspector. Therefore, this section applies to veterinary surgeons appointed by the local authorities and by the State. Personally, I cannot picture one of our veterinary surgeons trying to arrest a farmer and this legislation deals with a more widespread section of the community than the farmers. I assume farmers will benefit more from the safeguarding of their stock from disease than any other section. The Bill will apply to every citizen over which we have jurisdiction. As section 42 stands it empowers the veterinary officer, the veterinary inspector who is the inspector according to the definition section, to arrest a big fellow like Senator McGlinchey or myself. I just cannot see that we are doing the right thing by giving them omnipotence, so to speak, to deal with the position. The veterinary surgeon will be endeavouring to deal with the prevention, control or eradication of disease. If he is obstructed by some citizen—I do not say he will be obstructed by the farmer—I cannot see any good object in the Oireachtas saying that the veterinary inspector has the power of a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest that man for disobeying his order. The section seems to give both sets of inspectors authority to do anything and everything required. I think it is an awkward section and I am not enamoured of it at all.
Quite honestly, I cannot imagine why this section is meeting with such opposition. I agree with Senator Malone that reference was made to this subject in the Dáil and, in actual fact, the spokesman for Fine Gael, Deputy Sweetman, agreed that the case was being met in so far as the official should have some way of identifying himself without being necessarily in any sort of uniform. I know there were comments over there and perhaps the Opposition side of the House might not have been too happy about it. Senator Malone said in his opening remarks that the Parliamentary Secretary was unlikely to be in a position to say that he had this handed down to him from 1964. In actual fact, the position is that veterinary inspectors of the local authority and the Department have this power under section 44 of the 1894 Act. I am not endeavouring to use the fact that this power was already in the last Act by way of establishing justification for it in this particular Bill.
I agree with Senator Ó Donnabháin, in this instance that it will be very rarely that an inspector will have occasion to use this power. It is wrong to suggest that only the gardaí at present have this right because the customs officials have similar rights in connection with their duties. They have the powers of arrest and detention. As you can see, there is certainly nothing new in the fact that the Minister should seek this power in this Bill because he has had the power down through the years. It is indicative of the way in which this power has been used because so many people are unaware of it.
Senator McGlinchey mentioned, without actual reference to the particular point or what happened before, that he visualises a situation in which possibly a veterinary inspector near the Border could apprehend somebody going from some infected area or having some infected animals. If the inspector had not the power to effect arrest at that stage and had to go into the local Garda station to get assistance, to report the matter and have the man arrested, the potential defendant would have disappeared. He would have gone across the Border. That alone increases the necessity for having this particular power given to veterinary inspectors of the Department in this particular regard, otherwise he will have his hands tied. As I say, he has this particular power in existing legislation but it is not noticeable because of the infrequency of the occasion upon which he has had to use it. The fact that he had that power probably allowed him to get away with not having to use it. It is very unlikely that the veterinary inspector might in the instance given by Senator Ó Donnabháin, meet with a man a lot bigger than himself and because he is not equipped with a baton, might decide for safety reasons that it would be better to get the Gardaí. I think it is necessary for him to have the power if he finds the circumstances are such so that he would be in a position to arrest and charge. It would be very wrong to accept this amendment and take from the veterinary inspectors the power which they have had for such a long time.
Despite the picture painted by the Parliamentary Secretary I say that one of the fundamental principles in a democracy is that we rely on the orthodox police force and there is no going behind the bush. In this case we are giving powers to arrest and detain to individuals. While the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that those powers have been there and have not been used, it does not make the case any stronger for putting it into the legislation we are dealing with at the moment. The fact that it has been there and that nobody realised it was there for a great number of years would make it all the more difficult for an inspector to put it into operation.
It would take a very strong man to convince a farmer, on whom he was trying to enforce a regulation, that he had the power to arrest and detain him if he did not carry out this regulation. The majority of farmers will have never heard of it but if the inspector said to the farmer that if he persisted in going against the regulation he would have to go for the Gardaí the farmer would immediately, to my mind, in nine cases out of 10, knuckle down. There is a principle involved here of setting up a new police force. The Parliamentary Secretary has said it is already there in one Department. I will grant him that but we are setting up another police force in the Department of Agriculture. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister can say this is in the interests of agriculture. God knows we are all 100 per cent behind them, in the interests of agriculture, to prevent the spread of disease or the introduction of disease, but it is not in the interests of agriculture to have another police force.
Senator Malone said that what we are doing in this section is not in the interests of agriculture. This is to prevent the ruination, possibly, of the farming community. The powers suggested here are limited to the powers in section 46; in other words, they must be related to action under this Bill. An inspector cannot arrest someone because he has not a light on his bicycle. The power is limited entirely to the eradication of disease. Surely, if you read through this Bill, there are endless places where it would be essential for an inspector dealing with the matter to have power to say that this be done, and done at once. He should not have to get on his bicycle and go four or five miles looking for a garda: Heaven knows what would happen while he was away. I do not believe this is the type of thing which generally would happen. The farmers in this country are, by and large, interested in seeing that disease is eradicated.
Take the provision of water at a railway station or a dock or something like that: surely if an inspector sees animals not being properly fed or are without water he should have the power to ensure that it is rectified and rectified properly, and he should not have to run off and look for a garda to help him enforce something which is for the protection of the entire farming community.
While I appreciate the importance of the requirements envisaged in this Bill, a new type of animal has just been produced by Senator Sheldon—a veterinary inspector on a bicycle.
I did not mention veterinary.
At any rate, I agree with those who seek to have this deleted. After all, we could go on from this. This is relative to the important aspect of the wiping out of disease among the animal population. The Parliamentary Secretary's colleague, the Minister for Health, is responsible for human beings and their health and it is quite on the cards that a dispensary doctor could well be charged now with the arrest and detention of people suffering from contagious diseases because the very fact that they are loose amongst us presents as great a challenge to human health as the fact that there are contagious diseases amongst animals. We could go on and on in this respect.
At any rate, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that certain officials, in particular circumstances, have, over the years, been provided with some similar powers but they have not, of his knowledge, ever been invoked. This is an excellent case for the exclusion of this subsection from this Bill to give to inspectors of the Department the powers sought in this measure. I am not alleging that the present occupant of the Ministry for Agriculture has any dictatorial motives in that he could use those officials for any such Bills in the future. But one must recall that he had a predecessor who formally announced it was his intention to compel the farmers to carry out a policy he wanted. That is on record.
Some Minister, who knows, in the future—and we are legislating for the future—who would occupy that office could get certain ideas as to what he thought the farmers should grow, what type of stock they should carry and so on. Here we have a private army equipped with the powers of a trained police force to exercise the right of arrest and detention. I do not mind what views others may hold on it. Personally I regard this as a very serious infringement on the right of the individual. Furthermore, I regard it as a reflection on the Gardaí. We have equipped that force with mobility in recent years. Communications relative to the apprehension of law-breakers have been very much modernised. You have not to go very long distances now to find a garda. You would look twice now if you were to see a garda on a bicycle. We have a motorised garda force throughout the country. Communications have completely changed and we have, in most farmhouses, adequate communication facilities. God forbid that it should happen, but, should there be outbreaks such as it is meant to cope with in this measure, it is a reflection on our way of life if people hold the view that it would not be possible to obtain the services of a garda to deal with the situation within a reasonable time. After all, there are propertied people in the country with worries in relation to burglary. There are many of our citizens who are in dread of possible personal injury and we have no outcry from them relative to the inadequacy of our Garda force to cope with any of the problems which might be presented to it at any time of the day or night.
But here we have a situation, as proposed in this measure, to give powers to people who are trained in a profession. Is it envisaged in the future that members of this profession will have to receive certain training in their physical development so as to cope with the physical task of arrest and detention? We had recently in Cork city a proposed demonstration by some female wrestlers and there was grave opposition to it.
You could employ them.
It is a fact that we have female veterinary surgeons in our employment.
I regard this as the most extraordinary provision in the measure. We have communications and a Garda force which can cope with any situation which might develop. Consequently, I support the amendment.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of even one case since the foundation of the State where an arrest was carried out by an inspector?
I am not personally aware of any. It may have happened, but I have no records to show that it has. This was the point made by Senator O'Sullivan in making his case as to why this right should now be withdrawn from our inspectors. It is not wrong to praise our veterinary inspectors for their actions down the years and, indeed, our gardaí. We are proud of the relative disease-free state of our stock. We do know that there are a number of diseases still which need to be eradicated and there is an annual loss to farmers of quite a sizeable amount but the fact is that, taking foot-and-mouth disease and the general serious diseases, we are disease-free and can export almost to anywhere. That, in itself, is a tribute to our inspectors who have had the responsibility of looking after our stock down through the years. They have proved by the results and by the manner in which they achieved those results, that they used their powers in an intelligent manner. It is even proved by the fact that they have not—as far as I am aware—used this power they possess. At the same time, I think we can anticipate that the inspectorate, which will be continuing on in an effort to make our stock even more disease-free, should have exactly the same powers as the inspectorate had up to now.
I think it was Senator Malone who mentioned the case of an inspector calling on a farmer and telling him he was not to do this, that or the other, and if he did not have any authority, when he said he would go for a garda the farmer could disappear. I can visualise a case in which the farmer would say: "Go and get the Garda," and when the inspector got back with the Garda, the man would not be there to be charged with the spreading of some disease or something like that. The inspector would have to go for the Garda or ring him up and that would take some time, and the man could have absconded or disappeared.
The Senators supporting this amendment are making the case that because this power has not been used it should be taken from the inspectors. I think that would be a retrograde step in view of the fact that, as we all know, there is quite a sizeable job still to be done in the eradication of brucellosis and other diseases in our stock. I think the veterinary section of the Department can be relied upon to use this power in a very intelligent manner.
I said already that I am not enamoured of the wording of subsection (1) of section 42. From the discussions I have heard I cannot see that it makes any difference because I still cannot picture any veterinary surgeon, big or small, trying to arrest a farmer or anyone else for a contravention of his directions. I am satisfied that if we leave this power in it will be just as ineffective in the future as it was in the past. We are dealing with the whole section.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are not. We are on the amendment.
It still deals with the powers of the veterinary inspectors to arrest a person. Subsection (5) provides:
An inspector, entering as authorised by this section, shall, if required by the owner or occupier or person in charge of the land, building, place, pen, vehicle, boat, or aircraft state in writing his reasons for entering and produce his appointment.
I always understood that you had to have your appointment and produce it, but I never knew you had to state your reasons in writing. This subsection places an obligation on the inspector to state his reasons in writing and to produce his appointment, and yet we are giving the inspector the right to arrest someone who opposes him in the carrying out of his duties. You are bound to have contradictory things when you have so many subsections and headings.
I want to draw the attention of the Seanad to the fact that this obligation is being placed on the inspectors. This section refers to the powers and duties of the inspector, and yet if he is required he must produce his reasons in writing and he must produce his appointment. He has so many obligations that if we give him power to arrest we are not giving him much more.
One thing that annoys me about this subsection, and about the Bill in general, is the apparent fact that the Department have very little faith in the integrity of the Irish farmers. If the Government were legislating for the Balubas they would not give as much blanket cover as they are giving in this Bill. Surely the time has now come when the farming community are sufficiently well educated to know what is in their own interests. I contend that if a farmer wants to destroy his own animal he should have the right to do so, and he should not have to thank anyone. I think the Minister should have another look at this between now and Report Stage. I should like leave to withdraw my amendment and permission to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 42 stand part of the Bill".
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the significance of 56 days in subsection (2) (a)?
This is the incubation period for certain diseases. That is the significance.
Which ones?
Subsection (6) reads:
A certificate of an inspector or other authorised person to the effect that an animal or bird is or was affected with a disease specified in the certificate shall, for the purposes of this Act, be conclusive evidence of the matter certified.
I think it would be wrong not to leave some method of retracting or changing that. The inspector, perhaps, comes along and to be on the safe side must give some reason for detaining or closing up a herd and if there is a certain doubt he might like to give a certificate that there is some disease there. I feel that to be conclusive with no means of retracting it would be wrong. There should be some appeal until some certain limit of time or a further notice or something like that.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider replacing the word "conclusive" by "prima facie”?
The position is that under this section the circumstances would normally apply to epizootic diseases, in which case immediate slaughter of the animals would be required. This would make it difficult to admit of appeal procedure. As well as that there are compensation provisions which would compensate the owner. An appeal in this case would be too late. The harm would be done, the animal would be slaughtered and it would be only a question of appealing against the amount of compensation, which would be covered in a completely different section. To make arrangements for holding the animal or keeping it alive until an appeal would be very dangerous practice. In view of that there would be no point in making provision for an appeal.
Surely the words Senator Sheehy Skeffington suggested, prima facie, would be just as good as regards giving a certificate. I am thinking of the pure bred herd where any compensation the Minister gives would not be sufficient for the owner. That was the great difficulty, that you cannot compensate the owner of a pure bred herd, and it would be tragic if a mistake was made on the certificate of one inspector. There must be immediate slaughter, but in these cases I think there should be an effort made so that if there was any slight doubt the benefit of it should be given to the owner.
The phrase "for the purposes of this Act" is very operative here.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That section 45 stand part of the Bill".
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if this section applies to inspectors of the Department only, and whether or not the Minister will most strictly appoint inspectors for the local authorities.
That applies to the Department only.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 46.
Question proposed: "That section 46 stand part of the Bill."
I want to keep the way clear for the Report Stage for a suggestion I made on section 16, that an individual owner who puts up a notice excluding anybody from coming in might extend that to the exclusion of a right of way. I should like possibly on further consideration to put down an amendment that rights of way be also excluded for a certain time under section 16. We had a discussion on this on section 16. I should like to know how he would enforce it otherwise than by ordinary trespass. If a person under section 16 puts up a notice saying that no person under certain circumstances can go on his lands I hope that the Minister will give further serious consideration to allowing him to stop a right of way. If he does and if the private individual had this power under section 16 the Garda Síochána should then under this section be allowed to help him to carry out this exclusion notice. If I am a farmer some miles outside an area which the Minister is trying to confine because of some contagious or dangerous disease and I want to the best of my ability to make sure that nobody will come on my land who might possibly carry that disease, and I put up a notice of exclusion, apart from trespass in the ordinary circumstances I cannot bring the matter any further. If the Garda Síochána had power to help me in that instance also it would be of great assistance.
What I understood from the Minister on the last day was that he has power to stop anything or may make orders allowing him to stop any rights of way, but he did not know whether the farmer or land owner himself had power to do so. The Minister said that he would look at this matter. The Minister can prevent access to any right of way, and a veterinary surgeon or anybody else can enforce it afterwards. It is a question whether an individual putting up a notice in a place fairly near what would be a dangerous area would have power to stop entrance to anybody through a right of way. In that position I would appeal to the Minister to widen the scope of the order to cover a right of way, which I think would be a danger in such circumstances.
This comes up on Report Stage dealing with section 16, and the only thing I can say is that the Minister promised to reconsider it arising out of the Committee Stage last week. I would hope that we will have it considered, though I cannot see that any change from what we have so far in the format of the section is justified or necessary.
If I put down a possible amendment to section 16 my idea would be to amend section 46 accordingly, so that the Garda could help a private individual to exclude a right of way.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The point has been made sufficiently clear to enable you to put down an amendment to section 46.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 47
Question proposed: "That section 47 stand part of the Bill".
This is a question of a notice which the owner puts up barring people from the land where it is not a restricted area. If I remember correctly the Minister said on the Second Stage that this was a matter for the landowner concerned to enforce, through the law of trespass, I presume. The Bill says that it shall not be lawful for any person to ignore this notice. Will the Minister not have power under section 47 to prosecute because this is an offence under the Bill?
Yes, he would have because it would be an infected area.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 48
Question proposed: "That section 48 stand part of the Bill".
In connection with subsection (1) (c), I have a complaint against the draftsmanship. It occurs in most Bills that come before us and I do not know why they insist on confusing us like this. The paragraph states:
if he fails to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, licence, rule, or thing which by this Act ...
Apparently there is some legal phraseology which allows "do" to apply to one thing and "do any notice" to refer to another. If anybody can get sense out of paragraph (c) he is very good. After reading it three times, I cannot make head or tail of it. "Do any notice" is an extraordinary phrase. The "do" refers to a subsequent statement. The thing is all a mix-up. As I have said, I do not know why the draftsman should try to confuse us by putting things in such a mixed-up manner. Of course, paragraph (d) covers everything:
if he does anything which by this Act or an order of the Minister is made or declared to be not lawful,
The question of fines is somewhat as it was in previous legislation—it remains at £100 for a first offence. I think a fine is more a deterrent to people who might be tempted to break the law in respect of this Bill than a period of imprisonment. I am not referring to farmers now. Senator McDonald seems to think the whole thing is framed against the farmers but there are many people who can transgress the Act other than farmers. I believe that a person tempted to transgress the terms of this Bill will be more likely to be deterred by a fine of £200 instead of the existing £100 penalty than by the possibility of his going to gaol. In other words, increased fines would be more of a deterrent than the fear of imprisonment.
If a person is to get into trouble and is fined, is it to be for failing to observe a thing?
To "do any notice" is ridiculous.
I rise on another drafting point. Subsection (1) says that "if a person does any of the following things" he shall be guilty of an offence. Paragraph (c) enumerates some of the things "which by this Act, or by an order of the Minister, or by a regulation of a local authority, or by an authorised person" a person is required to do. Paragraph (h) states:
If, when duly required to do so under this Act or any order made thereunder...
Surely all of these things could be covered by the phrase "under this Act". I cannot see how it makes it any stronger to set out "by order of the Minister, or by a regulation of a local authority".
Subsection (1) states:
If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him...
I thought the State always had to prove a person guilty. Has that been completely changed? Is it commonplace that the defendant shall prove he is innocent?
He has to establish that he has the authority or the licence. If a person has authority to do something and if he is licensed to do it, it should not be beyond him to produce that authority or licence.
I notice that in subsection (2) the fine for a breach of this Act is to be £100 for the first offence. I quite agree that if we are to have fines we should have penalties that will be a deterrent to people who might be tempted to transgress the Act. If under other branches of our legislation we had fines brought up to date I think it would be very desirable. This fine figure has been retained from one Act to another and apparently farmers were the only section ever fined. When I read court cases in the newspapers, I am amazed to find people convicted of serious offences not only against private property but against the person getting away with a few days in gaol or being fined a few shillings. There is grave need for law reform, especially as far as civil law is concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 49
I move amendment No. 10:
In subsection (1) (h), page 22, line 24, to delete "unlawfully".
I notice the same thing occurs in paragraph (a). I had not noticed it when putting down the amendment. The only difference is that in paragraph (a) the word splits the infinitive and in paragraph (h) it does not. It amounts to the same thing. Paragraph (a) states "if, with intent to unlawfully evade this Act ..." and paragraph (h) states "if, with intent to evade unlawfully or defeat this Act ..." When I read it I recalled an unfortunate phrase used during the Civil War by a high ecclesiastic who condemned "unauthorised murder". It seems in this Bill we are condoning an intent to evade unlawfully or defeat the Act. It seems to suggest it might be legitimate to evade the Act lawfully and this I do not think would be legitimate.
Only if you condone defeating the Act.
An evasion of the Act would seem to be a defeat of the Act.
We accept this amendment and will amend the other paragraphs accordingly.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The other amendments, where necessary, can be moved on Report Stage.
Government amendment No. 11.
In subsection (1) (j), page 22, line 44, to delete "an animal slaughtered" and substitute "an animal or bird slaughtered or of a carcase or eggs destroyed".
This is being introduced by reason of the fact that "or bird" was left out of the subsection. We are adding "an animal or bird slaughtered or of a carcase or eggs destroyed." Actually in the Dáil we had to introduce some similar amendments because of certain omissions in that particular regard. This omission was not detected in time.
The Seanad has its uses.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 49, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify subsection (1) which reads:
if, where the Minister has by order prohibited, absolutely or conditionally, the use for the carrying of animals or birds or for any purpose connected therewith of a vessel, vehicle, aircraft or pen or other place, he without lawful authority or excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, does anything so prohibited.
I am particularly interested in how the man with the tractor and trailer or lorry fits into that?
The point is that if the Minister has ordered that the vehicle is not properly equipped for the carrying of a particular animal, bird or anything else he has power to deal with it here. Let us suppose that the Minister may at some stage decide that a particular type of trailer was not suitable——
He might want a heater in.
——and that he might want to have it more comfortable that would be covered here. This also covers aircraft and vessels. In actual fact, there is no provision at present whereby we can make regulations with regard to the amount of space that an animal must take up on an aircraft. We have no regulation with regard to the cubic capacity an animal must occupy. We have not that power at the moment. We take that into account all through this particular section. The section gives the Minister power to make an order describing such and such a container or such and such a vehicle as not suitable.
I quite agree that the Minister should have power to ensure that animals exported by sea should be properly looked after. I still think that the Minister again gives himself unlimited powers as far as lorries, tractors and trailers are concerned. This is another one of those shady subsections. You could expect nothing out of it.
The Minister, in an effort to give himself the power to deal with big things, must, of necessity, take unto himself power to deal with smaller things. When drawing up that, he also, by accident or design, gets the power to dictate, under a particular section, that a particular container which a farmer is using is not fit to take a fat pig to a fair or mart. It is possibly a good thing that he should have that power. There is also the danger that one farmer in the country will do something bad or wrong. The Minister might be told he is branding the whole farming community with the same branch which has been put on that farmer. We know that in business, in the professions or anything like that that you will get the black sheep and it is necessary for the Minister to exercise the power which he has in this particular subsection. The power is visualised, basically, in connection with the export trade but it can also be of use in bringing it down to any small farmer, dealer or any person who is conveying or carrying livestock.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary any idea of the type of order the Minister has in mind?
No. He is trying to get the power first.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 12:
To delete all words from and including "and" in line 5 to the end of the section:
This section reads:
A person aggrieved by an order made by the District Court on determining a complaint under this Act may appeal therefrom to the judge of the Circuit Court within whose circuit is situate the courthouse in which the decision of the District Court was given.
I propose that the last 12 words "and the decision of the judge on such appeal shall be final" should be deleted. The section as it stands means that you can appeal as far as the circuit court but not beyond that. This seems to me to be depriving citizens of the right of appeal, if necessary, to the High Court or the Supreme Court. This may be common form but it surprises me that by an Act of ours we should so restrict the right of appeal and not allow the appellant to go beyond the circuit court. I am, therefore, moving my amendment to delete the last 12 words of the section.
The words which the amendment proposes to delete are in form only. It is the normal practice of the Attorney General's office to include those words in all enactments passed since 1928 in order to provide for any possible doubt in legal interpretation. Actually, there is, for example, a similar addendum in section 111 of the Factories Act, 1959. The Attorney General's office recommends that this be included at this point. The Senator mentioned that maybe there was some reason why it was not there. That is the reason. It is on the recommendation of the Attorney General's office.
I do not find this reason quite compelling enough. I have great respect for the Attorney General's office but I would not regard it as infallible. I should like to hear the reason for suggesting that the complainant should not be allowed to appeal beyond the circuit court.
Surely the reason is quite simple. It is the normal rule that an appeal from the district court ends at the circuit court. If you had not this you would have trivial cases going on from one court to another. The normal thing is to have a case in the district court appealed to the circuit court and that is where the matter ends. That is the invariable practice.
I might add, as Senator Yeats pointed out, under section 18 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1928, there is no appeal from the district court beyond the circuit court but the High Court may intervene on application of writ of certiorari. A submission may be made to the High Court in some cases. This is in section 18 of the Courts of Justice Act.
I am told, on the one hand, this is because the Attorney General's office recommends it and, on the other hand, I am told by Senator Yeats that this has always been done, will always be done and, therefore, it is right. I am sure he has the best possible motives. To contend that it is because trivial matters might be brought before the High Court is, I suggest, no reason for saying that they should be stopped in the circuit court. A lot of trivial matters do go to the High Court, in some circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 50 agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52.
Question proposed: "That section 52 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (3) of section 52 reads:
Every offence under this Act shall be deemed to have been committed, and every cause of complaint or matter for proceeding under this Act or an order of the Minister or a regulation of a local authority shall be deemed to have arisen, either in any place where it actually was committed or arose, or in any place where the person charged or complained of or proceeded against happens to be at the time of the institution or commencement of the charge, complaint or proceeding.
I presume this is to make the task of the new force, established under section 42 easy.
I am sorry; I am afraid I did not get the Senator's point at all.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
SECTION 54.
I move amendment No. 13:
"( ) Nothing contained in subsection (1) of this section shall apply to pedigree cattle."
I am quite sure the manufacturers of a very appetising and invigorating beverage at present advertised on television will have found a new advertisement by 1969, when the regulations regarding the dehorning of cattle finally come into operation, but one must agree that, while the product would probably lose nothing if the horns on the bull were removed, the advertisement would lose an awful lot of its effect. In putting down this amendment, we were rather concerned about the pedigree breeders. I am even more concerned with the farmer who retains an animal for the duration of its productive life and who, a fortnight or so before disposing of the animal, would have to have it dehorned. I have no doubt that, in due time, the problem will not arise, that animals will be automatically dehorned in the early days of their life. But there are at present many breeders in the country who strongly object to having the horns removed from their animals.
I am wondering—possibly the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to tell us—whether the rules for show classes at Ballsbridge, and other places, as from 1969, will contain a requirement that all cattle entered must be dehorned. It will be appreciated, I think, that an animal such as a shorthorn—taking the shorthorn heifer with horns, as compared with the shorthorn heifer without horns— would present a very different picture altogether. I suppose there is a certain amount of superstition and, possibly, sentiment attached to it, but, in this world in which we are living, there is no time for either superstition or sentiment. Nevertheless, in parts of the country where the shorthorn still remains supreme, there is a very strong objection to the removal of the horns, especially from the female animals. However, the amendment relates specifically to the pedigree breeders. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, despite the provision made in subsection (2) of this section, to keep these breeders especially in mind.
I should like to support this amendment. In my view, the provision in the Bill will completely upset the judging and awarding of prizes for pedigree cattle. It is difficult to visualise a ring of shorthorn or hereford bulls without these well-groomed, and quite stately horns. As Senator Malone has pointed out, these people who have cattle registered in the various herd books, should be allowed, if they so desire, to keep their cattle on their own premises and it should not be necessary for them to have these animals dehorned. On quite a number of farms throughout the country, especially the farms which have changed over to self-feed silage, all the cows have been dehorned. I think it should be left to the farmers themselves, especially in relation to this section where we will be relying upon the appearance of the animals. The pedigree cattle industry in this country is quite good. I do believe that if the farmers see a great advantage in having their animals dehorned, they will automatically change over to dehorning. On the other hand, it would be a grave pity and a grave mistake to force all our pedigree breeders to dehorn their pedigree and prize-winning stock. It would take the show-class look from them and would reduce their value on other markets. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an assurance, under subsection (2), if he does not accept our amendment.
I got the impression that the amendment would be withdrawn. In actual fact, the position is that subsection (2) is there for the purpose of making an order which would exclude pedigree herds. Subsection (2) even goes further than the amendment, in so far as it does not enable the Minister, if he so desired, to extend it beyond the pedigree herd if, for any reason, there was the necessity for so doing. In so far as subsection (2) was inserted specifically to allow the Minister to make this order, which he intends doing, it probably would meet the Senators in that particular regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 54 agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is now almost six o'clock and, as there is an amendment on the next section, perhaps the Seanad would agree to adjourn until 7.15 p.m.
Would it be possible to sit an extra quarter of an hour now and finish the Committee Stage?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair is not satisfied that this is possible. There are several amendments still to come. It is a matter for the House to order its own business but I took it that there was agreement that the House adjourn.
Business suspended at 6 o'clock and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
SECTION 55.
Question proposed: "That section 55 stand part of the Bill".
This is a very important and useful section. I asked the Minister on Second Stage if he would reconsider the regulations made by the Department last year, or the year before, which insisted on sheep dipping inspectors being present when sheep were being dipped. In view of the fact that a dye will now be inserted in the dip I think this regulation is no longer necessary. I know that in my county, at any rate, these regulations caused considerable trouble. They were not put into operation last year at all by virtue of the fact that we had not sufficient dipping inspectors on the one hand, or dipping pens on the other. The position was that most sheep farmers dipped their own sheep in their own pens, and the sheep dipping inspector had to issue a certificate that the sheep were dipped, and did so without really knowing whether or not the sheep were dipped. For that reason I presume the Department insist on this regulation being introduced.
It would be very difficult to operate this. It would be impossible for an inspector in my county, at any rate, to supervise the dipping of sheep. In view of the fact that this dye is now in the dip, it would be obvious to everyone by looking at the sheep that they were in fact dipped. Would the Parliamentary Secretary know anything about this? I think the Minister indicated that he might have another look at the matter.
As I indicated earlier on in the discussion on a different section, the position is that the Department are at present going through what we call the final process of having a dye which will help, if you like, to solve this problem. Unfortunately, as I conveyed earlier to Senator Malone, we are not happy about the fact that we may not have this dye perfected or put in order in time to cover this year's dipping period. The difficulty is that even if we did agree on a proper dye, or a dye that would not have ill effects in some way, it would be difficult to have it prepared even at this stage. I am afraid it will not be possible to have the dye in use for this year's dipping.
The result is that we have to have this discussion again with the NFA and interested sheep breeders with a view to deciding upon, as I said already, suitable periods for dipping and whether one or two would be more satisfactory. We confidently expect that in the 1967 season we would have this dye perfected and be in a position to have it in use, with consequential benefits that would ensue including the absence of the necessity to have an inspector there for the dipping.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say that in anticipation of the dye being introduced these regulations would be postponed for another year? These regulations insist on sheep-dipping inspectors supervising the dipping.
That, of course, will be considered in those discussions, but the Senator will of necessity be aware of the fact that at this stage it would be wrong to so withdraw any regulation which might have the effect of increasing the incidence of scab at a stage when we feel we are on the way to having it controlled and eradicated.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 56.
Government amendment No. 14:
In paragraph (b), lines 25 and 26, to delete "while in a highway or in a place of public resort,".
In the course of the Second Reading debate, Senator Malone referred to the depredations done on sheep by dogs. It is with this in mind that we have introduced this amendment. The point is that up to now the regulations we could make related only to dogs while on the highway or in a place of public resort. The idea behind the amendment is to enable the Minister to introduce regulations insisting that anywhere except on the property of its owner a dog must wear a collar with the name and address of the owner on it with a view to trying to eliminate eventually the depredation done by those dogs. The power which the Minister would have arising from this amendment should go a long way in that.
I welcome the amendment in so far as it goes. With the provisions in the Bill for the control of dogs it is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is not nearly sufficient to deal with this very great problem. The Members will have seen in the paper recently the case where 40 sheep belonging to one man were destroyed or had to be destroyed. Twenty were killed outright and 20 had to be slaughtered as a result of the injuries they received from marauding dogs. That is a problem of an isolated case in the daily papers, that this is happening every other day and it never gets into the newspapers. The farmers are suffering desperate losses as a result of these dogs. No later than this morning at a meeting of Carlow mental health board the land steward informed us that two of their sheep had been killed in recent days, and the board is now faced with the problem of whether it will be able to continue keeping sheep on the land there or not. You can imagine how important sheep breeding is in the case of a mental hospital board where the lambs reared are all consumed on the premises. It is a very important aspect of the farm keeping there. I do not know the value of the sheep that were killed and reported recently in the newspapers, but it must have been £500 loss, not taking into account the long term losses at all.
There is no provision whatsoever for compensating those who suffer such grave losses. The regulation which provides that the owner of a dog must have his name and address on the collar, while it is a step in the right direction, will not meet the problem.
You can have a very quiet dog, you can put a muzzle on him and let him out. If in a town, he will go along the streets and children will play with him. Nine times out of ten they will remove the collar and there is then no identification. A Garda will come along to the owner and ask why he has no collar on the dog. Who will be responsible, if not the Garda, for picking up and removing dogs that have not got collars with the identification of the owner on them? Where will the owner of the sheep apply for compensation? The question of compensation must arise.
A case may be made that a farmer, if he sees a dog attacking his flock, may try to trace the dog or dogs back to the owner and claim compensation from the owner. The owner of the dogs may not have the price of a box of matches, may not even have the price of the dog licence not to talk of compensation to the extent of £500 or £600. Something must be done and will eventually have to be done in this respect and the idea of having the name and address of the owner on the collar to my mind will not work.
However, it is a start as was pointed out in the other House yesterday. A much better and safer idea would be to have tags on the ears of dogs which could not be removed, or to have the ears of dogs tattooed either with the name of the owner or a serial number that could be recorded on dog licences. The proposal outlined in the Bill will certainly not solve the problem. A case can be made for an insurance scheme based on an increase in the dog licence fee, an insurance that will leave the flock owner safe when his flock are attacked by dogs.
As I pointed out on the Second Stage, to my mind there are far too many dogs at large in the country that have no apparent owners and are not properly looked after. It is only reasonable to expect they will go in search of food. If, in the process, they go into a field where sheep are and the sheep start to run, the dogs will run after them and before you know where you are the damage is done. As I said at the commencement, this provision in the Bill is a start. It is a step in the right direction but it is not nearly enough. It is a problem that will have to be faced and the sooner it is faced the greater effect it will have on the sheep-keeping farmers of the country. We have got to the stage now where people have become afraid to keep sheep, let them be near towns or away from towns. They will say they would like to keep sheep, they are a good proposition but what is the good of it if dogs attack them either in the day or during the night. I hope the Minister will give very serious consideration to this matter and that he will do something really concrete to end this problem.
I must say that I disagree with much of what Senator Malone has said because, under this section, if the Minister operates it as we hope he will, he will be able to do certain things under subheadings (a) (b) and (c). I think we can hope for success. Subsection (a) tells him he has power to make orders prescribing and regulating the muzzling of dogs, and the keeping of dogs under control. If dogs attack sheep and they are muzzled it will prevent, to some extent, at any rate, the damage done to the sheep. I agree that dogs, even when muzzled, can do damage when they attack sheep. When a herd of sheep are heavy in lamb serious damage can be done to them when they are attacked by dogs, but the damage is less when the dogs are muzzled.
Subsection (b) prescribes and regulates the wearing of collars by dogs to identify them. That is pretty satisfactory. Subsection (c) deals with the prevention of worrying of animals for preventing dogs or any kind of dogs from straying during all or any of the hours between sunset and sunrise. This means, in other words, that the dogs should be kept in kennels. We will have some people criticising that it would be cruel to keep animals tied up and that we will have neighbours protesting about the loud barking of dogs in kennels at night. I think, if we are wholehearted in helping to operate the orders which will be made by the Minister under those three subsections, we will achieve certain results.
I do not agree with the background of what Senator Malone said with regard to looking for compensation. We would be wrong if we said we would compensate for every sheep killed by dogs as we would be a party to allowing cruelty to animals or sheep attacked by dogs. Our attitude should be, as far as it is in our power, to help the Minister, in this legislation, to ensure that dogs are not singly or collectively allowed to attack sheep in any part of the country, either in the vicinity of cities, towns or out in the country. I think subsection (a), (b) and (c) are pretty satisfactory. They are not only a step in the right direction but they cover every contingency as far as this legislation is concerned.
I agree with Senator Malone, particularly when he said the section did not go far enough. What this boils down to is catching the dog and then proving he was the culprit. This is very difficult to do in a country district. Even when you follow the dog, you have to prove he is the right one. I knew a case of a dog being followed to a house. Ownership of the dog was admitted. When it came to compensation, and the case was heard in court, the admission was withdrawn. What was the man to do? It was one man against the other.
Senator Malone spoke about cases reported in the newspapers. It is no news in my county. Such cases happen every day and it is not always the sheep which are killed. At this time of the year sheep are heavy in lamb and when they are chased through gaps in hedges the damages might not be evident for several weeks after when they produce dead lambs or fallen lambs. The losses in this regard in the western counties may not be so bad. Every farmer there is a sheep farmer and is, perhaps, born with a high regard for sheep and a less regard for dogs, but quite frankly I would not like to see the Minister make a regulation that all dogs must be muzzled at all times when they are out.
We are mainly concerned with the amendment of subsection (b).
I am sorry; perhaps I should have waited for the section. On subsection (b) with regard to the name on the collar, as Senator Malone has said, a collar can be removed very easily. If a dog is found without a collar, surely it will be easy for a man to prove that at some time or other he had bought a collar, that a shop supplied him with a collar with his name on it. How will you overcome that? I personally do not think the collar will be any protection at all.
On the question of ownership, the wording has "owner" in the singular but, in the case of clubs, where a number of dogs are held in joint ownership by a society, in what circumstances can you have the name of the owner on a collar?
If Senator O'Sullivan is dealing with, say, dogs used for hunting——
Yes.
——in actual fact, there is provision for their exemption.
To deal with some of the matters raised in this connection, Senator Malone mentioned an ear-tag, as against a collar, and Senator Cole mentioned it as well. I think the ingenuity of man will devise some type of collar which a child cannot take off as conveniently as all that. In following up his case, and the case made also by Senator Cole, with regard to the fact that this order may not prove effective in ridding the country of the scourge of dogs worrying sheep, I think the alternative which has been suggested, that is, this question of adding something to the dog licence and using it as a fund for compensation, would possibly change the purpose of the whole section. We must remember the purpose behind this, apart from the cruelty of the situation. There is also a tremendous loss to the farmers and, consequently, a tremendous loss to the State. If we were to make provision whereby we would collect from dog owners a sufficient pool of money which could be used by way of compensation, we might have the tendency that the farmer, basically, need not be too worried about his sheep then, as he will be compensated, and he might not even follow the dog down the road or go after it with a view to identifying the owner. That is the problem.
Senator Malone mentioned that a number of these people might not even have the price of a licence. If they have not the price of a licence, they will be careful not to put their name on the dog. I think the powers under this, where we have authority to destroy that dog, is an answer to that point. It is rather unfair to condemn this order which is, as yet, untried. A case could be made with regard to ear-tagging, and there seems to be quite a share of justification for that in its own way but I honestly regard the collar attachment as quite adequate. I do not share with Senator Malone this idea that collars will be removed in the facile manner mentioned. It is up to the dog-owner to ensure that it is a collar which will not be interfered with. If he is not worried about his dog being a danger to sheep, he will make sure that the collar is in order and that he will not be liable to prosecution. It is rather soon to condemn this order without its having had a fair trial. The trial will probably prove that it is a substantial benefit to herd-owners and sheep-owners, especially on mountain ranges where sheep are worried.
Senator Cole made a point about a man who identified a dog which attacked sheep. The owner admitted it, but when the matter went to court later, denied it. I think our colour identification, in that particular instance, would meet the case. He could not deny it once the dog had been identified. Certainly if it is hard to catch a dog now, it would be twice as hard if there were compensation, because the same effort would not be made.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question on the muzzling of dogs. Senator Cole pointed out how virtually useless the muzzle will be.
The amendment is not concerned with muzzling.
I beg the Chair's pardon.
Perhaps the Senator would like to speak on the section presently?
On the amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the provision here had not yet had a trial. I agree with him that it has not been tried, but while I am usually an optimistic person, in this case, I am an absolute pessimist.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary will there be any exceptions in this matter of collars on dogs because I understand that certain types of pedigree and longhaired dogs are not exempt and breeders say it ruins the fur if a dog has to wear a collar. The subsection prescribes that this is necessary while a dog is on a highway or in a place of public resort. Therefore, presumably, pedigree owners would keep the dog in. In future they will have to have a collar on the dog, even if it were never allowed out.
I have a little story: about three or four months ago, I was rung up one afternoon and the man on the telephone said: "I have a little brown dog of yours." I said: "You have not" and he replied: "Your name is on the collar." I said: "You must have read it wrongly; I have not got a little brown dog," so he rang off. Within the next hour or two, other people rang and it was then I remembered that five years before, I had had a black dog and somebody had stolen the collar off it. So obviously it had been put on another dog. I asked the next man who phoned would he please take the collar off the dog before he let it go and I never heard any more.
I think Senator Malone is rather over-worried about people removing collars. It may happen occasionally but it is not something which happens very frequently. The children will not be too keen to take the collar off. I think this is rather exaggerated but I should be interested to hear about the pedigree dogs. I do not know much about them, but I know there are people who breed them.
A very telling indictment of the collar.
Dogs used for hunting or for tending cattle on the owners' land will be exempt. There are certain other exemptions in that connection. I remember quite recently I saw a man with a very small dog—I cannot remember what type of dog—on television on the Late Late Show. I cannot imagine the necessity for including a dog like that. There are exemptions for certain dogs which it is recognised would not bother sheep. There will be exemptions in the order that will cover the type of dogs Senator Yeats spoke about. That can be arranged in the order.
Arising out of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this business about exemptions rather worries because it struck me that paragraph (b) reads rather oddly: "... the wearing by dogs while in a highway or in a place of public resort, of a collar..." It looks as if all the dogs will be wearing the one collar. I thought we could get "dogs" into the singular, but if there are to be exemptions, we cannot very well do that. I hand it over to the Parliamentary Secretary to elucidate. It looks as if all the dogs will be wearing one collar between them, so to speak.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 56, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
This is a very important problem. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a point that was worrying me. He said that farmer's dogs while on the land will not come under this. Portion of my farm is about one quarter of a mile down the road and I might be going there on the tractor. It would be rather awkward if I had to lead the dog for a couple of hundred yards. I hope we will not be tied up with unnecessary regulations.
There is also a real problem in the towns. When a family has a dog, or a bitch, as the case may be, and pups look very nice, and when there are children in the house, a number of the pups are retained. Sometimes they grow up rather ugly and at that stage are unwanted. If the licence were left at 5/- for the first dog, and if it were increased for the second and subsequent dogs, that might tend to reduce the dog population somewhat. There are many dogs in towns that really constitute a menace to the public. Some of our older people, and especially those living alone, find that a dog can be good company or can be useful to protect their property. We should be slow to render a dog useless for those people.
At home on my property our dogs are left out at night except during the lambing season. They are always locked up at night during the lambing season, not because they chase sheep but because it is safer to have them in. We have sheep of our own but apart from that we lock them in because we cannot take a chance and we are happier in our minds when we know they are under lock and key.
While I welcome this provision, I agree with Senator Malone and Senator Cole that it hardly goes far enough, and hardly gives the sheep-owning community the support they really deserve. A point that has been missed to a great extent is not the loss caused to farmers by the number of sheep that are killed, but the loss suffered by farmers because their flocks will not thrive if they have been frightened. Sheep that have been chased or worried by dogs take weeks or months to recover. It is in that way that a big part of the loss arises.
Paragraph (c) refers to dogs, "straying during all or any of the hours between sunset and sunrise." I find from my diary that in June the sun rises at 3.42 a.m. and sets at 8.26 p.m. It is very often early in the morning that the damage is done. A friend of mine in Foxrock had two setters and a garda came one morning and said that the dogs were killing sheep in the Dublin mountains. He denied it, and said the dogs were there every morning when he was going to his office. The garda said they had followed the dogs for weeks and weeks, and they invited him to get up early in the morning and go to a certain crossroads where he would find his two dogs waiting until four or five other dogs collected, and then they would go to the Dublin mountains.
A political meeting.
That was in Foxrock and the dogs went as far as the Dublin mountains. My friend had to pay his part of the compensation. As I said, it took the Garda weeks and weeks to trace the dogs. They traced them back so far each morning and eventually they got to Foxrock. The problem is that the owner cannot follow the dog. In Cavan there is the problem that the sheep are confined in small fields and the dog has them at his mercy.
With regard to the muzzling of small dogs, small dogs will do nearly as much damage, without actually tearing the sheep. They chase the sheep and eventually the sheep charge through a gap. I think the only remedy is to make a regulation controlling areas as well as dogs, and providing that if sheep are being worried, the superintendent of the Garda can declare that any dog found in the area may be shot. We can now shoot dogs for attacking animals. I know my suggestion sounds drastic but, to my mind, it is the only solution that will work. Reasonable notice could be given, and notices could be posted that dogs found within a certain area in the following weeks or month may be shot on sight. I think that is the only remedy. There must be a drastic remedy because it is unknown what people suffer from these dogs in certain areas.
A friend of mine went to try to protect his sheep at night and the dogs actually growled at him in the dark. He did not have a very good flashlight. They were used to being chased for a short distance perhaps and going back again. These things are happening in the country. It is a strain on people with sheep in some areas at this time of the year that night after night they go to bed with the thought that in the morning the sheep may be attacked and that neighbours three or four miles away were attacked last night. To take an area and declare that no dogs will be allowed stray there at any time for a certain number of weeks is the only solution I know, and I suggest that to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I want to query five words. What is the meaning of "or any kind of dog"? This must be some archaic expression incorporated in this section. There is no sense in it and I suggest that it should be cut out.
It is class distinction.
While I agree that this is a step in the right direction, I do not think that it goes far enough. At the same time, I would agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we should not condemn it without a trial. On reading the section since it is amended one is at a loss to know whether, if a guard or an inspector of the Department walks into a man's yard or into his kitchen and finds his dog without a muzzle or a collar, it is an offence. If he finds the dog anywhere, even on the public road, without a muzzle or a collar there does not seem to be any penalty attached to it.
It appears to me that the whole section is more or less wishful thinking, that people will feel that because we have inserted this section they will automatically buy collars and have their names inscribed on them and put them on the dogs. For that reason I do not think it goes far enough. I still think that something further should be added to that, because there is no penalty of any kind, and no regulation as to who is to bring these people before the courts if it is discovered that their dogs may be on the public highway or on their own land or on somebody else's land worrying sheep. There is no penalty. That is the weakness.
This is a case where the Minister may make orders and in the orders these details will be inserted. The whole legislation will be by order. That is my answer to that.
A number of points have been made. Senator McDonald first of all was in sympathy with the dog owner where there was a number of pups and, peculiarly enough, suggested the more pups he had the more the licence fee would be stepped up. I will convey this suggestion to the Minister for Finance to see if he will agree to implementing it. The peculiar thing about it is that on the one hand he was worried about dog owners and he followed that up by worrying about the damage done by dogs to sheep. We have to get our priorities right in this connection.
If we must have priorities I would certainly go on the side of the sheep owners, but there are old people who like to keep dogs and we should bear them in mind.
The old person, unfortunately, is the person who is least likely to be able to control his dogs.
They keep them in.
If they keep them in there is no problem. When a dog is on his owner's property he does not have to be identifiable. It is only when the animal is in a public place or off the owner's property that the law becomes applicable. Senator Cole suggested that the Minister might care at any stage to declare an area covering a group of townlands, but subsection (e) of this particular section enables him to do that. Senator Ó Donnabháin asked a question about the apparent ridiculousness of having "or any kind of dog" in subsection (e). The idea behind that is that an order can be made for preventing a particular species or type of dog, or all dogs. That is what is intended to be conveyed there, regarding dogs straying during all or any of the hours between sunset and sunrise. Senator Fitzgerald asked about the question of penalty. The point is that while there is no penalty prescribed here the question of penalty is covered in section 49 where the Minister makes an order, as Senator Ó Donnabháin says. That is the theme of the full section. In the very same way the penalty is prescribed in section 49 and can be made applicable to offences under section 56.
With all possible respect, I do not think that the Minister could feel any difficulty under paragraph (e) in prescribing these townlands and saying that no dog must be at large within them.
I think so. The prescribing and regulating of areas with regard to stray dogs in a particular area is covered by the section, and the Minister may make orders on this matter if he so desires.
I want to go a lot further. I want the Superintendent or some officer in the area to say that in these townlands any farmer who finds stray dogs on those lands may, if necessary, destroy them straight away. You must be as drastic as that. At the present time if I find a dog chasing my cattle, sheep or hens I can shoot him under the Dogs Act if it is actually in the act. I think that should be permissible in this case. Where sheep or animals have been attacked we should have drastic power that the dogs may be shot even though they are not at the time actually doing the damage, if damage has been done. The fact that dogs may be shot out of hand or destroyed will make known this control. That is the only way of doing it.
With all due respect to Senator Cole, I would hate to be trying to put that section through the House, because this idea that a farmer can shoot his neighbour's dog on sight would be quite serious. It is quite possible that there would be a pretty fair share of neighbours who would welcome the idea. Subsection (e) gives a pretty fair share of latitude to the Minister in this respect, but it does not give the latitude the Senator wants in regard to a neighbour. I would be afraid that I would not like to be a party to the introduction of the type of section which the Senator appears to want. It would meet with a lot of opposition.
Giving a warning beforehand.
To my mind, what Senator Cole is looking for constitutes the kernel of the whole question. I am afraid it will take that type of legislation to protect the farmers. At the moment a farmer can go into his field and see a dog chasing his sheep. He runs for his gun and when he comes back he finds the dog has gone on to the road or has entered the land of another farmer. He is then at his wit's end as to how he should deal with the owner of the dog. That is why I am worried this legislation will not improve the situation.
And that is where I say this section will improve the situation. The farmer whose sheep have been attacked can prosecute the owner of the attacking animal if he can get the owner to admit he owns the dog. Here we have provision for a collar which is a form of proof. The case Senator Fitzgerald has cited will be one in which the farmer who has suffered can claim from the owner of the dog.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Question proposed: "That section 57 stand part of the Bill".
Are the records involved here the records that cream separating stations at present keep in regard to the pasteurisation of milk?
It is nothing new. Section 4 of the 1957 Act has been applied to existing creameries and separating stations. As that Act is being replaced by this Bill, it is necessary to re-enact this section in relation to new creameries and new separating stations.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 58 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 15:
In Part I, to add at the end "fish".
The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 15 and 16 be discussed together.
I mentioned this during the Second Reading debate and I hope we shall not now have fishy stories. The amendment is simply to include the word "fish" under the heading of animal. I say a fish is an animal and this amendment is the most convenient vehicle for introducing it to this legislation. Part III of the Schedule deals with diseases of animals and poultry and in amendment No. 16 I propose to include diseases of fish under the Class B diseases. During Second Reading I mentioned that disease of fish is confusing the public to some extent. We have been hearing recently of disease in fish in the southern areas. I have a cutting here from one of the daily papers, dated Tuesday, 1st February last, which states that the zoological section of UCC have been carrying out tests of fish sent in by the Cork Board of Fishery Conservators. It has been established that the fish suffered from a primary disabling disease which the scientists have not so far succeeded in isolating.
I heard people talking about this disease of salmon in Waterville and only this week I heard of somebody protesting that he refused to give up a nursery when it was said the fish there were propagating this disease. The Veterinary Section of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries—I emphasise Fisheries in this context— are involved in this matter, naturally, and that is why I suggest we discuss these few words as amendments to the Bill. It will make investigation of fish diseases easy. As the Bill stands, it will require an order of the Minister to initiate such investigation.
Disease in fish involves many sections and activities of the community. It can affect tourist associations and their work and it can affect tourist traffic. If this matter of disease in fish were to get too much publicity—it involves salmon and trout—it could injure us, particularly in regard to the rivers in Kerry and Cork. Here is a disease affecting animals, the animals being fish, and I suggest the House should accept the amendments and have them included in the Bill.
I must oppose this amendment. The Bill now contains numerous provisions for dealing with all sorts of contingencies in relation to diseases of animals and birds within the general meaning of these terms. No cognisance has been taken in the general terms of the Bill of diseases of fish of which relatively little is known. It is clear, however, that arrangements which may be admirably suited to animal diseases would not be appropriate to diseases of fish and for that reason it is not proposed to include fish or diseases of fish in the Schedule. However, the question of diseases of fish is at present being considered in the Fishery Division of the Department and I suggest that Senator Ó Donnabháin could leave the question of fish diseases until such time as specific legislation to deal with that matter is being considered. I do not deny, of course, that certain problems arise in connection with diseases of fish.
I cannot ask the House to divide, since apparently I have not succeeded in convincing Senators.
The Senator has a very good reason for not dividing the House.
I have been quite serious in my consideration of this matter and I feel sure other Senators are equally concerned. If my amendments had been accepted it would avoid the necessity later on for the Minister to make an Order. However, I shall be satisfied if I have the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that the matter will be pursued.
It can be done under section 11.
Yes. The Minister can substract or add at any time. I shall substract my amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 17:
To delete paragraph 4.
This, again, is a very widely drafted piece of legislation. I feel, again, that an unscrupulous Minister may impose unnecessary hardships and regulations on the already hard-pressed farming community. If the Minister would assure the House that there is nothing new, nothing more than was provided in relation to the bovine TB eradication scheme, we would be quite satisfied, but if he has in mind condemning half the cowhouses and other farm buildings and farm fences in perhaps an intensified clean milk scheme, then it would be a very difficult situation for quite a large section of the farming community. I am opposed, apart from that, to the principle of giving a blank cheque such as this to any Minister. It is a very wide power to give to any Minister and surely it is within the competence of our parliamentary draftsmen to be a little more precise and explicit in these matters.
This paragraph says:
Securing and regulating repair or reconstruction of houses used for the housing of animals and poultry, or of boundary fences.
Reading it, it appears quite harmless and simple. As a matter of fact, it is because it appears so simple that it really has me worried. It is beyond me why any Department or any Minister would want the power to make regulations directing the type and kind of fences to be used and the way these are to be repaired. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain exactly what he has in mind in this paragraph.
First of all, let me say that this provision is, of course, in exactly similar terms to section 2 of the Bovine TB Act, 1957. The purpose, therefore, of the provision is clear. It is obviously necessary if proper disinfection and isolation are to be carried out under the eradication programme of diseases such as bovine TB and brucellosis. I can assure the Senator, if he needs reassurance, that we have not in mind any revolutionary ideas or regulations which will have the effect of closing down half the cowhouses in the country.
Apparently the Senator has the fear that the Minister may make some order which would suggest that half these cowhouses are not suitable for housing cows. While there is a great need and a great desire for general improvement, the point is that this is a safeguarding paragraph to enable the Minister, in the event of orders being necessary in connection with the eradication of brucellosis, to make these orders. I am sure the Senator is as anxious as the Minister to further that particular scheme.
As I say, the paragraph is in exactly similar terms to a paragraph in the Act dealing with bovine TB in 1957. That did not create any difficulties in its own way. Senators will recall that the Minister on Second Stage asked for the widest powers. There is a big difference between having the power and using or misusing it. There is nothing sinister, in actual fact, in this particular paragraph at all. It gives the Minister power to make regulations regarding the repair of houses in the event of the danger of the spread of disease or of contamination from an outbreak of any type of disease. I do not think the Senator need be worried.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
To delete paragraph 20.
This paragraph is perhaps the most revolutionary part of this Bill. It is one that gives the most cause for concern. If this paragraph is allowed to remain in the Bill, it will be a direct blow to the great educational advances that Macra na Feirme and many other rural organisations have made throughout the country during the past 20 years. It is to the credit of these voluntary organisations that animal husbandry and agricultural education in general, have advanced and are at such a high peak. It would be, indeed, regrettable if our farming community, having achieved such a high degree of efficiency in the management, care and general husbandry of their animals, were now to be denied the right to practise those skills they have acquired by reason of the various educational courses they have taken in winter classes over the years.
It is also, I submit, a blow against the progress made by many of the laboratories and companies dealing with the medication of livestock. Our young farmers especially have been, as I submit, wisely and efficiently inoculating, injecting and medicating their livestock since the use of those vaccines and sera became widespread and if this paragraph is allowed to remain, it will be a complete reversal of the practice of agriculture as we have known it over the past few years.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that at the present time the net profit per pig, whether a farmer is in a large way producing 200 or 300 pigs or just keeping three or four, is somewhere in the region of £1 or 30/-. Last year I know that because there was an increase in the price of feeding stuffs, many farmers were lucky to break even on their pig production. If a farmer is forced to bring a veterinary surgeon out to his farm to attend one animal, it means that the entire profit on that animal will be gone because the surgeon's fee will be at least 30/-. The farmer could very easily—if it was only a matter of a simple penicillin injection—have administered it himself. Over the past 10 years all the companies engaged in producing these vaccines and antibiotics in our country have spent huge amounts giving lectures and demonstrations to groups of farmers throughout the country on the care, management and handling of their farm stock. I again assert that it would be a retrograde step to deny the farmers the right to continue with this practice.
This paragraph gives the Minister unlimited power to control all medication of animals and, amongst other things, may easily lead to the position where a farmer will be debarred from medicating his own animals and livestock. While I quite agree that indiscriminate administration of medicines and drugs is completely undesirable, it must be said that the present system has worked very well in this country. The Minister, I think, did mention previously that he wants to have the position here whereby these things will not be available in the chemists' shops, the same as applies in Great Britain. But I should like to point out that while those regulations were enforced in Britain at the time all these new doses and injections were introduced, the Irish farmer has been using them successfully and, indeed, with a great amount of skill and efficiency over the past 10 or 12 years. It would be a grave hardship on these farmers in that respect. I feel also it would affect the position of the chemists, especially those in the small rural towns throughout Ireland, and it must be remembered that the farming community comprises some 37 per cent of our population. Therefore, I think it would be a direct blow to our chemists.
I understand also that the Minister proposes that these vaccines, drugs and medicines will be available from veterinary surgeons only. When we examine that in practice, it would appear that a farmer now, instead of going to a chemist's shop to purchase, shall we say, some cerates to administer to a cow he suspects is developing mastitis, will, instead, go to the veterinary surgeon's servant girl and buy these cerates from her. It is quite a reversal of the Poisons Bill of 1960. From reading over the Poisons Bill it would appear that the only people registered for the sale of poisons were chemists. If paragraph 20 is allowed to stay in the Bill, it would appear that the Minister will have to register the veterinary surgeons, their wives and their maids, throughout the country, for the sale of poisons as well. I think that would be a very retrograde step. At the present time the farmers can diagnose from experience; they know what is wrong with their animals; they go into the chemist's shop and the chemist explains to them the exact doses and what he should or should not administer. This is working very satisfactorily and I feel it is the cheapest possible way the farmer can operate, seeing that the agricultural profits are marginal and the fewer visits and the fewer occasions a farmer has to call a veterinary surgeon to his premises, the better for himself.
The control of cerates is mentioned here. The Minister did say there was a problem of milk going to creameries being contaminated by penicillin. I feel that even if a veterinary surgeon administers a dose of creates, whether it be streptomycin or penicillin, that will not guarantee that the farmer will not send his milk to the creamery for 48 hours. If that is the only thing worrying the Department I suggest that, instead of denying the farmer the right to inject a simple tube of penicillin into a cow's teat, he should impose a penalty on any farmer whose milk is found to be contaminated with any of these cerates. If the Minister makes the penalty strong enough, the farmer may make the mistake of sending the milk to the creamery once but he certainly will not do it a second time.
Another point to be remembered is in regard to sheep husbandry. All farmers and all people who have any knowledge of the rearing of sheep will know it is impossible for the veterinary surgeons in any county to be in attendance and handle all the sheep. For instance, in County Laois, where there are some 8,000 farmers, there are only eight veterinary surgeons. I assure the House that it would certainly not be possible for those eight veterinary surgeons to visit all the farmers who would be in trouble with their sheep at night time. For that reason, it is imperative that the farmer should have the right to give a ewe penicillin if that action would save that sheep's life. The more lambs a farmer has—it is quite simple mathematics—the better his profits for the year will be but, one way of ruining himself, is to neglect them and, if he has to join in the queue for a vet to come out at late hours in the dead of winter, it will certainly mean a loss of his profits at the end of the year.
As I mentioned before, the research laboratories and the people preparing these vaccines have done a tremendous amount of research and they have brought out these drugs and sera for animals. I have one called Covexin, which is a seven-in-one injection and you certainly do not need to be a veterinary surgeon to administer it. I am not suggesting I could do it as well as a veterinary surgeon but I can certainly do it with the same results. I see nothing wrong with it. It is an injection which is administered in three doses throughout the year. There are well illustrated and explanatory leaflets covering the entire operation and it is quite safe to use. Is it that the Department thinks the majority of Irish farmers are not capable of looking after their own livestock? If any farmer wants deliberately to kill one of his own animals, a cow, a sheep or a pig, he has a constitutional right to do so, and I do not think anyone should deprive him of that right.
To kill them?
The Department apparently think the farmers are not able to cure them and want to kill them by giving them wrong doses. They are entitled even to kill them if they are their own property.
I do not agree.
Why should they worry?
For the sake of the country.
If a farmer makes one mistake and has to pay for it himself, he will not make that mistake a second time. It is only in the case of these preventive vaccines that I feel it would be a mistake if the present system that is working admirably throughout the country were to be changed.
Senator McDonald more or less spoiled his case at the end because he made it a case of trial and error. I would not agree with taking too many chances in curing animals. If the Minister has anything in the Bill to prevent people from taking chances or destroying the lives of animals, I would support him. If the Minister were satisfied that people would not use antibiotics indiscriminately in regard to mastitis he would not have this section in the Bill at all, but there have been abuses. Many people are allergic to penicillin and this has created a great deal of hardship. People have developed skin diseases of different types as a result of milk being delivered to creameries and dairies that should never have been delivered for distribution. This has entailed a lot of hardship and children have developed various types of skin diseases from contaminated milk because the milk was not kept until the cow was properly cured or until the drug had gone out of the cow's system.
I appeal to the Minister to give this some consideration before Report Stage, because if he controls the sale of antibiotics direct to farmers there can be very serious consequences during the lambing season. There are diseases which have been treated by farmers in the past, and any farmer who knows his business is capable of dealing with these infections, and dealing effectively with them. If the Minister is going to force the farmers to take a trip to the vet on every occasion he will be doing harm. He will also be doing harm to the people who have been in this business for a long number of years, the chemists and the people in the drug stores, because the vets will set up their own drug stores——
May I intervene——
On a point of order?
On a point of order, we are discussing amendment No. 18. There is nothing in amendment No. 18 which is relevant to what Senator McDonald said or to what Senator McAuliffe is saying. I now draw the Chair's attention to the amendment which is to delete paragraph 20.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair is satisfied that both speakers are in order so far.
He must be assuming, Sir, that you were asleep. I can assure him that that is not the case. I will not be ruled out of order by Senator Ó Donnabháin but I will accept it if you rule me out of order, Sir. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to allow the farmers to have free access to purchase antibiotics which cannot do any harm to the health of the people. If the farmers have not free access to antibiotics during the lambing season they will certainly run into serious losses.
I should like to clear up a certain misconception that appears to have arisen in connection with paragraph 20. We are dealing with an amendment to delete this paragraph which reads:
Requiring, specifying, regulating and prohibiting (except with the consent of the Minister) the treatment of animals or poultry with serum or vaccine.
It refers to "the treatment". A lot has been said with regard to the sale of serum or vaccine, but there is nothing in this paragraph that deals with the sale of serum or vaccine. The sale of serum and vaccine is covered by the Animals Remedies Act, 1956.
The peculiar thing is that this paragraph is being attacked from the point of view that it interferes with the rights of farmers to purchase something, and takes from them the right to purchase serum, vaccine and antibiotics, but there is no reference at all in this to antibiotics. The Minister is not taking from the chemists their right to sell or from the farmers their right to purchase any form of antibiotics. The Act under which an order can be made to restrict the sale of serum and vaccine is the 1956 Act. I want to draw particular attention to that. It is the Animals Remedies Act, 1956, that enables the Minister to control the sale of serum, vaccine and antibiotics.
This Bill gives the Minister power to restrict vets. The veterinary profession were exempt under the 1956 Act. They were allowed to deal in those commodities; they were allowed to sell them; and they were allowed to treat with serum, vaccine and antibiotics. In this paragraph the Minister takes power to control the use of serum and vaccine by vets, and incidentally by farmers. The point is that if the farmer cannot buy them he cannot use them.
That is the whole point.
We must deal with what is contained in the Bill. Senator McDonald says that people are being restricted in the sale, but nobody is being restricted in sale except the vet who has been restricted in the sale of sera and vaccines and the use of them, with Strain 19. We know from our advisers that if Strain 19 is used on a growing animal it will, when it comes to tracing it at a later stage, come out with positive results.
I am quite satisfied about that.
As I have said, the manufacture and sale of all veterinary preparations may by order be controlled under powers under the Animals Remedies Act, 1956. There has been a misconception with regard to this paragraph. I agree totally with Senator McAuliffe that we cannot, no matter how much we respect the freedom of the individual, avoid taking some action to restrict people from doing away with what is a national asset. Senator McDonald says that a farmer, if he so desires, should be free to kill his own beast. That is rather surprising because if the owner decides to kill a beast worth £60 it is a loss not only to him but to the State. I do not think we should allow too much playing about and experimenting by a non-professional at the expense of the State in that regard.
There is no danger of that.
With all due respect, I think I was justified in pointing out that both speakers over there were out of order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator should not reflect on a ruling already given by the Chair. The Chair was satisfied and is still satisfied that the speakers are in order.
I accept that ruling, but I wanted to point out that there was nothing in the paragraph which they wished to delete dealing with antibiotics. It was dealing with sera and vaccines. We know, and certainly Senator McDonald knows, the difficulty about Strain 19, which is a vaccine. We know the damage done by indiscriminately buying it at chemists' shops.
I do not agree with that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator will have an opportunity to deal with that.
He must not interrupt me. I did not interrupt when he was wrong. There is nothing in this about antibiotics. Any farmer knows that in the treatment of animals there are various medicines. I have passed an interest in being a veterinary surgeon, but I would not have anybody outside a veterinary surgeon or a medical man using a serum or a vaccine. The Senator uses the word "cerates" but it should be sera. Sera or vaccines should be controlled by professional people whoever they be, but antibiotics, penicillin and such things have nothing to do with the matter specified here.
Sera are very important to the dairy farmer.
I want to point out that Strain 19, which is such a perishable drug, was indiscriminately sold by chemists, and did immense harm. It was bought by people and perhaps kept for a week and indiscriminately used. It is quite right that sera and vaccine should be controlled in the hands of professionals. I know that for lamb dysentery vaccine is distributed because physically they could not do it, but the Senator is widening the discussion on these antibiotics and trace elements that do not seem to me to be here at all. I maintain that sera and vaccines should be under the control of professional people who know the danger of them and their viable life.
I certainly cannot agree with the last speaker. "Cerates" is the term commonly used by the veterinary profession for the little penicillin tubes you inject in the cows' teats for the control of mastitis. I do not agree with him inasmuch as he says that farmers and others did an immense amount of damage by indiscriminate use of Strain 19. I think that they set a headline on it. An arrangement was made a while back whereby the use of Strain 19 should be suspended pending the coming into force of the regulations or the campaign for the eradication of brucellosis. The Parliamentary Secretary did say that the use of serum and vaccine was being restricted. I should like if he would tell me if after the passing of this Bill the farmers will be able to treat their own animals as heretofore, that the farmer will be able to vaccinate his stock against black-leg, which is a very simple operation. I do not think it demands a tremendous amount of study to be able to carry out that simple procedure, and if he will still be able to go into the chemist shop to purchase black-leg vaccine in order to do so. Surely the Department of Agriculture must give the farmers of Ireland credit for being able to inject into an animal two, ten or 19 ccs. or whatever the prescribed does is of any vaccine. Surely they must have a certain amount of confidence in the advisory services throughout the country which have been dictating and demonstrating the ideal and the high degree of animal husbandry in this country over the years. I would, indeed, be disappointed if the view of the Department officials was that the Irish farmer was not capable of injecting his stock, pigs, sheep or cattle, against liver fluke in sheep, black-leg in sheep or cattle and so on. These operations have been going on for ages. Personally, I am convinced that the vast majority of the farmers are quite capable of doing so.
I have been taken to task for saying that if a farmer wants to injure his stock he is quite entitled to do so. I was taken up a little seriously on it. I would like to point out that the farmers have been using these things for the past ten or eleven years quite freely and there have been no ill effects. To deprive them of that practice and right with excellent animal husbandry will be a grave step seeing that there are not sufficient vets to go round. How can eight vets go round County Laois to inoculate a couple of hundred thousand sheep there three times a year? How will they get around that and at the same time treat pigs and cattle as well? There are not sufficient vets in the country, and if the Department restricts the treatment of animals in this way you will be exposing the Irish farmer to depriving him of taking the necessary precautions to treat his own stock against quite a number of diseases that there are excellent remedies for in the way that they have been doing for the last 10 or 11 years.
To a certain extent I support what Senator McDonald has said. There are numerous remedies, and vaccine has been used since I was in my teens. I hope there will not be restriction. Senator Ó Donnabháin seems to think we should not be allowed to use vaccines. Some of the cures we have been using for years have been vaccines. There is always talk about new methods, that there should be some control, but to my mind it should be the other way around. We should be encouraging and teaching young farmers how to use those things instead of restricting their use as if they were dangerous things that farmers have not the intelligence to use.
I support Senators McDonald and Cole in this matter. To my mind there is no question about the restrictive element in this subsection which spells out "requiring, specifying, regulating or prohibiting". There it is in black and white. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me now if penicillin and streptomycin are to be restricted?
They are not. The reason why this paragraph was introduced was to allow the Minister to control the use of Strain 19 and Strain 19 only.
That has already been agreed on.
The Minister has made an order controlling the sale of Strain 19 but, peculiarly, he has not the power to control the use of Strain 19. There is nothing to stop a veterinary surgeon in Laois — Laois is a handy area for our purpose because Senator McDonald referred to it — from using Strain 19 on the cattle of any of his clients. This section is for the purpose of controlling its use. A farmer cannot purchase it from a chemist because the chemist is restricted in the sale but the veterinary surgeon is not restricted in the use of it, if he can lay his hands on it and he can, under the provisions of the Animals Act. Senators who have moved for the deletion of this provision can be assured that there is no question of taking power to control other sera and vaccines. Its purpose is to control the use of Strain 19 at present.
We will be satisfied if it refers only to Strain 19.
If Strain 19 is written into the Bill on Report Stage we will be satisfied.
Brucellosis is the disease we are anxious to tackle at the moment — we hope to tackle many others in the next few years — and it was in our attack on brucellosis that we were anxious to control the use of Strain 19. It may be necessary to control some other vaccines at a later stage and we do not want to be coming back again looking for fresh amendments.
This is too sweeping.
As has been pointed out in the course of the debate, certain powers have been there all along but have not been used. We require the power to be there instead of coming later to both Houses of the Oireachtas when we are ready to tackle a disease. We are ready to tackle brucellosis at the moment and we have tried to get the Bill so drafted that we shall be free to tackle other diseases later.
This is not a question of only Senators being concerned with this clause. We must realise that the NFA are also concerned and in a circular the NFA point out that it is not their policy blindly to oppose progress. Senators can see from the circular that the NFA are not opposed to the withdrawal of Strain 19 but to the withdrawal of other remedies and to the possible withholding from farmers of the right to purchase antibiotic sera and vaccines. If the Parliamentary Secretary can assure the NFA through the House that there is no intention of withholding these drugs from farmers, if he is prepared to write it into the Bill at Report Stage, we will be satisfied.
Every Senator has the circular from the NFA and I suggest to Senator Fitzgerald that he reads some of the publication to the House which he will find very instructive. The NFA proposal is very comprehensive but I do not think it could work. They cannot even spell correctly.
Reference has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary that there are members of the veterinary profession who unfortunately are not prepared to abide by directives in regard to Strain 19.
I did not say that.
He said the purpose of this section was to restrict certain members of the profession in the use of Strain 19. He said the object was to prevent the sale of it but not restrict its use. Are they the same people to whom it is intended in an earlier section to give unlimited powers of arrest and detention?
I do not know whether Senator O'Sullivan has quoted me correctly but I hope I did not make use of the term "restriction". As far as I can remember I referred to controlling the use. There is a heck of a difference between restriction and control. There was no attack made on the veterinary profession. There is no point in our claiming that we should have more power than we require. I think the House, in actual fact, could give us this power without interfering in any way with the ideals or aims of farmers. One of the Senators mentioned this question of the NFA. I want to say I do not know when that circular came out.
Last Tuesday.
The Minister has very recently had discussions with a subcommittee of the NFA on this particular subject. We are quite satisfied that the NFA now understand the position and that they agree we are not imposing on them. I am pretty satisfied on that. The difficulty is that this was so recent that the subcommittee may not have had the opportunity of checking and reporting back to head office. I do not want it to go out from this House that the NFA have told the Minister they are all for it. We feel that the subcommittee are reasonably happy with the explanation given to the deputation which called on the Minister. It is quite possible they may be quite happy with it. We have only our own impression on this. I think the Minister is not being unreasonable in regard to the power he is seeking in paragraph 20. It is wrong to delete this paragraph. If the paragraph is deleted we have not the power we want over Strain 19.
I again want to stress that I have no interest in Strain 19. We know that the Minister wants the sale of Strain 19 left over on account of the proposed brucellosis scheme. We have no conscience about that at all but what we are unhappy about is the paragraph which says:
Requiring, specifying, regulating and prohibiting the treatment of animals or poultry with serum or vaccine.
That is a sweeping statement. Could I have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, if this Bill becomes an Act, that it will still be possible for any farmer to walk into his chemist and purchase a cerate, whether it be penicillin or aureomycin, for 1/6d. and go home and inject it into the cow's teat? The Minister said on Second Reading that because of the contamination by penicillin of milk this would not be possible. In England where the use of cerates——
Where does serum or penicillin come into this section?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
As far as the Chair is concerned neither serum nor vaccine is defined in section 2 of the Bill and, accordingly, their meaning must be elucidated in the course of the debate.
The Minister said on Second Reading that he was worried because of the incidence of the contamination of creamery milk by penicillin. Whether or not a veterinary surgeon happens to administer cerates to a cow will not ensure that the milk will not be sent to the creamery for 48 hours. If the Minister is trying to control that I am afraid it still will not get him anywhere. If he is still worried about the milk contamination problem he should impose stiff penalties in regard to contaminated milk and I assure him that will control the problem much better.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that, when this Bill becomes law, a farmer will still be able to go into a chemist's shop to buy a tube of penicillin or aureomycin, and administer it to his cow for the control of mastitis? If the law says that the farmer must send for a veterinary surgeon and pay 30/-or £2 in order to give his cow 1/6d. worth of aureomycin or penicillin, I am afraid the incidence of mastitis will certainly increase. As well as that, there are no figures to show, where those cerates have been controlled in England for a long number of years, that the incidence of mastitis is less. Could I have that assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary?
I have the greatest sympathy with the amendment in the sense that this is the sort of thing which worries people but they are worrying at the wrong time. Nothing can happen under this until the Minister makes an order. There is nothing in this Schedule which does anything except give power to make an order. I should imagine that the right time to fight is when the Minister makes an order prohibiting something which the Senator or other people think should not be prohibited. Those orders must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Of course, every Member does not read all the orders laid before each House but certainly someone would see it and that is the right time to object.
It would be wrong to say that the Minister should not have this power at all. In fact, I cannot see how we could have a Diseases of Animals Bill unless the Minister had power to control the use of medicine of one sort or another. I would be all on for the row if the Minister made an order which farmers found interfered with the right which farmers felt they ought to have but there is nothing in this paragraph, as it stands, to annoy anyone. It is only when an order that would be objectionable is made that it is time to fight. You would practically wreck the Bill if the Minister had not power to control vaccines and sera.
I think that covers the point exactly. Everything in those paragraphs is controlled by order. The Minister has to make the order to put those powers into effect and the orders have to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The Senator will appreciate that we cannot have a sort of day-to-day legislation. The idea that when we have a problem we bring in legislation to deal with that specific problem is very wrong. When we are preparing legislation we cannot look ahead. The Senator asked me to give a guarantee. The guarantee I can give the Senator is that in the foreseeable future, as far as we can see, there will be no reason for invoking this particular paragraph for any purpose other than that which I mentioned, which apparently the Senator is not interested in. There is nothing sinister involved in the paragraph. As explained by Senator Sheldon, if the sinister eventuality should arise, it comes before the House for discussion.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to write that into the paragraph by Report Stage?
It is written into the format of the Bill itself. Orders must be made and laid before the House.
I am still not happy because the real fundamental point here is that there are not sufficient veterinary surgeons in the country to treat all the animals in the way they are being treated at the present time having regard to the freedom the farmer has to employ his own knowledge and his own skill. As all farmers know, the veterinary surgeons are run off their feet in every county. If now there is to be any restriction whatsoever on the farming community in the inoculating and treating of their animals, it would indeed be a retrograde step. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to qualify this paragraph before Report Stage? It is very sweeping at present and I am sure our fears would be allayed if he would temper it down just a little.
Apparently I am the only person in the House who says it is not a sweeping paragraph. Section 4 states that every order made by the Minister under this Bill shall be laid before each house of the Oireachtas. That is the protection given in this. If Senators want an assurance as to the intentions of the Minister under this paragraph, it deals with the one subject and he has no intention of controlling any other sera or vaccines.
The question of the control of antibiotics has been mentioned. As far as control is concerned, the Minister has had control since 1961 and it is not in this Bill at all. The only item he wants to control — and it is on the records of the House — is Strain 19.
Since when did we start giving Strain 19 to poultry?
I have already dealt with that in so far as I have endeavoured to point out — unsuccessfully apparently — that this paragraph 20 is part of legislation for the future. If we do reach the stage at which we need to have some control in relation to other diseases which exist at the moment and to which we are not in a position to give sufficient attention, but to which we will eventually get around, the Minister should have the power so that it will not be necessary to come back here with a further Bill to provide the power which is now being given.
In reply to the assurance requested by Senator McDonald, I want to give him the assurance that it is not the intention to withdraw from the farmer the right to purchase any vaccine, serum or antibotic which at present he has the right to purchase.
I do not, nor did not, wish to be difficult but the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, that is, the chemists, were indeed annoyed and uneasy, as were the farming community. Now that I have received that assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, I am quite happy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is suggested that amendments Nos. 19 and 20 be taken together.
I move amendment No. 19:
In paragraph 21, page 29, line 2, before "animals" to insert "diseased".
Paragraph 21 reads:
Prescribing in relation to any particular disease, that persons may not engage in the business of dealing in animals or poultry unless authorised by a licence issued in that behalf by the Minister and subject to such conditions as may be set out in such licence.
We feel that, as it is, there may be regulations or licences for ordinary cattle dealers or pig dealers. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not have any objection to qualifying this paragraph in this way. It is just to allay our fears and makes it much plainer.
Does the Senator suggest that there is a future for any of us who might set up in dealing in the sale of diseased animals and poultry?
No, but there would be quite a problem in many parts of the country if dealers were not able to compete and if there were no competition at our fairs and markets. Then, we would have another problem.
The difficulty is that in relation to a particular disease, the amendment seeks to provide that they should be restricted in the sale of diseased animals only. I think animals coming from an area where disease exists are the type of thing we are anxious to cover in this particular connection. If I may repeat paragraph 21, it reads:
Prescribing in relation to any particular disease, that persons may not engage in the business of dealing in animals or poultry unless authorised by a licence issued in that behalf by the Minister and subject to such conditions as may be set out in such licence.
I do not think there is any necessity for further qualification in that regard.
I could visualise a situation in which there was swine fever in a county or in which the Minister thought it necessary, in order to prevent swine fever, to issue only two or three licences. You would be removing the competition which is the life of trade for the farming community. I could see a drop in prices if there were a restriction on the free buying of animals at our fairs and markets.
Are they not licensed at the moment?
It is a question of the Department being in a position to trace the movement of animals in the event of swine fever, or similar disease. In the 1956 to 1958 period, considerable difficulty was experienced in tracing the movement of animals and, unless we can arrange to control this movement under this section, I am afraid the Department would find themselves very ineffective in dealing with an outbreak of swine fever. At that particular time, I do not think there would be a dropping off in prices anyway. Our precautions are from the point of view of trying to eliminate the disease, in the unfortunate event of swine fever breaking out. We should have the fullest power to confine it, firstly, and, secondly, to wipe it out.
No attempt is being made to prohibit farmers selling and buying in the normal way?
Movement.
But if you sell, you have to move animals somewhere. With the new and improved communications, surely it is a small job. I attended fairs and markets and I know all the dealers over the years. I can assure you I would not accept a cheque from anyone I did not know. If you are asked a fortnight afterwards: "Whom did you sell to at the fair," you would know because it is the same people who attend all the time. People travel the same circuit each month and I cannot see that there is any great difficulty in tracing animals at present.
It is all very well to trace them but if in the meantime they have contaminated a great many other animals, the fact that they are traced is very poor compensation for the people who are affected. It is absolutely essential that there should be control over animals that are being moved about.
If they are not diseased how can they contaminate other animals?
Surely the Senator has heard of carriers?
I would have thought carriers had a disease. Perhaps I am wrong.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill.
One final remark: On page 27 at paragraph 7, I suggest that after the word "carcases", we should insert the words "parts and organs thereof" because "carcases" would mean the entire carcases. I am speaking from experience. If there were an outbreak of foot and mouth disease and if the feet of cattle——
The word "carcase" is defined in section 2, and it includes what the Senator is talking about.
Does it include parts and organs?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Line 32 of section 2.
I read it separately. If it is defined already, well and good.
Question put and agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Next stage?
Is there any objection to taking the Remaining Stages now?
Yes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Notice has been given of intention to raise some matters on Report.
I do not think I will be available next Wednesday. Can we take it on Wednesday week? I do not think it will be possible for me to be here next Wednesday and I should like to see the Bill through. I have one amendment for Report Stage. Would it be possible to take it on Wednesday week?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is a matter for the House to decide.
Would tomorrow week suit the Senator?
I should prefer to leave it over to next Wednesday week.
Wednesday week is Ash Wednesday. It will be hanging on too long like the motions. I suggest we take it tomorrow week.
I suggest that it should be discussed later.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We could order it provisionally for next Wednesday on the understanding that the question of whether it actually will be taken will be discussed.
Provided it will be taken not later than tomorrow week.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is the matter for discussion.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 16th February, 1966.