Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 1 Dec 1944

Vol. 95 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Diseases of Animals Bill, 1944—Report and Final Stages.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, lines 36 and 45, and page 3, lines 3 and 12, Section 3, to insert before the words "on behalf of the Minister", where they occur, the words "in any abattoir or market".

This is to make definite a matter which was dealt with on the Committee Stage with regard to those carcases. It was not intended to deal with carcases except where they are found in an abattoir or market. "Abattoir" there means more than a public abattoir; it means any private abattoir or slaughter-house. This is put in so that anybody reading the Act in face of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would not expect to be paid for a carcase where the animal was dead before the disease was notified.

Mr. Hughes

I take it that "market" means a fair?

Dr. Ryan

Oh, yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 3, Section 5 (1), line 43, to insert the words "after making such inquiries as he considers necessary" before the words "is satisfied".

We had a discussion on this on the Committee Stage. Section 5 deals with the use of ground as a place of burial. The idea of this section is to amend the principal Act, because under the principal Act there is no power to take a place for the burial of animals except the land owned by the owner of the cattle. This section was put in, first of all, in order to enable the inspector to dispose of the cattle where no such ground was suitable. The principle of that has already been accepted on Committee Stage, and I need not go back over it. In some discussion during the Committee Stage it was urged that the inspector should make every possible endeavour to use the owner's land before he would go into another man's land. Both Deputy Hughes and I have made an attempt to ensure that. My amendment says that the veterinary inspector, "after making such inquiries as he considers necessary", must be satisfied. Deputy Hughes' amendment suggests the words "after inspection by himself or on his behalf". There is not a lot between them. The only thing I can plead in favour of my amendment is that at least it has had the benefit of having been looked over by the lawyers, the draftsmen and so on, who have brought it into conformity with the usual legislation on this point. I think the amendment which I have proposed should cover the point, because he must at least make the inquiries that he considers necessary before deciding that it is not possible to have the animals buried on the land of the person concerned, and that he must go outside that land.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister went back to the Principal Act and said that under that Act there was no power to go outside the farm on which the live stock existed. That is true, and we agree that it is necessary to have power to go outside if there is no suitable land on the particular farm in which the outbreak has occurred, but from the point of view of the other man who has to provide the burial ground that is very objectionable. My aim is to ensure that that will happen only where it is absolutely essential. If there are any facilities on the land where the outbreak occurred, then the animals ought to be buried on that land, and it was open to the inspector to go outside it, in my opinion, as the Bill was originally drafted. I do not think the Minister has met the point, the Parliamentary draftsman notwithstanding, because if we examine closely those words "after making such inquiries as he considers necessary" it will be found that they mean nothing. The inspector may not consider any inquiries necessary, and legally he cannot be challenged on it. I suggest the words "after inspection by himself"—putting the responsibility on him—"or on his behalf"; if he is not able to do it himself he can ask somebody else to do it, but inspection surely should be made. I appreciate the Minister's willingness to meet the point, but I do not think his amendment does so, because I think the interpretation of those words is that the inspector can simply do what he likes. If he is challenged, he can say: "I consider that it is not necessary," and that is all about it. There is no definite duty imposed on him by the amendment. The Minister agrees that it is not desirable to go outside the owner's land?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, unless it is absolutely necessary. In regard to those words "after making such inquiries as he considers necessary," I would remind the Deputy that it is necessary to have some safeguard in a case like that. I already told the House on the Committee Stage that I would agree to the Deputy's next amendment to delete sub-section (2), but then, if we do, it means that the owner of the land, the aggrieved person if you like, could take an action if he thought the inspector had not made reasonable inquiries.

Mr. Hughes

But I submit that there is no responsibility there in the words suggested by the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

Oh, there is. "After making such inquiries as he considers necessary"; he must satisfy the court.

Mr. Hughes

Suppose he considers that there are no inquiries necessary?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think he is going to get away with that.

Mr. Hughes

That would be my interpretation of it. I may be wrong.

Dr. Ryan

I should like also to say to the Deputy that in those cases, as he knows, there are always instructions. First of all, there would be Orders made under the Act. Secondly, there would be instructions drawn up. The instructions given to veterinary inspectors in such cases certainly will —as they do already—contain a direction that they must make every endeavour to have the animals disposed of on the land concerned before they go outside it. I think between all those things everybody should be satisfied.

Mr. Hughes

If the Minister assures me that he has had legal advice on it I will not press it.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

The following amendment was agreed to:—

In page 3, to delete Section 5 (2). —(Deputy Hughes).

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 4, Section 6 (2) (a), to delete the words from the word "the" where it occurs first in line 3 to the end of the paragraph and substitute therefor the following words: "the animals or goods to be removed from such place and shall if the owner is available consult him as to the least inconvenient place provided that such place is in the opinion of the inspector suitable."

The Minister will notice that, as the Bill is drafted, the owner of the animals or goods may be required to remove them. But the owner may not be available. Even if the Minister does not accept the latter portion of my amendment, I think he will have to accept the words "the animals or goods to be removed", without mentioning the owner at all. What would happen if the owner is not available and the matter is urgent? If the owner is not there, you cannot require him to remove them.

Dr. Ryan

There is something in what the Deputy says. That was my trouble.

Mr. Hughes

My amendment meets that. It goes a bit further, and seeks to avoid inconvenience to the owner.

Dr. Ryan

We also discussed this on Committee Stage. The reason why I did not like the Deputy's amendment is that it might lead to interminable argument in court as to whether the owner was available or not. The owner may say he was available, and the inspector may say that he made every endeavour to find him but could not find him. I think the point now made by the Deputy requires consideration. I will give an undertaking to consider it.

Mr. Hughes

I cover the point in portion of my amendment there by the use of the words, "the animals or goods to be removed". I do not bring in the owner at all.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. It would then read, "require the animals or goods to be removed from such place".

Mr. Hughes

Yes. It will have to be put that way, I think.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know if we could do a bit of drafting here now.

Mr. Hughes

You could do it in the Seanad, I suppose. The Minister could not meet the other point? I think the Minister is sympathetic on the point.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. The last two lines of paragraph (a) at the top of page 4 would read: "may require the animals or goods to be removed from such place".

Mr. Hughes

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

Personally, I think that would be better, if the House agrees to the drafting now.

Mr. Hughes

It does not meet the other point.

Dr. Ryan

I think it is better to leave it at that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the amendment, as amended, agreed to?

Dr. Ryan

The words I propose are in lieu of the amendment.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister raised the point that there might be argument as to whether the owner was available or not. I agree that there might be a good deal of argument about that but I should like that there would be some responsibility on the inspectors to consult. I suppose it is difficult to get round it.

Dr. Ryan

Again, we would stress very strongly in the instructions that they should make every endeavour to find the owner and get agreement.

Mr. Hughes

That is good.

Dr. Ryan

I propose that it should be "may require that the animals or goods be removed from such place".

Agreed.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 4, Section 7, paragraph

(a), to delete in lines 18 to 20 the words "(whether the number of animals in respect of which the offence was committed does or does not exceed four)" and in paragraph (b) to delete in line 22 the expression "paragraph (ii)" and substitute the expression "paragraphs (ii) and (iii)".

This amendment arises out of a mistake in drafting.

Mr. Hughes

The words are unnecessary?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. We are changing the present fine to £100 and knocking out the fine per animal. It would be a maximum of £100 no matter how many animals there are. I think it is better. A man with one animal diseased may do as much harm as a man with seven. Therefore, the simple fine is the best, but we overlooked the fact that item (ii), which is dealt with here, says that he can be fined for the removal of manure, and so on, in addition to the fine under the first paragraph. That makes a lesser offence, as it were, liable to a bigger fine, and the amendment is designed to make the whole thing uniform.

Amendment agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Fifth Stage?

Dr. Ryan

Now.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.