asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he will state on what grounds Messrs. Reilly Brothers, Fairgreen, Westport, Co. Mayo, were prosecuted and fined for being in possession of diseased sheep; whether he is aware that the defence of Messrs. Reilly Brothers was that they had just bought the sheep from the stock manager of Lord Sligo, Westport House, Westport, Co. Mayo, and whether he will state if the Department intends to take proceedings against Lord Sligo.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Diseased Sheep Prosecution (Mayo).
The firm in question were prosecuted because fourteen in a lot of ninety lambs presented by them for shipment at Dublin Port on 6th July were found on examination by two of the Department's veterinary inspectors to be affected with sheep scab. The inspectors were satisfied that the disease should have been detected if ordinary care had been used.
The Department are aware that Messrs. Reilly purchased the sheep from Lord Sligo's stock farm at Westport.
In view of the fact that the existence of sheep scab on the farm was reported on behalf of Lord Sligo to the Gárda Síochána in accordance with the Sheep Seab Order, proceedings do not lie against Lord Sligo. In cases of sheep scab only the owner or person in charge of the diseased sheep can be made amenable. No action lies against the previous owner unless he has diseased sheep actually in his possession, and has failed to report them.
Will the Minister state whether this report was lodged with the Gárda before or after the sale?
Mr. Hogan
It must have been after the sale. The sheep were presented at the Dublin port on 6th July, so obviously they were bought previously. It was on 6th July that Lord Sligo reported that there was sheep scab amongst his flocks. The veterinary surgeon who examined the flocks after that report found that the disease was in its initial stages. Lord Sligo carried out the duty imposed on him by law. The view of the Department is that a man does not handle sheep without detecting sheep scab if it is present. Messrs. Reilly Brothers must have detected that these sheep had scab. The scab was obvious to anybody and could be readily detected.
Is it not equally obvious to the Minister that Lord Sligo's steward must have been aware of the fact that the sheep were diseased before the sale?
Mr. Hogan
I could not say. The facts are that on 6th July Lord Sligo reported that there was sheep scab amongst his flocks. That was the correct procedure, as far as he was concerned. When the sheep were examined by the veterinary surgeon the scab was found there in its initial stages. No prosecution within the law lay against Lord Sligo. On the other hand, in the case of Messrs Reilly, the scab was detected in certain sheep leaving the Dublin port. The procedure was to prosecute the owner in that case.
Is the Minister aware that these sheep were in the possession of Messrs. Reilly only 24 hours?
Mr. Hogan
That may be; but the facts are that they broke the law; that they had in their possession, without reporting, sheep that were suffering from scab. They did not report that. That was detected by the Department's Inspectors. I have suggested to the Minister for Justice that the fines should be reduced very considerably, though I am not satisfied that Messrs. Reilly did not know when buying the sheep that the sheep were suffering from scab. I am not satisfied of that, and it is not clear to me that when they brought the sheep to Dublin and delivered them at the Dublin port they did not realise that the sheep were suffering from scab.