I move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 o'clock to-morrow.
QUESTION ON ADJOURNMENT. - EXPORTATION OF COWS.
This matter which I am raising on the Adjournment arises out of a question put by me to the Minister for Agriculture to-day. The question and answer and the supplementary question did not give us a sufficient opportunity of discussing the matter as fully as I think it ought to be discussed. The facts are pretty well known to the Minister, but they may not be so well known to Deputies. The matter has to do with the exportation of cows to Great Britain from Irish ports. I want to say that my inquiry was as to cows which are being exported for the purpose of fattening or being slaughtered, and not for milking purposes. Great complaint has been made to Deputies in different parts of the country with regard to the number of cows which are being rejected at the ports and returned to the owners as being unfit for exportation. The reason given for the rejection of most of the cows is that they are tubercular. I have seen one of the forms sent back to one of the owners of such cows and it contained a paragraph with three items dealing with different grades of tubercular disease in cattle. What happens is that when the cows are sent to the ports they are examined there by the veterinary officers of the Department of Agriculture, and if a cow is found to have what is called an indurated udder, which I understand means a hardening of one of the quarters of the udder, it is invariably sent back with a notification that it is suffering from tuberculosis. My information is that an indurated udder does not always indicate a tubercular condition of the cow or of the udder. In fact, I have heard from reliable veterinary surgeons that practically 90 per cent. of indurated udders are not due to tuberculosis. The important point, in my opinion, is that if this is continued very much longer it will have a very serious effect on the dairying business in Ireland, because, as the Minister knows, every milch cow ends by being slaughtered for consumption, and the owner has to take into account the saleable value of the cow after a certain number of years in the dairy.
At present such cows are almost unsaleable. Their price at fairs is much below the pre-war price. I am informed that this does not by any means apply to old and decrepit cows. In some cases it happens that good young cows, which have been milked for a year or two, develop a bad quarter and cease to be useful for milking purposes. They are fattened off with the intention of selling them. When such a cow reaches the port it is rejected by the veterinary surgeon as being tubercular. The information I have received in connection with my county is that the majority of cows rejected within the past three months, and which have been examined by the local veterinary officer, have been found to have no clinical sign of tuberculosis. The veterinary officer told me he had not made the tuberculin test, but that he believed, as far as all ordinary signs of tuberculosis are concerned, that practically none of the cows had tuberculosis. I was informed that, where 30 cows had been returned to a district, in only one case was it found to be necessary to have the cow slaughtered by direction of the local veterinary officer.
It has also been found that the veterinary officers at the different ports differ in their ideas as to when a cow is fit or unfit for exportation. Many cows that have been returned from one port have been sent to other ports and have got through all right. I have particulars of a case of six cows which failed to get through at Waterford and which got through when sent to the port of Dublin. There is a feeling that this is doing the dairying industry a great deal of harm, that the restrictions are unnecessarily severe and that something ought to be done. It is recognised that the demand for careful examination comes from the English authorities. It is also felt that these authorities are unnecessarily strict, that they might be approached in this matter and shown that cows with an indurated udder are quite fit for food in most cases.
It is also a hardship on the owners of such cows that when rejected they are sent back at the owner's expense, which might amount to a couple of pounds. Apart from the question of saleable value, there is this question of expense which will not be defrayed by the Department. Where such a cow is found by the local veterinary officer to be quite sound on its return to the owner, it is quite unfair that the owner should be mulcted. As matters stand, it seems to me that no man feels himself free to but any cow that has any hardening of the udder, because it is pretty certain that such a cow will be rejected at the ports. I feel that there is a genuine grievance in connection with this matter and that something ought to be done to remedy it.
I am very glad that Deputy Heffernan has raised this question. I have had some experience of the export trade in cattle, and within the past year or more several of these cases have been brought before me and I have been asked to bring the matter before the Dáil. The replies we heard from the Minister for Agriculture this afternoon bring to our mind the fact that we are exporters and that we ought to remember that any beast that may be passed here but which is found unsound on the other side, can be sent back again to us by the inspectors. Instead, therefore, of trying to impress upon the Minister or the Veterinary Inspectors here the desirability of passing these cattle we ought to ask him to try to make some arrangement with the authorities on the other side as regards these cattle which are found to be defective in their udder. At nearly every fair I go to—and I have been attending all the fairs in the South of Ireland although I do not export cattle myself—such cases as these are brought under my notice. There is a defect in the udders of the cattle, and because of that the veterinary surgeon at any port may turn them down.
What I would like to have impressed upon the Minister here is that some arrangement should be made between the Veterinary Department on this side and on the other side in regard to the export of these cattle. But I think it would be very unfair to ask that officials on this side should pass cows which might be rejected on the other side. It would be a source of great loss and great inconvenience to exporters if these cattle were sent back again. There is another aspect of the matter. If these cattle are sent over, are rejected on the far side and are returned, we do not know what disease they may bring back, such as foot-and-mouth disease. You want to be very careful in this matter. We want fair play and I think the Minister for Agriculture has put the case pretty clearly before us. I think he will do his part with the Veterinary Department on the other side if we ask him. We cannot expect him to get inferior cattle passed out of this country and to have them rejected on the other side. I am glad Deputy Heffernan raised this question because I intended to raise it myself.
The fringe of the question only has been touched. Reference has been only made to the few cows that happened to be bought and which happened to be sent to the ports by people who know their business very well or perhaps by people who do not. It is only a very small percentage of this class of cattle which are sent to the ports at all, not five per cent. of the total. The real suferers are the farmers, and not the dealers. There are none of us who have a farm, especially those of us who farm milch cows, who will not have four or five of these cows that must be turned out to grass to fatten. I have often myself five or six cows, perfectly sound cows, which spring, in the months of July and August, one or two teats, certainly one. It is quite a usual occurrence among cows which have been good or average milkers. You will never find that among bad milkers. If you have good cows with a strain of milk, you will find these are the very cows which will spring, in the month of July or August. It is almost impossible to find a market for cows of that description, but if you do find a market it is a local market, and for a beast that under ordinary conditions, without these restrictions, would fetch anything from £20 to £22, the price you will get from the local butcher—you are lucky if you can sell them at all—is from £8 to £11.
When this matter was being discussed here before. I made the assertion that the veterinary surgeons on the other side did not know their business, and I repeat that. They seem to have an exaggerated opinion of what their duties are.
I made the assertion that these perfectly good, healthy cows are no more suffering from tuberculosis than are the best of our bullocks and heifers which leave the country. If there is any kind of blemish at all on the udder, they are all put in the one category. I say that very few of these cows find their way to the ports at all. They will not be bought at the fairs in the country. The only people who suffer are the unfortunate owners of this class of stock. I do say that representation should be made through the proper channels to the authorities on the other side, but I agree with Deputy Dwyer that no useful purpose could be served by a relaxation of the restrictions on this side, because then we should be only sending them over, to be returned. I think that is a foolish suggestion. What I do suggest is, that representations should be made by our Department to the English Veterinary Department. There are numerous cases of this kind, and 90 per cent. of our good cows, which bear these blemishes, are absolutely sound. I say representations should be made to the authorities on the other side. Otherwise they will have to be slaughtered here and sold at their full value. I suppose they could be dealt with in Waterford. There is no other outlet.
As I said, it is the good milker, the milker that is over the average, which always has a stroke of this description in July or August, and the bad cows never have it at all. I say that the English Veterinary Department do not know everything about tuberculosis and about sound cows, and cows with indurated udders are often perfectly sound and healthy cows without any trace of tuberculosis whatever.
In discussing this subject I think we must bear in mind that the veterinary surgeon's position is that in the case of any cow suffering from an indurated udder the presumption is that it has tuberculosis. These cases are not necessarily tubercular, but a very considerable number of them are, and a healthy cow, having infalmmation, as described by Deputy Gorey, may commence as mastitis and become tubercular. The only way to prove such a cow innocent is to submit her to the tuberculin test, and if she gives no reaction she will be accepted as non-tubercular. If you approach the Veterinary Department on the other side I am inclined to think that they would agree to that, but it is the very most they would agree to. But to send a cow over haphazard with an indurated udder on the chance that she will pass on the other side, as Deputy Dwyer put it, would be very foolish.
In my opinion it is quite ridiculous to suggest that cows should be submitted to the tuberculin test. It would not pay to have that at all. I imagine it would cost about two guineas a cow to have that done, and I wonder if Deputy Hennessy is aware of that. He knows quite well that the procedure is very elaborate and cannot be done with one visit by the veterinary officer; it requires two visits.
I know it is expensive, but the British Government put some value on the health of their people, and I do not think it would be in the least influenced by the question of saving the Irish owner two pounds.
The real issue, I think, is: What are the British regulations and what kind of animals will they allow into the country? Deputy Heffernan says that that is not the issue; he says that what really happens is that we stop cows which they would allow in. I will deal with that point in a moment, but I want to say first that the real issue is: What are the British regulations, what way do they administer them, and what class of animals do they allow into the country? Because you will agree that it would be and policy for us to let a cow reach Birkenhead if we believe that she would be sent back. Therefore, let us first see what the British regulations are. I think we are at cross purposes to some extent in this matter. I have before me the Order made by the British Ministry for the British people, and it is adapted to apply to animals on board ships at Birkenhead. Remember that this is an Order made by the English Ministry for the English people and applying to any cows in England:—
Every person having in his possession or under his charge—
(i) any cow which is, or appears to be, suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, indurated udder, or other chronic disease of the udder.
Then it goes on to give a list of the diseases—
shall without avoidable delay give information of the fact to a constable of the police force—
and so on. That means that the law in England at the moment is that any owner of a cow which has a tubercular udder, or appears to have a tubercular udder, or has an indurated udder, must give notice to the local authority. How do they administer that Order when it applies to our cattle? They say that any cow appearing on board ship in Birkenhead that has obviously a tubercular udder, or appears to have a tubercular udder, or has an indurated udder, shall be sent back. Obviously there is no point in giving notice of such an animal to the English local authorities. That is the way they administer the Order. In the case of the Englishman with cattle on the other side they specify three things—a tubercular udder, what appears to be a tubercular udder, or an udder that is indurated. They beg the question, if you like, and it is for the reason that Deputy Hennessy mentioned with regard to the giving of notice to the local authority. They apply that in the way I have mentioned to cattle from Ireland that are on board ship. They take up the line that any animal that has a tubercular udder, that appears to have a tubercular udder, or that has an indurated udder shall be sent back.
The second question is: Who is to blame? Are we stopping animals that would not be stopped by the English veterinary surgeons? That Order has been in force for some time, and during all the time representations have been made to the Department by the cattle trade and the shippers. I should say that for the last two years the administration of that Order on this side has been gradually tightened up. But if it has, it has been in deference to the most urgent requests from the other side. At the beginning of last year constant complaints came from the other side to the effect that our veterinary officers were allowing animals through that should not be allowed through. We endeavoured to tighten up the administration a little, to stop more cattle, to be just a little stricter, but it was not sufficient; we were behind them the whole time, and finally they wrote us a letter, a most unusual letter for one Department to write to another. It is not exactly the kind of letter that we receive in the usual way from an English Ministry. It is dated the 17th May, 1926, from the British Ministry of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Department:—
SIR.
I am directed to inform you that the Ministry views with much concern the continuance of the shipment from Ireland to this country of animals coming within the scope of Article 14 of the Tuberculosis Order of 1925, which expressly prohibits the landing in Great Britain of an imported animal which is or appears to be suffering from any of the forms of disease specified in that Article.
From the date of operation of the Order on the 1st September last, to the 28th April last, the Ministry's Inspectors at the various ports have detained 110 animals which, in their opinion, came within the scope of the Article, namely, 73 before the 31st December, 1925, and 37 from the latter date to 28th April. Of these 88 were slaughtered at the landing places and 20 were found to be suffering from tuberculosis of the udder and 62 with tuberculous emaciation or other forms of the disease viewed by the Order. Six were found not affected.
That is, of the number which they slaughtered. They obviously slaughtered the worst cases.
The Ministry recognises that some time would necessarily elapse before the shippers in Ireland and the Inspectors of the Irish Departments concerned would become thoroughly acquainted with the provisions of the Ministry's Order.
The Ministry is of the opinion that the time has now arrived when action must be taken to ensure the rigid observance of the prohibition contained in Article 14 of the Ministry's Order.
The Ministry has accordingly instructed its Veterinary Inspectors at ports to board steamers arriving at British ports from Ireland in order that animals may be examined before unloading commences, with a view to detect any animal whose condition appears to bring it within the scope of the Article. In the event of any such animal being detected on the vessel, the Inspector has been directed to take all the necessary steps to prevent the landing of the animal and to inform the owner or agent of the vessel and the Irish Department concerned as to the action taken by him.
In other words, to send it back.
The Ministry would be glad if your Department would be good enough to issue instructions to its Inspectors with a view to all possible steps being taken to prevent animals coming within the provisions of Article 14 from being shipped. The Ministry observes that a similar prohibition is embodied in Article 13 of the Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926, a strict enforcement of which by the Inspectors of your Department will speedily bring to a conclusion the shipment to this country of animals suffering from the forms of disease referred to.
As I say, that is a most unusual letter, and what it amounts to is this: "We are tired writing you letters to say that you must stop any animal that has a tubercular udder, that appears to have a tubercular udder, or that has an indurated udder, and if you do not stop them promptly we are going to send back all such animals in future." That is quite an unusual letter for a British Ministry to write to any other Government. Even when they are going to take definite steps they are generally polite, and this letter is little more than polite. The reason we administered the Order so leniently was because we realised that in view of the trade that existed it would take shippers and owners some time to adapt themselves to the new conditions, but we have no alternative. We have simply to stop any cow with a tubercular udder, with any sign of a tubercular udder, or any cow with an indurated udder, regardless of whether it is tuberculosis or not, because the English Ministry will presume that it is. In any event they will say that if such an animal is English the owner will have to report it to the local authority; if it is an Irish animal let it go back and be reported there. We know that there are cows with indurated udders that are not tubercular, and we have made representations that we should allow cows of that sort to pass in spite of the induration when we consider the induration is not due to tuberculosis, and that if we allowed animals to go over they should be taken for immediate slaughter at the ports. That is the only possible concession that they are likely to make. But I do not know whether they will or not. They would be quite safe in making it. We would give an undertaking that we would see that no animals except young fat cows with slight induration, obviously not tubercular, that we send over, are slaughtered at the ports. If they agree to that it is the most that they will agree to. In the meantime I am afraid the moral of the whole thing is that there will be losses in any event. The big majority of indurated udders and udder troubles occurs in cows of from nine to fourteen years of age, and farmers will have to begin to sell their cows at nine years of age. In my opinion, apart altogether from this Order, that would be good business, but it will take some time.