I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 4, after "appointment" to insert "which shall include a photograph of the authorised officer".

Section 2 provides that an authorised officer of the Department visiting a farm to conduct important business shall be supplied with a warrant. It also provides that if the warrant is demanded, the officer must produce it to the farmer for identification reasons. The amendment seeks the inclusion of a photograph of the officer on the warrant. This would remove any doubt about the identity of the officer exercising the warrant and enforcing serious regulations on behalf of the Department.

I understand the Senator's idea, but it would not be practical to accept the amendment because the current authorisations do not include photographs and it would seriously delay the implementation of the legislation. I do not wish to imply any form of blackmail, but I remind the Senator that there are now 96 cases of foot and mouth disease in Britain, an increase of 15. My criticism on television on Sunday night was well placed. The introduction of the legislation is urgent. We will consider how its provisions can be improved. I agree that there should be photographs on all identification documents. An officer from the DVO is, however, usually well known locally.

I do not wish to retard the progress of this important section. This is necessary for the implementation of the section where there could be a serious outbreak of disease, including foot and mouth. When this emergency is over, perhaps this aspect will be looked at so that photographs will be attached to warrants in due course.

I agree with the Senator. All State bodies should require representatives to carry photographs as in the case of employees of Bord Gáis and the ESB. I will consider that aspect in the future. However, this legislation must be implemented urgently.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(9)Any information given by a person pursuant to a request or requirement under subsection (8) shall not be admissible in criminal proceedings against that person (other than proceedings under subsection (14)(c)(i)).”

I have no intention of delaying the progress of the Bill. This amendment seeks to be helpful to the Minister of State and improve the legislation. What we are trying to guard against is, in effect, self-incrimination.

In some instances, self-incrimination would be helpful. I am advised by the Attorney General that this amendment is totally unnecessary as the general constitutional provisions apply in that situation.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, line 29, after "liable" to insert "in damages".

This is against a background where the powers under the legislation are very broad. This was referred to on Second Stage. This amendment seeks to retain an element of balance in the Bill which would maintain the right to sue an officer for illegality by way of judicial review.

This amendment would be an unduly narrow restriction. It would be unfair to the officers who in good faith must carry out arduous duties in extremely difficult circumstances. The people one is dealing with here are not Mickey Mouse people. These people have a lot to lose and can be particularly violent. People are free to sue after the event if they feel they have a case.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 13 are cognate and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, line 5, to delete "6" and substitute "12".

These amendments are very clear. We are seeking to increase the penalties in the Bill from six to 12 months in the context of this section.

The Attorney General has advised that it would be more prudent on constitutional grounds to retain the six month period.

I accept the Minister of State's advice. However, this is an attempt to be helpful. Is he saying 12 months would be unconstitutional and impossible to include?

No. The Senator will appreciate the period between 7 o'clock and now was not long. The Attorney General's advice was that the six month period would be more prudent.

This amendment clarifies that the Garda has powers to arrest in relation to all provisions of the Act. On reflection, it was felt this provision was necessary to facilitate this effective enforcement.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, line 16, after "oath" to insert "or affirmation".

The principle of this amendment was accepted in the context of the Agriculture Appeals Bill. We tabled this amendment for consistency purposes.

To show county loyalty and no coolness, I accept the amendment.

This amendment provides for a review by the Oireachtas of the provisions in the new section 17A after 12 months. This was in response to concerns expressed about the strength of the powers being conferred on authorised officers. These powers are needed. However, I understand that Senators may feel the provisions deserve to be reviewed when they have had a better opportunity to study them in detail and have seen them in operation for some time.

I am unclear about the insertion after line 52 relating to subsection "(2)(a)”. Line 52 refers to subsection (19).

The first part of section 17A will become subsection (1) and this will become subsection (2). The Seanad Office clarified that issue with the parliamentary counsel's office.

Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 8; therefore, amendments Nos. 8 and 9 will be discussed together.

The amendment narrows the definition of "dealers". It is proposed that this should be defined as those who resell animals within 45 days rather than 100 days. It is hoped to remove any unease there may be in relation to the sector. This section will operate in a reasonable manner and will not interfere with acceptable commercial operations, as I explained earlier.

This amendment relates to a spelling correction.

There is a correction to amendment No. 11 as printed in the list. The amendment should read to delete "a person or dealer or". The word "or" is omitted at the end of the amendment.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, line 32, to delete "a person or dealer".

This amendment has been tabled because the Bill as drafted allows the Minister to grant exemptions to individuals which, in principle, would need to be clarified. I wonder whether it is a good principle to include this in the legislation.

This amendment is unnecessary and has the potential to interfere with the powers to deal with disease. There would have to be exemptions in relation to regular and authorised dealers and we have allowed for this.

I accept the Minister of State's reply purely in the context of this legislation.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, line 40, to delete subsection (1).

This amendment relates to the 1956 order. In reading the Bill, the aspect of the confirmation in total struck me, after 45 years of the 1956 order. Since such a significant power has been included in the legislation, does it not deserve legislation in itself?

We have been advised by the Attorney General that it is desirable to confirm the foot and mouth order by statute in light of the extensive powers therein and that it would be prudent to confirm the orders recently made to deal with this crisis.

Clearly an amount of tidying up is being done in the legislation. However, I will not object to this provision.

This is a textual amendment which has the important effect of including land and premises among the items that may be subject to forfeit.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 10, section (1)(b), line 15, to delete “working in or”.

The amendment must be viewed in the context of the broad powers provided for in the legislation. Amendment No. 15 broadens them further. This amendment seeks to strike a balance. While it is an excessive power to ban a person from working in farming, against the background of the current emergency I understand the Minister of State's position. The right to work should, however, be retained. We may have to return to this aspect at a later date.

All sections of the community should behave properly. It is not an excuse to claim that one acted under orders, the famous excuse used by many of those convicted at the Nuremberg trials. Under this provision discretion to decide is vested in judges hearing serious cases.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 10, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following new subsections:–

"(2) At any time after the making of an order under subsection (1) of this section ('the original order'), the person in respect of whom the original order is made may apply to the court concerned on notice to the Director of Public Prosecutions for an order discharging or varying the original order, and if sufficient reason is shown on the hearing of the application the court may discharge or vary the original order accordingly.

(3)In the case of an original order made by the Circuit Court, the jurisdiction conferred by subsection (2) of this section may be exercised by the judge for the time being assigned to the circuit in which the original order was made.”

This is an important amendment from a legal point of view and has been tabled in the context of the advice available to me. It creates jurisdiction to vary the original order. The Minister of State may favour it.

A revised wording will be provided on Report Stage. We accept the general principle.

I thank the Minister of State.

This amendment incorporates a proposal from the Labour Party and has been redrafted by the Attorney General. It also includes a reference to the "unincorporated body of persons" at his suggestion.

We thank the Minister of State for adopting an open-minded approach to our suggestions. This is a very significant amendment.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 10, lines 47 and 48, to delete "it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown," and substitute "it shall be open to the court, unless the contrary is shown, to infer".

I am advised that this section is potentially unconstitutional.

I accept the amendment.

I thank the Minister of State.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 11, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall apply to any other form of animal identification made under the Principal Act or regulations made under section 3 of the European Communities Act, 1972.”.

Senator Henry has informed me that the Minister of State may introduce an amendment to address this matter.

We accept the amendment in principle and a revised wording will be provided on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together.

I do not see how amendment No. 22 is related to amendment No. 21.

We will take them separately then.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 11, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2)Licensed meat factories and abattoirs are required to put in place an effective regime for checking the ears of animals and carcases. Where a licensed meat factory or abattoir has failed to discover a breach of subsection (1) of this section, where it could reasonably have been expected that they should have, its owners shall be individually or severally presumed, until the contrary is shown, to have been party or abettor to an unlawful act.”.

There is public outrage at what happened last week. It requires a political response. In a large factory where 30 vets were employed no one noticed that approximately 230 sheep had had their tags removed. In my student days I worked in quality control in meat factories. In my youth I worked in abattoirs and have skinned and dressed carcases. The idea that trained staff would not notice 230 animals passing through a factory with holes in their ears is beyond the bounds of credibility. It is unacceptable.

There is a mood to ensure that those at the bottom of the line will not be the only ones to be implicated. The big operators had an involvement in what happened last week. Effective action is required. The acceptance by the Minister of State of amendment No. 19, tabled by the Labour Party, means that its implications would apply to this amendment. On Second Stage I said that it was dangerous to lift the presumption of innocence and I am much happier with the wording of amendment No. 19.

There is a concern that were the requirement set out in the amendment to be accepted it would leave the legislation vulnerable to constitutional challenge. We are advised that the provisions of section 10 regarding the inferences that may be drawn by the court go as far as is permissible.

The Minister of State has a difficulty with the words in the amendment "shall be individually or severally presumed, until the contrary is shown, to have been party or abettor to an unlawful act".

There is concern that it would leave the legislation open to constitutional challenge.

I accept that point. On Second Stage I said that I would table this amendment on the basis that the relevant wording of section 10 was constitutionally sound. The Minister of State has accepted a change to that section which would be relevant to this amendment. It would mean changing the wording to the effect that it would be open to the court, "unless the contrary is shown, to infer".

We will look at the matter again before Report Stage.

I thank the Minister of State.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 11, before section 11, to insert the following new section:

"11.–Within one month of the commencement of this legislation the Minister shall prescribe and introduce procedures for the mandatory ear tagging of all sheep.".

My intention in this amendment is to give force to the Minister of State's hand in negotiations. I take it that the references in section 10 to the principal Act and to section 3 of the European Communities Act confer on the Minister the power, by the introduction of legislation, legislative order or statutory instrument, to introduce mandatory ear tagging. The Minister of State said that, on the advice of the Attorney General, section 4 has been drafted to give legislative effect to previous orders. I am taken by that novel approach. It is similar to what is suggested in the amendment which is drafted in such a way that it would not require ear tagging to commence in one month, rather it would require that the procedures be then introduced. They would outline the timescale for implementation.

It would be inappropriate to express such an aspiration in legislation. We are working towards implementation of the proposal. The IFA agreed to it last Saturday morning. Multiple suppliers are ready to proceed with tagging. It is a matter of securing agreement on how and when it will be introduced. Now that we have received the response we wanted from the IFA it will be introduced more urgently.

When does the Minister of State expect it to be introduced?

The current situation has been a distraction and removed officials from dealing with the matter. Now that the ball is rolling, we will act as fast as we can, I hope within a period of months.

I take the Minister of State's word on that. If that is his view, and I have not found him to be other than an honourable man, I do not consider it necessary to press my amendment on that basis. I will withdraw it.

If the situation is any different I will come back to the Senator on it.

The amendment to the Schedule simply replaces one word with another, with the same essential meaning, at the suggestion of the Attorney General.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Now.

Are amendments being considered for Report Stage?

I think there are two.

We are still awaiting the Attorney General's advice on two of the amendments.

Does the Deputy Leader wish to propose a short suspension of the House?

Yes, I propose that the House adjourn for 15 minutes. I understand the Minister of State's dilemma. If Senators are agreeable, perhaps when we return we could agree that this could be dealt with on Report Stage in the Dáil.

Or on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

Yes.

It will have to be reported back to us.

I realise that.

Is there any indication of when—

I propose that the House adjourn for 15 minutes?