When we adjourned last night we were dealing with sub-head (M). In connection with this sub-head, I want to raise a question as to the method of procuring statistics with regard to the agricultural conditions of the country—the number of acres of tillage, the number of cattle, and so on. The Gárda Síochána, taking the place of the old police, are responsible for collection of the returns. They give, on the information of the occupier of the farm, accurate returns, as far as possible, of the number of cattle of different ages, horses of different ages, sheep of different ages, tillage, hay, grass, and all the rest. Sometimes it happens that farmers have more than one farm, and that these farms are situate in different police areas or different District Court areas. A Civic Guard comes to the farmer and finds out the number of acres he has got altogether. Then he will deal with the amount of tillage and cattle on the particular farm which is situate in his police area. He will not deal with anything on the other farms, with the result, I take it, that no question has ever been asked in connection with his other farms. The result is that the returns in every case are not correct. The particulars of those farms, on which the farmer is not living, are not embraced by these returns at all. I would like to know if the returns thus compiled by the Gárda Síochána are available in any Government Department, and if they are available to Ministers and members of the Government, because I find references made in Cavan on Sunday last to questions arising out of those statistics.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES.—VOTE 48 (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE).—RESUMED.
Who is responsible for those statistics?
I understand the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible.
The Ministry of Industry and Commerce are responsible for the collection of these particular statistics. They collect them after consultation with us. The various forms are prepared in consultation with us, and the time and manner in which they are to be taken are approved by us.
Are the expenses for the collection of these statistics borne on this Vote?
Mr. HOGAN
No. There will be an opportunity to take up this question on the Vote of the Department of Industry and Commerce.
The Department of Industry and Commerce collect these statistics, and the expense will appear on the Vote for that Department.
I will only refer to it in so far as it affects the Department of Agriculture, where they are interested in correct statistics. A column is not set aside in those returns which would facilitate a Civic Guard, when he goes around on duty, in dealing with particulars of farms outside his own area. A farm outside his area, though belonging to a farmer living inside his area, is not touched upon. If some column was provided in the form which would enable the farmer's holding, even though it is outside the Civic Guard area, to be included in the return of statistics, it would be much better and more satisfactory. Correct returns are not given at all now, or asked for, in regard to what I may term outside farms. If some provision, such as I suggest, were made it would tend towards accuracy and correctness, and we have not those at present.
I would like to obtain some information on two points, the first of which is the position of the "Officer (Agricultural Labour Disputes)." Are we to understand that the duties of this officer are confined to dealing with agricultural labour disputes and that he is only paid when there are agricultural labour disputes? Is it expected that in such a case there will be sufficient number of agricultural labour disputes to warrant our paying him £594, plus bonus, for the current year, or is he supposed to be the stimulus to one side or the other in possible disputes for the purpose of keeping the occupation alive?
Mr. HOGAN
In what direction?
In either direction, whatever may be most likely to perpetuate the job. However, I take it there are other duties performed by this officer. I merely draw attention to the designation and I suggest that it is desirable to have at least a little explanation in regard to the position. We would like to know if it is a proper description of his office. Secondly, I would like some information as to the basis on which the allowance to farmers for keeping agricultural costings accounts—£600—is made and how many persons in the country are likely to participate in this grant. It is undoubtedly a very important duty and ought not to require a great deal of money to encourage it. I would like to know the views of the Department regarding the amount of encouragement necessary in this regard.
I would ask the Minister what the figure of £500 for publicity means. What form of publicity are we getting for the £500? Has it any reference to leaflets?
Mr. HOGAN
With reference to Deputy Gorey's point, a form is sent to the Civic Guard barracks which sets out that every Gárda collecting statistics is to collect, in his own area, particulars in regard to farms in that area. He goes around with that form in his hand and visits, say, a man who owns two farms, one inside and one outside the area. He gets particulars only in regard to the farm in his area; he refuses to take any particulars in regard to the outside farm. There is no column in which he could enter that information. Then some other member of the Civic Guards has to collect statistics in the area where the outside farm is situated. There is no farmer there and there is no house at which to call for particulars. That farm is likely to be missed. I will give an understaking to see whether, in circumstances of that sort, statistics in regard to the second farm, likely to be uncollected now, will be collected and I will take whatever steps are necessary to see that statistics are obtained either by way of empowering the Civic Guard to collect statistics, not only in regard to the farm inside, but also in regard to the farm outside the area, or by some other method. I will undertake to see if some suitable arrangements cannot be come to.
As the general rule, particulars are collected in regard to the quantity of land a man may have, but the details only refer to the particular area under the supervision of the Civic Guards.
I understood that the statistics were collected, not through the Civic Guard, but through a return sent to the occupiers of land, requesting them to forward particulars of stock and tillage and other things by a certain date. The Minister's statement came as a surprise to me when he indicated that they had reverted to the old practice that was observed in the days of the R.I.C. I was also unaware, until I looked up Estimate 51, that agricultural statistics were now under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I remember that, at least two years ago, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Merrick, dealt with that matter. Has a change been made in the interval?
Mr. HOGAN
The question of whether it is proper to have the statistics in connection with agriculture collected by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Industry and Commerce is something that could be debated in connection with the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce. I would suggest that the Deputy would defer this point until we come to the sub-head that provides moneys for that service. The particulars are collected by the Department of Industry and Commerce under circumstances I have set out, and after consultation with the Department of Agriculture. With regard to the collection of statistics by the Civic Guard, I take it the point that is troubling Deputy Gorey is to see that particulars in regard to a second farm will be collected. At present, under the system operating, it may be that particulars in regard to the second farm are omitted. I will give an undertaking to go into that matter and to consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce with a view to seeing whether that can be avoided.
With regard to Deputy Johnson's point, I agree that the description "Officer (Agricultural Labour Disputes)" is misleading, and should be changed. The Officer is one of the hardest worked men in the Department. He deals with agricultural labour disputes and all questions that have arisen, and they are extremely numerous, in connection with co-operative and proprietary creameries. He has done that work during the last two years. It is the principal work that he has been on and it is difficult work. It is work which takes up, not only his whole time, but the time of a large number of clerical and administrative officers. Between that work and minor duties in connection with agricultural labour disputes, his time is very fully occupied.
I was asked what sum was paid to each farmer for keeping accounts. The amount is £5. A sum of £600 is provided. There is provision for paying one hundred farmers in the Free State in connection with keeping accounts. I hope this year we will spend all that money. I think arrangements have been made for the keeping of accounts by four farmers in each county. As regards publicity, that consists largely of pamphlets printed and published by the Department, touching on organisation, feeding, diseases, manuring, and so on.
Under sub-head (M) (3), £100 is allocated for agricultural leaflets. Why should the amounts in this respect be divided?
Mr. HOGAN
These agricultural leaflets are of a different kind. They are brought out two or three times a year, and they deal with things that arise in the course of the year. For instance, there were leaflets in connection with fluke. The others are leaflets, some of which are printed annually. The provision also covers the production of new leaflets on new subjects which it is intended to keep on permanently and re-print.
As regards sub-head (M) (2), who is responsible for furnishing reports in regard to agricultural conditions and prices of agricultural produce at markets and fairs? Is it the agricultural instructors in different counties?
Mr. HOGAN
£15 each is paid to the agricultural instructors for providing reports in regard to agricultural conditions. In regard to the prices of agricultural products at markets and fairs, there is a nominal fee paid to clerks, local officials, for sending up the exact prices of the fairs and markets held during the week.
Under sub-head (M) (4), how does the figure of £19,000 compare with last year's estimate?
Mr. HOGAN
It is, in fact, the same figure. It is from the endowment reserves.
I would like to know from the Minister what the "etcetera" means under this sub-head. The sub-head itself is so wide that the word "etcetera" could mean anything from a stud turkey-cock to a wireless set for the village hall. I cannot imagine how the word "etcetera" would apply amongst such a collection as stallions, bulls, corn mills, and scutch mills. How are these loans being repaid? The appropriations-in-aid show that £8,000,000 have been repaid.
Mr. HOGAN
£8,000,000?
I should have said £8,000, as against the £19,000 we are voting. Is the policy of granting loans being extended? I think the Minister is very wise in lending money for the erection of village halls. Under this sub-head it is stated "Net sums advanced for ... erection of village halls and silos." Is it the policy of the Department to erect village halls? It might be a very useful thing to erect some place where the farmers of the village could meet and discuss matters. That would be useful in places where, at the moment, facilities are unavailable. I think that the most potent cause and the most potent factor that makes for emigration is the dullness of the country. A village hall, equipped with a wireless set would, for one thing, help a great deal and it would prevent the people in the country from crowding into the towns or going across the Atlantic. If that is the policy of the Minister, I think it is a good policy. We might be told what is being spent in connection with the erection of village halls, if anything is being spent, and I do not think it should be lumped in with such things as stallions, bulls, silos, and scutch mills.
Mr. HOGAN
Deputies are entitled to full information in regard to each sub-head; they have only to ask for it and, if it can be given them, it will be given. I will not attempt to define the word "etcetera." I will say exactly how much of the £19,000 is being spent. That is the way the sub-head has appeared in the Estimates always. Village halls, silos, and all the other matters have been lumped in. We are empowered, if we think it right, to grant a loan for the erection of a village hall, the erection of a silo, the purchase of a stallion, or the purchase of a bull. We put in the word, "etcetera," to save the trouble of coming later to the Dáil and possibly facing some criticism in regard, say, to the provision of a wireless set. Amongst the sums advanced were stallions, £5,000; agricultural implements, £10,000; and sprayers, which are also, I take it, implements, £3,000. Those loans are repaid at the rate of 5 per cent. The method of repayment varies with the particular loan; as a rule it is paid in instalments over three or four years. It would, to a great extent, depend on the loan. This sort of loan has always been made. I am not aware of the Department having lent money for village halls. It is not the intention to do so this year. Power has always been taken, but the Department have never actually exercised it. The method of repayment would obviously depend on the sort of loan it was—there are special methods with regard to stallions—and also it would depend on the amount of the loan. In the case of loans for sprayers, one man might pay his loan off in a year and another in two years. That matter is arranged on the recommendation of the instructor. These loans have always been met, and they are coming in every year in lump sums. Perhaps there would be a loan of £400 in respect of a stallion. That loan would be maturing for three or four years, and possibly the first year the owner would be able to pay £100. They do not pay on the principle of an annuity, with a sinking fund, but by instalments. A loan of £1,000 would be an unusually big loan, and I do not think we have ever gone up to that, but take a loan of £500: A man might say, "I will pay £100 the first year," and he could give good reason to show that he would have £400 spare cash at the end of four years. At the end of that time the £400 would come in. These loans have been going on for a long time, and consequently the appropriations-in-aid each year are pretty considerable.
Can the Minister point out where in previous Estimates special sums were allocated to this purpose? He stated that they were provided in previous Estimates. Can he point out in any of the sub-heads in previous Estimates where they were provided for?
Mr. HOGAN
I made two statements which I think were rather contradictory. I said in previous Estimates, and also from the Endowment Fund. You could hardly describe the Endowment Fund as estimates. This head under which they were dealt with in the Endowment Fund account was controlled to some extent by the Council of Agriculture; it never appeared on the Vote before.
I thought it rather a reflection on the Deputy for raising the matter, as the Minister said it has always been done. But it was never done as far as we know.
Mr. HOGAN
"Estimates" was probably a misleading word. These moneys were provided from the Endowment Fund, and this was the sub-head under which it appeared in these accounts.
Is this a legacy from the Department or the C.D.B.?
Mr. HOGAN
It is a legacy from the Department. I said that there were no loans for village halls. I have just learned that loans were made pre-war for village halls.
A matter which is only of less importance than village halls, or is even more important, is the question of providing a field for young men in villages to play football.
Mr. HOGAN
That would hardly be the function of the Department of Agriculture. What would the farmers say if we lent money for this purpose?
The Minister for Games will look after that.
Perhaps the Minister will look into it to see if something could not be done. It is not at all an immaterial matter; it means a great deal to young men to have some place in which to play, instead of endangering their lives on the roads by passing motors, or sitting together and doing nothing. It would be far better if some means were provided to give them a proper field in which to play games.
I think this is a question that should be raised on the Education Vote; the Minister for Education is supposed to produce a healthy mind in a healthy body.
It is generally supposed that agriculture does that.
In connection with sub-head (N) (1), I wish to raise a matter, although the details of the sub-head do not specify anything in regard to it. Yesterday when dealing with another part of the Vote the question of contagious abortion was touched on, and it was suggested that it should be left over and be discussed on this sub-head. I was saying yesterday that nothing, to my knowledge, has done more against the development of dairying in this country, has done more to break up cow-testing associations, has done more to break up the herds of the ordinary agriculturists than this plague of contagious abortion. In the space of ten years farmers have suffered from three visitations of this scourge. After building up dairies of a fairly good class of cattle, an outbreak of this disease has occured, and more or less swept away all that had been done. A further effort was made and a new herd obtained. Again, after a time another outbreak occurred, with the same result. If there is one thing more than another that is killing the dairying industry, the great key-industry of the nation, it is this plague of contagious abortion. There have been efforts of prevention by means of spraying and washing out, and recently advice has been issued with regard to injections, so as to render the cattle immune. I do not know how far that has been a success, because it has not had very much time to justify itself. In dealing with this the Government staff cannot spend too much time, cannot even spend too much money, in trying to help and advise and in looking for methods to deal with this scourge. Its cost to the country every year runs into millions; I do not think I would be exaggerating in stating that the losses amount to millions of pounds, and as a detriment to the development of the nation its effects cannot be overestimated.
I would like to know what is being done in regard to research, because research is the only way in which it can be dealt with, what steps have been taken with the great colleges in other countries that are dealing with the matter, and what does the Government intend to do to keep abreast, and, if possible, to get ahead of the other people who are dealing with the matter. I do not know if it is as bad in any other country as it is here. I know that here it is a national calamity, worse even than the fluke we have recently had. The fluke has done a good deal of damage in sections of the country, but this disease we have always with us; it is annually exacting a tremendous toll from the resources of the agricultural community, and I think too much cannot be said in urging the Government to spend money and to do what they can to cope with this scourge.
While this scourge has been in existence for a number of years, and while the Department has done a great deal of very necessary work to combat it, there is one thing lacking; the Department will have to take other steps. A large amount of money may be spent on research, and the more money spent on research in connection with this and other diseases the better, because such money would undoubtedly be well spent, but I, for one, feel that enough money is not being allocated for the purpose. But I know this, that where the instructions of the Department were closely followed in cases where this disease had taken hold in some herds, the disinfecting of buildings, disinfecting cattle, and above all, the feeding of cattle with a certain type of hay, the condition of the land on which some of these cattle graze, which are all important points, the results were good. Farms on which the disease had been for years changed hands and when the new owners followed accurately the instructions of the Department the disease became a thing of the past. I mention that for this reason, that while I approve of Deputy Gorey's suggestion regarding the importance of the Department taking steps to deal with this scourge which is such a mighty loss to the country—because there are some farms on which dairy cattle are lost year after year through it—I say that the Department should take steps to see that knowledge of everything that has been done so far by it reaches every farmer, and above all, that the preventive measures which the Department has suggested and which have proved successful should be made known to every farmer who is liable to be affected. I think the necessity for taking proper percautions should be brought home to the farmers. It is not a question of reporting it locally to the instructor, who cannot be in touch with every dairy farmer in the country, but that the Department must get in touch with dairy farmers whose herds are liable to it through being in contact with cattle that have been affected or otherwise. The Minister will have to find means of bringing home the knowledge of these matters to every farmer who is liable to have an outbreak of this disease on his land.
There is a footnote on page 179, dealing with the grant-in-aid. It says: "Any unexpended balance of the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account is subject to the regulations contained in the Second Schedule of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. The accounts in which the expenditure is recorded are examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General." I do not know whether there is in fact any account, or any credit to this account, existing and I am rather of opinion that it is intended to cover, not merely pleuro-pneumonia, but other diseases of animals. Whether that is so or not I am anxious to know whether there is any provision made, whether there are annual sums set aside as an insurance fund to meet possible calls under this Act for compensation. We ought not to lose sight of the possibilities, possibilities that an insurance company would take into account, that there may at some time be outbreaks of disease and demands for compensation. Under this Act there is a statutory liability to pay compensation. There are possibilities of outbreak sometimes, perhaps not just as great as the possibilities of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, but at least there are possibilities of outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, or other diseases of animals which are contagious. Having in view the experience of other countries as to the number of cattle which may have to be slaughtered, and the immense losses which would be occasioned to the country if that were to happen, I think we should be informed as to whether there are any sums set aside upon which calls would be made to pay the compensation, or whether it would simply necessitate new enactments and the raising of new moneys for the particular purpose when the occasion arose. I have no doubt we shall be told that the whole question of State liability and the possibility of calls upon the State cannot be treated as insurance, but if we knew that there was likely to be a call upon the State for compensation in case disease broke out of a widespread character, we might then feel it incumbent upon us to take steps beforehand, perhaps to call for contributory insurance for the purpose of meeting claims. Of course the argument is very well known, that if compensation is likely to be paid, the likelihood of hiding disease is not so great. It seems to me we ought to have in mind the possibility—remote, we hope—of disease breaking out, and the destruction and consequent loss of very many cattle. It is, I think, opportune that this matter should be raised and that we should understand the position of the Department in regard to it.
Mr. HOGAN
With regard to the question raised by Deputies Gorey and D'Alton, there is no doubt whatever that farmers suffer far more from contagious abortion in cattle than from practically any other disease. It would be very hard to measure the losses of the farmers, dairy farmers especially, each year as a result of it. They have dairy herds and their cows abort. They are counting upon so many spring calvers and so many autumn calvers. Once one cow aborts, they may expect others to do it also. The case is quite common where a man with twenty or thirty cows would experience fifteen or sixteen abortions per annum. It is extremely hard to measure the losses that would be sustained by this country, and every other dairying country, from this disease.
It is a subject which has been receiving the attention of the veterinary profession and of the State Veterinary Departments of practically every country in Europe and the United States. So far, there has been very little done to find anything that would give us any hope that a cure for the disease is likely to be found in the near future. Research is going on in Cambridge, in Scotland, Denmark, and especially in Sweden, going on in every country, in connection with it—that is to say, to find a cure. Like tuberculosis, we have not got very far. Most countries are considering the matter from the point of view of preventing the spread of the disease, once the outbreak occurs. The usual advice given to farmers is, the moment an outbreak occurs to isolate the cows—to keep the cows that will not react to the test in one place, and the affected cows in another place. You can say immediately whether cows have the germ of the disease in them. If they have, they will react to the test. I was listening to a lecture myself at the R.D.S. Show last year, in which the head of the London Veterinary College said that only a very small proportion of the herds of England were free from reactors, and that is very probably the case here. The point is, that even though a cow is a reactor, it does not necessarily follow that it will abort. In any event, there has been a test discovered which the Department will supply. It is easily applied, or the Department will make the test. The test will prove whether cows react or not, and that gives a certain amount of knowledge. If the cows are not reacting, there is no possibility of aborting. If you have 20 cows and one reacts, you had better sell her.
Sell her to some one else?
Mr. HOGAN
I should not have said sell her. You should get rid of her. But, even if most of the cows are reactors, and a farmer could not afford to get rid of them, it does not inevitably follow that they will abort. In fact, it is the exception rather than the rule that they would abort. The advice to isolate has been found impracticable so far as ordinary farmers are concerned, as they have not the facilities. As a rule, they have not got sufficient land to isolate the cows, and it would upset the whole economy of the farm for the year. So far as the big farmer or breeder is concerned, he has plenty of land as a rule to isolate them, and in that way save himself from most of the losses.
So far as the ordinary farmer is concerned, there is nothing that can be done that science can discover, except vaccinate, and sufficient tests have been made to justify the statement that vaccination, on the whole, is successful. I can speak with considerable knowledge on that point, because I have seen experiments carried out, and I know fairly well from practical experience what happened in these cases. It is the exception, and not the rule, so far as our experiments go, that the cow will abort, even if she reacts to the test after vaccination. The Department have taken up the attitude of advising vaccination, and a great many farmers, particularly in the South, are availing themselves of that advice and vaccinating their herds, and I do not know of many cases in which cows have aborted afterwards. The culture is prepared here and made available to the farmer on application and, whatever else may be known, I think it is fairly well known among dairy farmers that they can get it from the Department. It was believed, and it is still believed, that pregnant heifers should not be vaccinated, that cows should not be vaccinated until a considerable time after calving, and that a considerable time should elapse before they are vaccinated and mated again. Experiments are at present being made in the Veterinary Department in connection with these three points. As the farmer will understand, it is often most inconvenient to have to wait for three weeks before vaccinating certain cows. It is also rather inconvenient to have to defer mating cows after vaccination. It may put out all your plans in regard to winter milk, or in regard to having so many cows calving in spring, and so on. It is a nuisance. It is something that the farmer cannot do without losing money. It might mean that he would have to sell cows at the wrong time, or that cows are calving at the wrong time. Some of the money which was voted under the previous sub-head for veterinary research is to provide funds for an experiment which is going on under the head of the Veterinary Research Department on one of our farms in connection with these three points: to investigate the effect of vaccinating pregnant cows, just how long after calving you can safely vaccinate cows, and just how long after vaccination it is right to mate cows. These are the lines on which research is being carried on in connection with contagious abortion.
Whether we spend further money or not on this question, it is not only a question of money but of men. That is always the way in research. It is a difficult matter, as the number of competent researchers is limited in any country. So that when talking about research you must remember that unlimited money does not necessarily mean that you can start into research effectively all at once. There is the story of the American millionaire who wanted to found a University and was willing to pay £1,000,000, provided there were 1,000 researchers available to do some work which would require scientific knowledge that was only acquired by one or two scientists in Europe. We are doing research on these lines, and we have not lost sight of the fact that any discoveries, even on the lines I have mentioned, are extremely important. We have got out a great many leaflets in connection with this matter. They are got out immediately after the results are obtained. Everything I have said is in leaflet form, and has been circulated, and this leaflet is very largely bought. Research is being done all over Europe, in richer countries than this. We can always get the benefits of research in other countries practically immediately.
Mr. EGAN
Is it in contemplation to make notification of contagious abortion compulsory?
Mr. HOGAN
There was an Order made by the Department recently under which an owner of a cow is compelled to inform the owner of a bull that the cow did not keep service. It is not a notifiable disease. I do not know that there would be very much point in making it one, because the point in regard to notifiable diseases is that either the Department or the local authorities have some duties in connection with it.
Does the order apply to exposing for sale?
Mr. HOGAN
I think so. I will let the Deputy know, as I am not clear about it. There are at least 1,000 orders issued under the Diseases of Animals Act. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Johnson as to the Diseases of Animals Acts and the various accounts it is a highly complicated subject. These two accounts are very intricate, and will require some explanation. Let me say first that there are seven or eight Acts, all called the Diseases of Animals Acts, administered either by the Department or by the local authorities. The diseases dealt with, so far as I remember, are— cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, foot and mouth disease and swine fever. I will stop there and say these are diseases which the Department are responsible for and deal with direct. They are not dealt with by the local authorities, and they are paid for out of taxation. Of these diseases, the only important one at the moment, I am glad to say, is swine fever. Cattle plague is practically unknown and pleuro-pneumonia is very rare. Foot-and-mouth disease has not been in existence in this country for some years, but, of course, it may occur at any time. So that last year and this year the disease that we are really concerned with is swine fever. The diseases dealt with by local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Act and paid for by rate, except so far as the Department of Agriculture gives a grant-in-aid, are numerous—epizootic enphalitis, anthrax, and a hundred and one diseases. They do not occur very often. The diseases that the veterinary officer is called upon to manage are sheep scab and bovine tuberculosis. The House will remember the diseases which the Department is most concerned with are foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever, and the local authorities are concerned with sheep scab mainly and bovine tuberculosis. Although the pleuro-pneumonia account is a special account of the general cattle diseases fund, there are two accounts in that fund—the name of one account is the general fund account, and the name of the other is the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account. The general account is replenished by rate, and it is for the purpose of recouping local authorities certain of the sums which they pay in connection with the diseases that they deal with direct.
The cattle pleuro-pneumonia account is voted, except in cases where it is not in credit, and then there is a transfer made from the general account, which is the general cattle diseases account. It is paid by vote, and that is the particular account from which is paid the expenses which the Department incurs in administering the diseases I mentioned, notably swine fever. It is rather misleading that swine fever should be paid from an account called the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account. The cattle pleuro-pneumonia account is the account which finances any operations of the Department in connection with the four diseases I mentioned, of which only two are really urgent, swine fever, and foot-and-mouth disease. It is always a little in credit, but it is voted every year by grants from the Dáil. This year you have grants-in-aid of the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for the cost of execution of the Diseases of Animals Act as respects swine fever, £8,250. We do not contemplate that there will be any expenses this year in connection with cattle plague which I think is non-existent in the country for many years, or cattle pleuro-pneumonia. As far as foot-and-mouth disease is concerned there is a token grant of £400. That is a grant to enable us to come to the Dáil for one million or two millions, or whatever the amount might be, in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the country. Simplified, it comes to this, the only diseases we think it necessary to make provision for are these two diseases, foot-and-mouth disease, and swine fever. There are, as I pointed out, only four diseases dealt with directly by the Department; two of them are non-existent, but the other two, foot-and-mouth disease, and swine fever, are the only two which we can contemplate, so to speak, at the beginning of the year. It would be quite out of the question at the beginning of the year to ask the Dáil to vote a big sum of money for foot-and-mouth disease which we all hope may not occur. What we do in connection with it is to put on a token Vote to enable the Minister for Agriculture to ask the Dáil afterwards if necessary for an increase. But there is a full provision made for swine fever, and swine fever is practically non-existent, except in Dublin and perhaps a little in Cork and Limerick. These are the only two diseases that are provided for. The Pleuro-Pneumonia Account deals with these four diseases I named, and provision is always made under this sub-head. I think that covers the ground.
Perhaps it would not be out of order to ask whether there is any provision made in any of these accounts to—shall I say—form an insurance fund to cover losses that will be sustained by the closing of ports, owing to disease in other countries, and whether the Minister has considered the desirability of making provision in that respect by means of alternative use of the cattle which have been refused export facilities or otherwise. Perhaps this is opening a question rather a little bit aside from this particular Vote, but I suggest that this is the time when there is no restriction, or practically none, and when disease is not prevalent in either country, that the matter should be given consideration. I suggest the best insurance would be an alternative method of dealing with cattle refused facilities for export.
The Minister referred to "culture" being available for the farmers. I understand that six months ago it was not available.
Mr. HOGAN
It can always be had on application to the veterinary branch.
I thought it was through the local veterinary surgeon it was available.
Mr. HOGAN
I think the Deputy is right.
I think the Deputy is.
Mr. HOGAN
It comes to the same thing.
It comes to the same thing, but when you have to employ a Vet. to give the injection, in every case, it is a different matter.
Mr. HOGAN
Probably that was the reason for that arrangement.
Probably. I am not going into that. The present channels still hold. They are available through the veterinary profession.
Mr. HOGAN
It would be extraordinary that the farmer would start to vaccinate his own cows, considering that you require complete sterilization. No farmer I know, who has any sense, would attempt to do that work, which has to be done with the greatest possible care and with sterilization.
All these operations, and all this professional attendance, require a considerable amount of money.
Mr. HOGAN
The loss of the cow would cost more.
I am not quite satisfied, taking all the circumstances into consideration, that this ought not to be made a notifiable disease. Very drastic steps will have to be taken to try to stamp it out. Deputy D'Alton mentioned that by proper precaution, and by using all the means at your disposal, you could clear your premises of the disease. But it would creep in without your knowing anything about it. Anybody who has animals for stud purposes can very easily tell you that the first injection you give is when your heifers begin to abort. An injection of this vaccine is not recommended at a late stage in pregnancy.
Mr. HOGAN
What exactly is the point of making it notifiable?
It is a matter that can scarcely be dealt with by question and answer in the Dáil. It is a matter for serious consideration. Men who have animals of this description take them to the fair and make the best hand they can of them, and these animals pass the disease around the country. People who have these animals will not tell you anything about them, and this plague in that way is being kept alive all over the country. It has been said that the better-class milker is most subject to infection. I am not at all sure that the disease ought not to be made notifiable. Perhaps it is a matter that the Minister will take into consideration.
I would like to ask the Minister if he cannot see his way to make provision for recompensing owners of tubercular cattle. In the next Vote we actually vote money to local authorities for cattle suffering from tuberculosis that are destroyed, but these are cattle that are palpably suffering from the disease and are notified to the local authorities by the owner. The local authorities' Vet. certifies that they are suffering from tuberculosis. They are slaughtered and the owner gets compensation. There is a certain number of cases that occur every year in which valuable fat cattle, which show no sign of tuberculosis while they are alive, are found to be suffering from the disease in its initial stages, and the whole loss of these beasts falls on the last owner. I do not think that is fair or just or right. A beast, because it is well fed and in good condition, is sold, say, in the Dublin market, for £35 or £36. It is found by the Government Inspector after slaughter to be suffering from tubercular disease in its initial stage, and the carcass is condemned in the interests of the public. Why should the loss fall on the owner of that beast, who in the case of Dublin is generally the butcher? This man's property is lost for the benefit of the health of the community, and where the Minister makes provision for losses that may occur in the case of other diseases I would ask him to consider very seriously the possibility of providing for the recoupment of these losses. While the law, as it is at present, does not provide compensation for the loss of a tubercular beast which, while it is alive, does not show that it has tuberculosis, there is an enormous temptation to pass on as much as possible of that tubercular beast's meat to the public. You have the danger to the public health of that being done.
Might I ask the Deputy if he could give us any idea as to the number of cattle that have been condemned in recent years by the Public Health Authorities because of tuberculosis?
I want it to be clearly understood that the cattle I alluded to are not cases in which the beast was palpably sick and was simply condemned because the Government inspector found that out before the beef was eaten. The cases I have alluded to were cases in which the cattle were apparently in perfect condition. I have known of cases within the last two years of cattle costing over £40 a head being condemned when they were slaughtered, but the number of these would be very, very small. I do not suppose that, in the Dublin market, there would be more than ten or twelve cattle of that class in the year. I am not taking into account at all the cattle that are sent up from the country and sold at low prices on the chance that they will get through.
Have the Dublin butchers an insurance fund to meet that kind of case?
Unfortunately, I am not a Dublin butcher.
Mr. HOGAN
Is it the practice of the sanitary authorities to condemn the whole carcass, say, for one small tubercular lesion discovered after slaughter? I do not know myself what the custom is.
For one small tubercular lesion, the practice is not to condemn the whole carcass. A considerable portion is cut away and condemned, and they are allowed to sell the remainder. Even where a beast is condemned or where a carcass has a considerable number of lesions, when that beast showed no signs of disease when alive, and when, from the fact of its being sold as a fat beast to one of the best Dublin butchers—who would not buy it if he thought there was anything wrong—it would appear to be all right. I do not think it is fair that that Dublin butcher, who makes a point of buying well-finished cattle, should be at the total loss when the beast is condemned in the interests of the public health.
Mr. HOGAN
Before Deputy Johnson interrupted, I was going to say that Deputy Leonard and he were raising the same point. It all comes back to the insurance question. I think this is a loss that should be covered by insurance. If it is not, where are you going to end? It is an ordinary trade loss. Losses of the same kind are incurred in every business. If all these losses were to be covered by funds set aside by the State, then you would have very big funds so set aside, and you would have a very big increase in taxation. I think this is the sort of loss that should be covered by insurance.
I do not think that the provision made to recoup owners of tubercular cattle, whose cattle are slaughtered because it is considered to be good State policy to do so, in order to stamp out tuberculosis, should be extended any further than it must be extended. We do not, as a matter of fact, pay the whole cost in such cases. If the beast is slaughtered in the early stages of tuberculosis, the owner gets two-thirds; if slaughtered in an advanced stage, he gets one-third.
The question of insurance is a very big and a very important question. There are two or three classes of insurance. You may have voluntary insurance, arranged for by the farmers themselves through associations, or insurance arranged for by the State, or, if you like, insurance which is partly one and partly the other. I have considered that question very often. As far as insurance by the State is concerned, you are estopped there by the consideration which other Governments in a similar position are estopped—that if you admit that principle it might be carried a very long way. At the present time, Irish cattle slaughtered in England, provided they are not slaughtered within the period or at the detention port, are paid for by the British Government. Apart from any other consideration, you have to consider very seriously the possible reaction of making State provision here for insurance of Irish cattle. A good many people have been suggesting here and on the other side of the water, that, perhaps, insurance would be the right way to cover these losses in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. We have to be very careful not to do anything which would be construed as a departure from our position in insisting that Irish cattle, when slaughtered in England, be paid for by the British Government. On the other hand, there is a question as to whether the State could not help in some way organisations of farmers or butchers, of associations of that sort, to establish an insurance scheme. We probably could help, not so much by putting up funds——
By recouping.
Mr. HOGAN
Yes. But we have got to have a scheme put up by the farmers' organisations. They have got to do a little thinking on it themselves. Take the case that Deputy Leonard has just mentioned. That is obviously a thing that should be considered by a body like the Dublin butchers. Take the other case, where a couple of thousand pounds' worth of cattle were slaughtered in an English detention yard some time ago. Three or four dealers were very heavily hit indeed by that. The whole thing only amounted to £5,000 or £6,000, but the number on which that loss fell was very small, and in some cases they might not be very well able to afford it. That is a case where we could not possibly, for the reasons I suggested before, admit the principle that we should pay, but that is certainly a case for the cattle trade which is, I understand, amalgamated in one organisation. It is for them to put up some sort of insurance, and if we can be of any real help in any direction in connection with that, let them put the scheme before us, and it will be considered in a helpful spirit. We can do nothing until the scheme is put before us.
I do not know if there is any use in my raising the point I had in mind, because the Minister has just touched upon it now. I have been asked to refer to a case of cattle slaughtered at the time of the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I think it happened at the end of 1923. As the Minister said, some people suffered loss at that time who could ill afford to suffer it. He said that the only means of improving that is by insurance, but that it is up to the cattle trade to arrange that. I think that is right. I think it is up to the cattle trade——
Mr. HOGAN
It would, perhaps, be well if I should say now that what I suggested might not mean insurance, but might mean funds lying there which would be available. Probably that would be much better.
It would be some form of insurance. But the point is that there was no insurance in the past and no suggestion of insurance, and those men are in a very unfortunate position. They had no control whatever over the position. The cattle were shipped across like all Irish cattle, and they were quite free from disease. But, owing to the unfortunate outbreak of disease in the port, not conveyed from Ireland at all, but conveyed from England, those cattle were slaughtered. Some men lost practically their all, owing to the slaughter of those cattle, and they are still down and out on account of the loss incurred. The opinion I formed during the discussion was that the Minister was not adamant in this matter, that he was still open to consider it, and that he was still open to suggestions. I would like to know if his answer is absolutely final, and if he says that nothing can be done. I would ask him to give serious consideration to the losses that have been suffered, particularly by those men who had all their capital at stake. There were others who had only a small portion of their capital at stake, but I presume no distinction can be made. I would ask the Minister to say if it is possible that anything can be done?
Mr. HOGAN
No.
The Minister referred to the fact that certain diseases were being dealt with by the Department, and that others were being dealt with by the local authorities. I would be glad to know if it is the same veterinary inspectors the Department employ to deal with the diseases in connection with which they retain control as the local authorities employ?
Mr. HOGAN
No. The Deputy will see provision for these veterinary inspectors under another sub-head on page 180.
Then these are independent of the local veterinary surgeons for the other diseases. I wish to support the idea of Deputy Gorey that abortion should be made notifiable. It would be also a good thing if the Minister would consider the case of cattle that have been subjected to the tuberculin test and have been found tubercular. Those cattle—this specially applies to dairy cows—should not be allowed to be sent to the nearest town for the supply of milk to the people of that town. In cases where veterinary surgeons have applied the tuberculin test and found tuberculosis, cattle have been sent to Cork, Dublin, Limerick and other towns and their milk has been given to children, thus endangering their health. That is a very important consideration, because I am afraid there are a large number of dairy cattle tubercular in the country. I do not think there is the same amount of tuberculosis amongst fat cattle. This is an important matter, and I hope the Minister will give it consideration.
I understood that the cattle would have been inspected by the dairy authorities and that it would be impossible for them to be sold afterwards if they were tubercular. I understood that these cattle were always slaughtered after that inspection.
Mr. HOGAN
These are not the cattle to which Deputy Leonard referred at all. Really, the most effective form of insurance is undoubtedly a profitable dead-meat trade.
I would like to ask the Minister if what he has said on this matter is absolutely final.
Mr. HOGAN
I said all I had to say on that particular question.
I would like to know if this sum of £5,000 under sub-head (N) (1), is the same amount as was voted for this purpose last year. I would like to ask the Minister if changes have been made in the method of administering this Act in some of the counties, and what the changes are. Are they more satisfactory than the old methods, and does he intend that these changes should be made in all the counties? I would like to know what exactly his policy is. Is there to be a general policy of one inspector for every county, or are we to continue with three or four in some counties and one in others? I would like to have some explanation from him as to the changes he has made.
Is this the Bovine Tuberculosis Order?
Yes.
It should be N (2). N (1) is the Diseases of Animals Acts (Grants-in-Aid).
That is right.
Mr. HOGAN
It is the very same sum as last year.
The same sum?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes.
What amount of that was expended last year?
Mr. HOGAN
With regard to the point raised as to our policy in reference to the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act by local authorities, I think that applies largely to the veterinary surgeons who deal with the three diseases mentioned. As a rule, there were two or three in each county, and there was some question of changing that system. While it is very arguable that one veterinary surgeon, one whole-time officer for each county, would be able to do the work more efficiently, we have to try, and we are trying, to keep in mind the question of whether we could afford to dispense with the services of one or two veterinary surgeons in each county. We are trying to work out a scheme which will have as many of the advantages of both as possible. It will be a scheme that will enable us to control the work of the veterinary surgeons just as we control the work of a whole-time officer, and at the same time we will try to obviate having the local authorities dispensing with the services of one or two veterinary surgeons in each county. Next month there will be a conference with the veterinary profession, and this conference will deal with all the points arising out of that matter. Later on, when I get the figures, I will give the Deputy the exact sums spent last year.
took the Chair.
Is there any sum allocated for the working of the Dairy and Cowsheds Order? Is that Order being worked at all?
Mr. HOGAN
That question, surely, comes under the Department of Local Government?
Then it does not come under this Estimate at all?
Mr. HOGAN
I do not think it does. I was asked by the Deputy for some figures. Last year the figure was £2,500, and we spent slightly over £5,000. This year the Estimate has been increased to £5,000.
Does not that fact indicate that a pretty serious condition of affairs exists in regard to tuberculosis in our cattle? Was the £5,000 spent—I think it was calculated that only £2,000 would be spent—because the Act was not operated as it might have been, or is it an indication that the numbers of tubercular cattle are on the increase?
Mr. HOGAN
It is not an indication that the number of tubercular cattle is increasing. There were claims last year which were delayed, and it was necessary to increase the Estimate. The percentage of tuberculosis in our cattle and our cows is smaller than the percentage in any other country in Europe; it is very much smaller. That is due to the fact——
That they are fed out of doors?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes, fed out of doors.
In regard to sub-head (N) (4) I want some general information. Perhaps the Minister would make a statement on the proposed working of the Act. Would he state when he is appointing inspectors, what type they will be, when they will get to work, and the nature of the inspections that are to be carried out? Information on those points will be useful and instructive to the country.
Mr. HOGAN
The regulations for the purposes of this Act (Livestock Breeding Act, 1925) are being prepared, and we hope to be able to publish them immediately. We hope to have the application forms ready before the 1st July. These are the forms on which each owner of a bull will apply for a licence. We will circulate these forms to all the G.S. Barracks, the county committees of agriculture and the post offices. They will be available there. The forms will be quite simple, and all that will be required will be a few simple particulars which anybody can fill in. We hope these forms will be properly filled in and returned by the end of July. Different particulars will be required; ages have to be given, and so forth. There will be a considerable amount of clerical work entailed, because there are 33,000 bulls in the country. It will take a clear month before we have all the applications in. I am sure a month will elapse before all the forms are returned, properly filled in.
We hope to have inspections during the second week in September. We hope the Act will be in operation and licences issued on the 30th September. That is the programme we are working on, and I do not think we will have any difficulty in keeping to it. Posters will be displayed all over the country indicating the course to be followed in regard to the operation of the Act. There is one point I would like to refer to, and that touches on the question of age. All bulls calved before the 1st January must be inspected first. Subsequently, all animals calved during the first half-year up to the 30th June must be licensed before the 31st March of the following year. The animal might be nine months, or might be fourteen or fifteen months. All animals calved during the second half of the year must be licensed before the 31st August. That is the important point. For the first inspection, all bulls calved before the 1st January, 1925, must be presented for the inspection which will take place during the second week of September. The Act will be in actual operation on the 30th September.
Will the Minister give any indication as to what class in the community the inspectors will be drawn from? What will be done in that regard?
Mr. HOGAN
There will be twenty inspectors appointed temporarily at two guineas a day, and there will be twenty assistant inspectors appointed. That will be forty altogether. Then I am sure we will find at least 100,000 others ready to help.
I was not concerned with the number to be appointed. What I am anxious to know is what class they will be drawn from.
Mr. HOGAN
Well, there is no particular class.
From the Cumann na nGaedheal Party?
Mr. HOGAN
They will, at any rate, mainly be farmers.
The Farmer Deputies themselves are anxious that the inspectors would be drawn from persons who own cows.
Mr. HOGAN
As I say, they will mainly be farmers.
Was there not an arrangement come to that eight out of twelve would be owners of dairy cows and four would be owners and breeders of bulls?
Mr. HOGAN
I do not think so. You cannot segregate them like that. You have many farmers owning cows and bulls at the same time. There is a point in what Deputy Nolan has raised. It would, of course, be absurd to go to pedigree breeders and pick them out for the purpose of dealing with ordinary bulls. I may say that I have no idea as to who is to be appointed. I know that there are breeders of pedigree stock who would be first-class judges of bulls for the purposes of this Act, and whom most of the farmers' organisations would agree to. I would not like to rule out any particular class. We will try to get efficient, practical farmers who know their business.
I observe there is no provision for veterinary inspectors in connection with that Act. What provision is being made for the veterinary inspection of bulls?
Mr. HOGAN
We have our own veterinary staff.
Then it is not included?
Mr. HOGAN
No, it is not included.
There are some matters under sub-head (o) (1) Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act, 1924, that deserve attention. This act was recently put into operation, and its provisions are coming into actual practice. Has the Minister any definite idea with regard to whether the stamp should be affixed by the exporter or, as we hold, at the source of origin? I think the Minister provided that whichever would be found the most practical, it would be given effect to. The Minister provided that in the Act. I have gone to considerable trouble during the last six or eight months to find out the opinion of people who interest themselves in egg-production. The unanimous opinion was that they prefer the stamp to be affixed at the source of origin, for several reasons. First of all, it fixes responsibility, and, secondly, and most important of all, you arrive at the ideal you wish to attain in the least possible time. There is also the question of expense. If the exporter has to do, or has to get done, the stamping, when dealing with eggs in large quantities, it will mean that extra hands have to be employed, and responsibility will not be so fixed. It cannot be fixed on the exporter, and it will not be fixed on the people who send in the eggs—the suppliers. The exporter will compensate himself for the labour employed in branding, and for any loss created by differences in grade. It will not in any way ensure a quick response to the principle underlying the Act. I have spoken to a lot of farmers in the country, and farmers' wives, people interested, and they are unanimously of opinion that the proper way is to have the stamps applied at the source of origin.
Mr. HOGAN
Stamping the eggs?
Yes.
Mr. HOGAN
Nothing has been decided yet in regard to stamping them.
I thought that the exporter was to stamp them?
Mr. HOGAN
No.
What are you going to do with the eggs, then?
Mr. HOGAN
We have power to stamp them, but that is not yet exactly decided upon. No regulation has been made.
What did the Minister mean, during the discussion on this particular Act, when he said that they will take power to apply either method, whichever is most effective?
Mr. HOGAN
I do not quite understand. What are the methods?
How are you going to have responsibility if you have no brand?
Mr. HOGAN
A brand on the eggs?
Yes. How are you to deal with unsound eggs?
Mr. HOGAN
This is the argument on the Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act all over again. If the Deputy has decided views on that point in connection with the branding of eggs, I would be glad to have them fully considered. The regulations have not yet been prepared, and there is no decision one way or the other in regard to that, though the Act will be in operation in August.
I have very decided views, and these views are reinforced by the volume of opinion I have been able to ascertain. If the Minister is prepared to consider that matter, it meets my view, and we are prepared to put up a recommendation.
Mr. HOGAN
Certainly.
If the Minister would look at the Official Reports he would see that we put up amendments when the Bill was going through. He will find there sufficient reasons for accepting this point of view.
Mr. HOGAN
That is the point I have just made, that this was all argued.
Yes, pretty exhaustively.
I want to deal with the question of the appointment of the inspectors provided for under this sub-head. I notice, not alone in this case, but in every case where an appointment to the public service is to be made, that the advertisement states that ex-members of the National Army will get a preference, and that the appointments will be made by a selection board appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I take, and have always taken, the view that no citizen has any more right than another to an appointment in the public service where the taxpayers' money is being spent, and I do question very seriously if one citizen, whether he has been in the National Army or not, has higher qualifications than any other man when it comes to questions of appointments of this or of any other kind. We all know perfectly well that whatever service was rendered, and there was good service rendered by the men who joined the National Army, whether individuals joined for patriotic or for other motives——
Mr. HOGAN
What other motives?
I was coming to the point, if the Minister would refrain for a moment from interrupting me, that they were well paid for the services, whatever they were, that they rendered. The Estimates that have been passed here are the best indication of that. If such a thing should ever have existed, the time has now arrived at any rate when that bogey should be dropped. The same kind of thing was put up after the European war by Mr. Lloyd George and his friends, that the men who fought and won the Great War for England were the men who should get work and positions which were in the privilege of Ministers of the State and the Government to give.
With regard to the Selection Board, I have read a speech made by the Minister for Finance at some dinner in the City of Dublin, where he said that neither he nor any of his colleagues have power to appoint even a shorthand-typist. I question that very much indeed, because I have discovered, and I think it should be within the knowledge of Deputies, that the men who compose the Selection Board appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners, are generally the heads of Departments of the State, or very highly-placed officials. We all know that these men, whoever they may be, are very largely under the thumb of the Ministry, and for that reason appointments made in cases of this kind must have some bearing on the minds of the Ministers in regard to individuals who have made application. I am making no accusation against the Minister for Lands and Agriculture at all, but against other Ministers.
You are just making the sort of speech that is typical of you. The Deputy always avails of the privilege here to throw slander at people outside.
That is just typical of the kind of mud that the Minister is capable of throwing at Deputies.
The Deputy cannot discuss these matters on this Vote.
I am raising the question of the right of people to appointments on merit, apart from political influence and service in the Army.
Mr. HOGAN
Would the Deputy explain "political influence" in connection with this? I have clearly got his point about National Army men; I understand what it means, but I want to understand what he means about "political influence."
I have made a statement, and the Minister is quite capable of understanding it, that the Selection Board, as far as one can understand, select men for positions of this kind in accordance very largely with the wishes and views of the heads of Departments of State. Is that so or not?
What has that got to do with it?
Mr. HOGAN
Deputy Davin is of the opinion that ex-National Army men should not get a preference; I am of opinion that they should. I am quite clear that they should. I will not enter into the question of why these men joined the Army. Deputy Davin thinks they joined the Army for pay; so do a great many others. I have my own views about that. That does not arise. I am clearly of opinion that ex-members of the National Army should get a preference.
To what extent?
Mr. HOGAN
I am clearly of that opinion, and it is the view of the Government, and I believe of the majority of Deputies that ex-members of the National Army should get a preference, and they will get a preference. Deputy Davin has the opposite opinion. He has a right to hold it.
I want to say to the Minister for Finance that this is an honest opinion and is, I hope, as honest as his opinion is on many matters.
I believe it.
Mr. HOGAN
I do not know why the Deputy flaunts his honesty.
The mud-slinging Minister for Finance doubts it.
I do, frankly.
Thanks for nothing.
Not at all.
Mr. HOGAN
On the question of the Selection Board, Deputy Davin, of course, thinks that everyone can be got at. I cannot help that; I cannot persuade him that they cannot. I am merely stating that there are people who do think otherwise, and that really everyone has not got his price, whether it be money or political influence. That is all that is in it.
I did not say that at all.
Mr. HOGAN
Deputy Davin thinks that most people can be got at. He will learn when he gets a little older that there are people who cannot be got at, and I am absolutely satisfied, and I have good reason to be satisfied of this, because a good many appointments have to be made in connection with my Department, that I would not for one dare to attempt to influence any Selection Board set up by the Civil Service Commission. I know what would happen if I did. The Civil Service Commissioners and the selection boards cannot be got at by a Minister with influence of any kind. The heads of the Civil Service are men of character and reputation, and the fact that a senior officer, let us say, of the Ministry of Local Government or of Defence, or of Finance, is on the selection board to make an appointment, say, in the Land Commission does not mean that I can go to him and get at him. That is not done. We have our own responsibilities, number one, which would prevent us attempting it, and the particular officer in question, who is usually a high official, who is usually put there because he has some special knowledge, cannot be got at. Therefore, from both points of view it is out of the question.
The Minister has made a statement which raises a certain doubt in my mind. He stated that the Civil Service Selection Board might be composed of the heads of Departments, as, for instance——
Mr. HOGAN
I said senior officers.
Of the Local Government Department, in the case of the selection of Land Commission officials. If we take it that the Committee appointed to select Land Commission officials consists of one of the high officials of the Local Government Department, one of the Department of Finance, and so on, it seems to me that such a committee is quite incapable of selecting men to do Land Commission work, or to select the right men to carry out inspections under the Land Act.
Mr. HOGAN
Supposing there is an appointment which requires a certain amount of technical knowledge, administrative knowledge, and a good general education, and that this appointment cannot be made by examination, the proper selection board would be composed of somebody who has a technical knowledge of the particular work, say, the inspection of land, creameries, or anything else, and somebody else who would be a fair judge of general education, who would have to make up his own mind in conjunction with the man who would have the special technical knowledge of the general education and of the administrative ability of a particular applicant. That is all that there is in it. I picked out at random a couple of Departments, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Local Government, and spoke of appoinments in the Land Commission. These were, of course, picked out at random. I am merely pointing out that for every appointment that cannot be made by examination, and which requires a certain amount of technical knowledge, a certain amount of administrative ability, and a certain amount of general education, you must have a selection board made up of different kinds of people, people who have the requisite technical knowledge, the requisite administrative experience, and who are fair judges of what standard of education is necessary for the appointment. That is all.
In connection with 0.2 (E) "Educational work in connection with the Act," would the Minister say if any money was spent on similar work in last year's Estimate? Would that include any of the work that would be done by the College of Science, such as "Creamery course at Cork University College," and "Equipment for creamery course"? I would like to know if the sum that was spent under another head, last year, say, has been turned over to this, if there is a corresponding reduction in another part of the Estimate compared with last year, and if it is brought in here under this head now.
Mr. HOGAN
Practically the same sort of work was done last year at Cork University, but we expect more students and we provided somewhat more money for that purpose this year. There are certain courses at University College, Cork, for creamery managers. The scholarship amounts to free tuition and a maintenance allowance. I forget for the moment what the maintenance allowance is. There is also provision for the practical training of buttermakers, and perhaps creamery managers, at creameries, and the scholarship amounts to a maintenance allowance of 15/- per week, and a small fee to the creamery. That was provided for last year under a different sub-head, but it is increased by a small amount this year.
Am I to understand that there is a sum in any other part of the Estimate with this to cover similar work?
Mr. HOGAN
In any part of this year's Estimate?
Yes.
Mr. HOGAN
I am not quite sure about that.
We have here £1,134 for the administration of this Act. Does that sum include a certain sum to be spent on educational work in connection with creamery training this year, a portion of which sum was also spent, or some similar work done, last year?
Mr. HOGAN
I think last year was the first time we gave any special courses in University College, Cork.
But is there an endowment in connection with the work of the College of Science?
Mr. HOGAN
There is.
Apart from this altogether, is there a sum set aside for creamery work in the College of Science?
Mr. HOGAN
Certainly, in connection with the Munster Institute.
The point that Deputy Baxter is trying to make has not been answered. I maintain that this sum of £2,400 is not properly placed in this Vote at all. We will be told by the Minister that the administration of the Dairy Produce Act costs so much, and he includes this sum for the training of creamery workers.
Mr. HOGAN
That is arguable. It is a question for consideration whether estimates for educational work should not be brought all together. This educational work was undoubtedly done in connection with the Act last year for the first time — deliberately done. The Deputy may fairly state that we might abstract that from the total. It does not amount to so much.
Comparisons have been made with regard to the amount spent by the Government and the farmers for the working of this and other Acts. It is rather important that no amount should be included which would make it appear that the Government is spending on the Act more than it is spending.
Mr. HOGAN
No.
As to the particular headings under which these Estimates should appear, we had last year an agreement that certain items might better appear under other headings. This year these items continue under the same heading, notwithstanding that agreement.
Mr. HOGAN
Is the Deputy referring to this Vote?
I am not referring particularly to this Department.
Mr. HOGAN
Then it does not arise.
We are discussing educational matters, and the Minister has agreed that it would be more appropriate that all educational matters should appear under one Vote.
Mr. HOGAN
I said it was arguable.
The Minister agrees it is arguable. Whose duty is it to regulate these different Votes and the order in which they appear.
Mr. HOGAN
The sub-heads are changed this year, and much simplified, and I think the Public Accounts Committee agreed with the reorganisation.
Whose duty is it to regulate the order in which the Estimates appear before us?
The Department of Finance, but it must, in making any changes, consult the Public Accounts Committee.
Is it only the recommendations of that Committee that will be considered by the Department of Finance, or will recommendations be made by the Department of Finance and put before the Committee?
Normally the Department of Finance would move first.
The suggestion will have to be considered by the Department for Finance as to whether these educational estimates should not more properly be grouped under one head.
In this case the matter under discussion is special educational work in connection with the Act, and to treat this as a sub-head that would be the basis of future Estimates is rather unwise, unless we are assuming that the education work in connection with the Act will be a perpetual procedure. I take it this is special work in connection with the initiation of the Act.
Mr. HOGAN
It is.
And will not appear again.
Is that so?
Mr. HOGAN
I said it was arguable, and that is as far as I can go. I have often considered the Estimates from the point of view of whether certain items should not be transferred from one sub-head to another. There are good reasons for and against. I am not saying that my personal opinion even would be that this should be transferred back to some educational sub-head, especially in view of the fact, as Deputy Johnson has pointed out, that this particular educational work is done in connection with the Act. Of course we might argue whether it is in connection with the Act or not, but was done because of the Act, and in connection with the policy which the Act is also trying to further. One might argue that that would apply to the courses in the Munster Institute. On the other hand, this expenditure would not be incurred but for the Act. It was to meet the want that we felt would be there when we were looking for good officials at the beginning. It is a very big question, which you cannot argue on a sub-head, as to whether the whole organisation of the Estimates might be changed. There is a lot to be said on that point.
This is really not an educational grant at all, as it includes maintenance allowance to pupils. I presume any educational vote is not going to be based upon providing maintenance for pupils. For instance, part of this is for the training of butter-makers. There must be something exceptional about that. As a State we are going to train buttermakers?
Mr. HOGAN
We are doing it.
If we are going to adopt that course we are going to interfere with the normal course of events.
We voted money last year for the same purpose.
Last year, I presume, was also a special year. I presume that is not going to be a continuing policy— at least I hope not.
It has been going on for years.
I presume buttermaking is going to be a highly lucrative employment in which the people themselves and those who employ them will see that they are properly qualified. In this particular ease, I should say it was in the nature of a special course, and that the main bulk of it would disappear in a short time.
This particular sum is justified because it is required to make the Dairy Produce Act a success by having special training. I do not see why it should come under the heading of education. I know of no vote that is so necessary. Farmer Deputies, like Deputy Hogan, who have knowledge of what is being done in preparation in order to make the Act a success, will appreciate the necessity for this particular education.
Mr. HOGAN
As to the scholarships, supposing we agree to give a scholarship of £49 per year, we either hand that over to the student or we can tell him to go to Cork University and that we will pay 15s. per week for maintenance and £10 fees. That would come to £49. That is all there is in it.
I quite agree with the principle of maintenance being included in scholarships. In fact they would be no use without it. The ordinary observer outside the Dáil sees in the estimates that we spend so much on education. That is not a correct figure, because we find that, in addition to the sums that appear under education, large sums for educational purposes are administered under the agricultural Vote. So that the sum put down in our estimates for education does not represent the money actually spent on education. From that point of view it is desirable, and the opinion has been expressed outside and conveyed to the Minister for Finance, that our accounts might be made much more simple and definite. All the steps that can be taken in that direction would be desirable, not only for Deputies but the public.
Following out his argument, does Deputy Good suggest that the Minister for Education should be responsible for the expenditure of this money?
No.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Then there will be difficulty in making a distinction and putting it under the education Vote.
It could be put under a sub-head of the education Vote, and we would then know what is the total amount that is being paid for education. I do not know whether Deputy O'Connell knows what is being paid. Certainly I do not.
On sub-head (o) (3) I should like to ask for some information. How many areas have we scheduled as black scab areas?
Mr. HOGAN
Two.
What is the extent of these areas? How long have they been scheduled? What are the possibilities of wiping out the disease? How far has the work of the propagation of specially selected seed proceeded, and what are the possibilities of the success of that seed in those areas, so that part of this Vote might be eliminated?
Mr. HOGAN
It is, in fact, being eliminated gradually. The Vote for 1923-24 was £3,664. That was a special grant for the propagation of immune varieties of seed. There are two of these areas scheduled. They are small areas, but I could not give details as to the size. The fact that black scab has only appeared in two areas has justified the policy of isolating the areas.
How long is it since they were scheduled?
Mr. HOGAN
Certainly before I became Minister for Agriculture. They are scheduled three or four years— one of them at least. The policy of the Department is to schedule the area to prevent export or import except under stringent conditions and to make arrangements for the propagation and distribution of immune varieties of seed. I would not like to say how long they will remain scheduled. We are very lucky that black scab has spread only to this very small extent. It would be a very serious thing to take off the ban until we are abundantly satisfied that there is no danger. Our investigations in regard to immune varieties of seed, and in regard to the disease in general, have not given any results that would justify the holding out of a hope that these particular areas will be made free areas within any short time. I do not think there is any possibility at present of removing the limitations they suffer under. On the other hand, we have spent a considerable amount of money in propagating and distributing immune varieties of seed, and for that reason we are able to reduce the sum under that particular sub-head.
With regard to (o) (4), I would like to get some information from the Minister. The other day a statement was made, I think by the Minister, that the Weeds Act was again going to be enforced. I would like to know if proper investigation has been made into the question of spreading weeds in the country. I know an intelligent farmer who maintains that thistles are not spread by the blowing of seeds, that they are spread by roots. To all intents and purposes seeds do not cause any great spread of thistles. That may seem a rather ridiculous statement to make, but I have known where thistles have been cut year after year and they still persist in growing.
Mr. HOGAN
Cut after seeding?
No; they are cut twice a year. I know that sometimes they are cut after seeding, but in the case I speak of they are cut before seeding, and there are farmers who maintain that, to a certain extent, it is a waste of public money to enforce this Act. I am not saying that that is correct, but I think it is a subject for investigation. The enforcing of the Act means the employment of a number of inspectors, and a great deal of worrying to farmers. I would like to be satisfied that we are fully justified in voting the amount required for such an item of expense.
Mr. HOGAN
My opinion is that thistles are propagated by seed and that is the opinion of the Department of Agriculture. Supposing the Deputy were satisfied on that I would like to have his opinion as to whether the Act should be administered.
If that is so I say yes.
With regard to sub-head (o) (5), I do not really know what the conditions are, but the question Deputy Roddy put down would indicate that some quantities of foreign bacon, however small, are coming into this country, and the possibility of that stuff being re-sold, or re-exported, as Irish bacon, is something I would like to have information on. There is a considerable consensus of opinion that sufficient attention is not being given to this question of looking after our exports and seeing that products of no other country are being sold as products of this country, and that our products are not being misrepresented. I have been told that it is customary for even business men in our own country to make people believe that the bacon they are selling is Irish bacon, whereas it may be Canadian or Danish, and not alone bacon, but many other commodities as well. I am not satisfied that two inspectors are sufficient to look after all this, through the length and breadth of the country. I think two are not nearly sufficient to do it. I do not know what the position was in other days, but I think a considerably larger number of inspectors were engaged on this work. I do suggest to the Minister, if the function of these inspectors is to see that none of the products of the Irish farmer is being misrepresented by having stuff from other countries sold here in the name of Irish agricultural products, that two men are not enough to do that work. If it is worth the money spent on the salaries of two men it is worth while doing it right.
On the other hand, I am informed that during the strike in Denmark recently a very considerable quantity of Irish butter was exported in kegs, and, of course, that means that it was sold in England as Danish butter, and it was sold when the market was against Irish butter to the extent of 20/- a cwt.
That is a matter for the English inspectors.
It is the other side of the question. We are selling Irish butter, and it is sold in England as Danish butter. If the extra price went to the farmer I would be satisfied, but it does not go to the farmer. I do not know whether the Minister's long arm could reach such a case. If he can by any means get us the price that is paid for Danish butter, we will not object so long as we get the money.
I would like to ask the Minister if he has any information that Canadian hay came into the port of Dublin.
Mr. HOGAN
That is a different point. There was no allegation that Canadian hay was sold as Irish hay. Canadian hay is coming in in very small quantities.
These two inspectors are engaged mostly in investigating the question of whether butter contains margarine, or whether margarine is sold as butter. That is their main work. I am not contending that these inspectors are sufficient to deal with questions arising in England, especially as to whether foreign produce is being sold as Irish produce. They would be, of course, utterly inadequate for that. We have not yet made final arrangements for inspectors of that sort in England. The reason is we are not quite sure of the number that will be required, and whether they should be part-time men or officials appointed by the High Commissioner or whether we should make use of certain people, perhaps in trade in England, for that purpose. All these questions are being considered, and we will be in a better position to judge whether Siberian butter is being sold as Irish butter, or Chinese eggs as Irish eggs, when we have the Dairy Produce Act and the Eggs Act some little time in operation. These two inspectors, as I say, were mainly employed in taking samples of butter. Of course they had to take samples in every case reported to them. There are a few inspectors at present in England controlled by the High Commissioner and provided for in this Vote.
With regard to the case mentioned of foreign pigs coming into Sligo and being exported to England, there is an allegation that they were sold in England as Irish bacon. We are investigating that at the moment. We have not got any information that it is so It may be, but it will be investigated to the end. We will be able to trace the bacon undoubtedly. We will be able, I think, to make sure whether that was in fact sold as Irish bacon or not, and we can take steps accordingly; but we have not succeeded in getting that information as yet. I said there were two cases; but, I think, that was the only case that was brought to my notice.
The Minister has pointed out that the inspectors that are referred to here have as a duty mainly the testing of whether butter as sold retail contains margarine or whether margarine is being sold as butter. I wonder whether there is a duplication of responsibility in this matter between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice. Chicory sold as coffee is another instance of adulteration. Are we to take it that only in respect of the adulteration of butter, or the misdescription of butter, is the Department of Agriculture responsible? It seems to me the time has come for the proper allocation of duties in respect of the sale of impure food or the detection of adulteration. I cannot see why this particular police function should be the function of the Department of Agriculture, when all other similar functions in respect of the adulteration of food is under a different Department. I would suggest to the Minister that he should have this matter discussed with the Minister for Justice and arrange for the bringing together in one Department of all the police functions in respect of misdescription, false description and adulteration of food.
Mr. HOGAN
I agree that the co-ordination of all these services is undoubtedly a question for consideration, not only here, but in England. It is a big question. It is bound up also with our trading in other countries, and with the whole question of appointing trade agents. Having the right sort of agents makes the question a big one.
I think there is a distinct difference between the question of the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture acting on behalf of producers in respect of the sale of produce in other countries, and the question I have raised. They would not initiate or be responsible for a prosecution in another country. As regards goods sold in this country to the detriment of the consumer, that is a matter which surely should be the business of the Department of Justice, rather than the Department that represents the producer. That is where I make a distinction. I think it is quite clear.
Mr. HOGAN
I do not think that that was the point of view behind the provision of this particular service. They inspect creameries and factories more than shops. I think it was from the point of view of the producer that this particular service was instituted.
Does the Minister mean creameries mixing margarine with butter?
Mr. HOGAN
And factories.
Would the adulteration of foodstuffs referred to by Deputy Johnson not come under the duties of the local authority?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes. Of course, Deputy Johnson's point is that there should be co-ordination of these services. I agree.
I would like to ask the Minister if there is any general inspection under this heading, and if there are any discoveries that there is adulteration being carried on, and prosecutions, because there is complaint now and again that this matter is not being attended to by the Department of Agriculture. A number of inspectors were previously engaged on this work who are not engaged on it now, and a good deal of stuff has been sold as Irish agricultural produce that is not Irish produce.
Mr. HOGAN
It is not quite as bad as it looks, because they generally get information. It is not a question of scouring the country or of rushing into this shop or that. They generally get information, one way or the other, as to cases of adulteration, and they can so deal with specific cases. I am aware that since the year 1922 there were not more than two inspectors on that work under the Department of Agriculture. I can vouch for that. I do not know what happened before that. There have been prosecutions; there were a good many prosecutions last year.
In regard to sub-head (o) (6) perhaps the Minister will explain why the "Allowance to Chief Agricultural Analyst" is indicated as "nil." The foot-note is, "In abeyance at present." This office has to do with the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Acts. In years gone by, at any rate, the duties carried out by the agricultural analyst under this Act were, I am aware, very valuable. They were taken advantage of largely in connection with manures and feeding stuffs. I would like to know whether there is any other Department doing the work that was hitherto done by the chief agricultural analyst, or whether it is undone. If it is undone, it would be well if we had some information as to the reason. There is no doubt that impurity and uselessness are very prevalent in regard to many manures and feeding stuffs from a chemical-analysis point of view. A great many of these articles are marketed, and this Act, if I remember rightly, imposed upon the seller of an article the responsibility of stating the analysis. There surely must be some check as to whether that analysis has been maintained in respect of the article sold. If there is no officer on whom the responsibility lies of testing submitted samples, it means that the Act is in abeyance. If the Act is in abeyance, probably many people are being defrauded because of the sale of useless manures, and unsatisfactory feeding stuffs.
Mr. HOGAN
It would be extremely serious if that service were dropped, or even left in abeyance. The allowance is not there, but the office and the service are there. The reason for that is that, as a matter of general policy, it has been decided that all the analysis shall be done in one Department by the Chief State Chemist. Officials in other Departments who have been doing that work have been transferred to the Department of the Chief State Chemist. He is now doing the analysis for this Department and for every other Department, with special officers, of course, for special work. The inspection of manures, fertilisers, and feeding stuffs, is done by all the instructors and inspectors of the Department, except the veterinary inspectors. There is no falling-off whatever in that regard. The inspection is taking place, and is being carried out at least as energetically as ever it was. We all realise the necessity for that service. No Department of Agriculture could do without a Department which would make analysis available to the farmer to show whether or not fertilisers or manures were up to standard. That is being done at present by the Chief State Chemist, who has a special staff for that purpose.
If this sub-head is to be kept in the same form in the Estimates of next year, I hope there will be a footnote stating that the work is being done by another Department. As it is, the footnote is misleading.
Mr. HOGAN
It is misleading.
Who is responsible as regards the prosecution of those who are selling foodstuffs that are not up to the analysis made two or three years ago? Is there any way of proving that that food or manure is up to the standard which it reached when put on the market some years ago? Is there any analysis in cases where this stuff is not what it pretends to be? Is the Department to which these functions have been transferred taking steps to protect purchasers against those who are using their position to sell manures and feeding stuffs to the public which are not up to the standard?
Mr. HOGAN
The Chief State Chemist merely analyses. The other functions are carried out by the Department of Agriculture. The Chief Chemist has nothing to do except analyse and produce a certificate.
Would the Minister say whether there have been any prosecutions recently under this Act?
Mr. HOGAN
There were prosecutions last year. So far as the experience of the instructors goes, there is no deterioration in the quality of manures, seeds, or fertilisers.
Under sub-head (p) (Appropriations-in-Aid), I want to put a few questions. I see in the fourth line, "Receipts from students' fees, sale of livestock, farm produce, rents, etc.," with particulars of the receipts from the different colleges. On the next page, I see "Receipts from sale of dairy bulls at reduced prices, fees for leasing of such bulls, and registration fees, £1,250." I want to know why these two items are not treated as one. Are the receipts in the second case in respect of bulls that are purchased at shows and then sold to farmers at reduced prices? I see, also, another item, "Dairy Produce Act, 1924 — Receipts from fees for registration, etc., £2,800." That seems to me to be a very low estimate of receipts from fees. I would like to know from the Minister at what rate he has calculated them and what quantity of butter exported he has calculated.
Mr. HOGAN
With regard to the second question, I take it the point is whether we decided on 2d. per cwt. or 4d. per cwt. That point does not arise, because the export part of the Dairy Produce Act will come into operation only next year. Part I. and the general provisions only come into operation this year. The question of export will not, therefore, arise until next year. With regard to receipts from the sale of dairy bulls at reduced prices, that refers to an item in (g) (2)—"Purchase and insurance of dairy bulls for leasing or re-sale at reduced prices— £3,000." There was always provision made in the Endowment Fund for that purpose. You may buy a bull for £200 and sell him at £60. That has been going on for a long time, and this year we calculate that we will get about £1,250 in connection with these sales. What we will get from the purchaser will be, of course, considerably less than we pay for the bull.
I quite understand that.
Mr. HOGAN
With regard to leasing, that seldom occurs. We occasionally lease a bull to a cow-testing association.
Would the Minister please explain what are the necessary qualifications to get one of these cheap bulls? Is it a case of making a "poor mouth"?
Deputy Wilson forestalled me. I was about to put the same question.
Mr. HOGAN
I am surprised at Deputy Wilson putting that question. He ought to know the practice. Cow-testing associations from various parts of the country make representation and prove that they have no premium bull within their area. They may, perhaps, prove that though they had a premium bull they had a bit of bad luck, and he died. We have to make up our minds as to the most suitable centres where a few valuable bulls might be placed. Some district might, perhaps, have very valuable pedigree cows. But these bulls cost a lot of money, and farmers could hardly be expected to buy a stock bull which would be up to the pedigree of the cows. It would be of great advantage to them if, instead of asking them to spend £200 or £300 on a bull to mate with their particularly good cows, we bought a bull and leased it to them. The following year we would lease it to another district, and so on like that. A small farmer might have three or four pedigree cows. He might have bred them himself or come by them cheaply. It would be hard to expect him to pay £300 or £400 for a stock bull. We would lease him that bull and lease it to the other farmers next year. In the ordinary way, that man, who might have very valuable cows, would be only able to give about £50 for a bull. It would be very valuable for him, or for a cow-testing association, to get one of these bulls for a year.
What about the sale of the bulls?
Mr. HOGAN
They are sold in the congested districts mainly—the poor districts — to cow-testing associations.
What is the fee for leasing bulls to the small farmers?
Mr. HOGAN
Five pounds a year, as a rule. It covers insurance.
Does the Minister consider the holder of, say, a hundred acres, with a fairly big stock of cows, a fit applicant for one of these bulls?
Mr. HOGAN
With a fairly good stock of cows—certainly.
Would you consider his application reasonable?
Mr. HOGAN
In certain circumstances.
In the event of a farmer buying a bull under this system, or leasing a bull, is there any stipulation that he must give service of that bull for his neighbour's cows?
Yes.
If the Minister is considering Deputy Doyle's point with regard to a farmer of 100 acres, would he take into consideration the suggestion that heifer calves, which are the progeny of that bull, when the farmer has a fine herd of cows, should not be exported from the country?
Calves by these bulls are generally ear-marked by the Department.