Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1934

Vol. 54 No. 1

Supplementary Estimate. - Milk Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)

The aim of this legislation is to improve the purity and quality of the milk supply and to safeguard it from infection and contamination. It is now generally recognised that milk derived from healthy cows is the most valuable food available for aiding the physical development and welfare of mankind. Of all food materials, it contains the greatest assortment of nutritive substances and constitutes a foundation upon which an adequate diet can most safely and most easily be constructed. It is especially important as a food for infants and young children who are supplied through its protein with the necessary material for the healthy growth of their bodies. It furnishes not only the best but the cheapest material for the building up of new body tissue, whether bone, teeth, brain or muscle. A quart of milk supplies as much protein as 7 ounces of sirloin steak or 4 large eggs, and as much calcium for bones and teeth as 20 lbs. of beef or 32 eggs. It is easily assimilated and, therefore, constitutes a natural form of nourishment. It is also very valuable to adults because of the supply of ash constituents and vitamins which it contains. The benefits to be derived from the consumption of a daily ration of milk have been demonstrated by repeated experiments and have been testified to by many research workers.

Having regard to the importance of the dairying industry in this country and the large quantity of milk produced, it is somewhat surprising to find that despite the excellence of milk as a food, its consumption in this country in the form of milk is substantially below the quantity consumed in other lands. Comparative statistics on the subject which are available only from seven countries indicate that the average yearly consumption of milk per person in Switzerland is twice more, in Norway 63 per cent. more, and in the United States of America 43 per cent. more than in this country. Moreover, if the matter is examined from the standpoint of the proportion of the total milk output which is consumed by persons in the form of milk, it is observed that the proportion of the total milk production which is so consumed in the Saorstát is only 15.1 per cent. as compared with 72.1 per cent. in Scotland, 71.6 per cent. in England and Wales, 38.3 per cent. in Germany and 32.2 per cent. in France. This is, of course, mainly accounted for by the larger industrial populations in these other countries, but the figure for the Saorstát emphasises the extent to which the consumption of milk can be increased here.

It is clear from my foregoing observations that there is both a strong argument in favour of the increased consumption of milk as food in this country and that the volume of milk production yields an abundant surplus to meet any probable increase in the demand. Why, therefore, has not a campaign for the increased consumption of milk as a food been embarked on long since? The reason is that milk forms a most suitable medium for the propagation of bacteria and if it is contaminated by Pathogenic organisms, they multiply rapidly therein. Such contamination may be introduced into the milk by uncleanly methods of milking or by careless handling. What was an excellent food when drawn from the cow may, through improper methods of production, become quickly a source of infection, and the use of such contaminated milk as a beverage may give rise to a widespread outbreak of serious illness especially in infants and young children. Moreover, the milk may in some cases contain tubercle bacilli derived from a tubercular cow and the pooling of the infected product with the milk from other cows may extend the danger of infection over a wider area. While the findings of the inter-Departmental Committee, constituted in 1926, to advise as to the cleanliness and the wholesomeness of the milk supply in this country, indicate that there is nothing to suggest a high incidence of tuberculosis amongst milch cows in this country, the estimate of the committee that at least 3,000 animals out of the aggregate number of dairy cattle in the Saorstát give tuberculous milk indicates that a substantial danger of transmission of bovine tuberculosis through the medium of milk exists. The results of investigations by medical research workers show that tuberculous milk is responsible for a large proportion of bone and joint disease, diseased glands and other physical deformities in young children. This danger menaces especially, therefore, the health of infants and young children in whose dietary milk plays so large a part and it is essential that precautions should be taken to prevent the sale of infected milk for human consumption.

It is obvious that it would be unwise to advocate a general increase in the consumption of milk as a beverage until precautions are taken to ensure that as far as possible such milk is derived only from healthy animals and that in the course of its production and distribution it will be safeguarded against risk of contamination or infection. In considering the provisions of the proposed legislation it must be borne in mind that power is already given to the Minister under Section 34 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, to make Orders for registration of cowkeepers, dairymen and purveyors of milk, for inspection of cattle and dairies, for regulation of construction of dairies and cowsheds, for securing the cleanliness of milk stores, milk shops and milk vessels, for prescribing precautions to be taken for protecting milk against infection or contamination, and for authorising local authorities to make regulations for any of the above mentioned purposes. The present Bill is designed to strengthen and to supplement these powers in certain respects and to give effect, as far as practicable, to the recommendations of the inter-Departmental Committee of 1926.

Part I of the Bill contains preliminary and general provisions and definitions. It imposes on sanitary authorities the duty of enforcing the provisions of the Bill and empowers them to appoint officers for that purpose. Provision is made for fixing appointed days for the coming into operation of different parts of the Bill. It is also prescribed that milk for purposes of the Bill is milk intended for human consumption in the form of milk and in no other form.

Part II of the Bill provides for the sale of milk under special designations. At present milk is being offered for sale under different names implying certain superior qualities in the milk, but there is no redress for a purchaser if the milk sold to him is not up to the standard for which he has paid. The Minister is empowered under the Bill to make regulations prescribing special designations which may be used in connection with milk sold or offered for sale, and to provide for the granting of licences to sell milk under any such special designation on payment of prescribed fees. It is intended to follow the recommendation of the inter-Departmental Committee on the milk supply and to classify the superior qualities of milk under three special designations, including pasteurised milk.

It is contemplated that either the Minister or the Local Authority may grant licences for the sale of milk under special designations. This may involve a certain number of bacteriological examinations at the instance of the State if the Minister sees fit to undertake the State inspection of milk of the highest grade. The powers under the Bill in this respect are general and may be subsequently distributed between the Minister and the Local Authority as will be seen fit. Generally, the primary responsibility in the matter will rest with the Local Authority. When these provisions come into force, the sale of milk under special designations by unlicensed persons will be prohibited. Power is also granted to the Minister to make regulations prescribing general designations which may be used without a special designation licence which may be permissible in connection with milk offered for sale. General designations will be in the nature of fresh milk or new milk, or such other title as will not imply any special quality or special degree of cleanliness in such milk. For instance, the terms "pure milk" or "best milk" would not be permitted to be used as a general designation. It will not be lawful for any person to use in connection with milk offered for sale, any words or signs which are neither special nor general designations and which indicate that the milk is of a particular quality or prepared in a particular manner or suitable for a particular purpose. Sanitary authorities may be required by the Minister to ascertain whether holders of special designation licences in their districts are conforming to the conditions on which these licences have been granted.

Part III of the Bill deals with the prevention of disease likely to be caused by milk infected in the course of production or distribution by outbreaks or carriers of the following diseases:— tuberculosis, typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever, diphtheria, membranous croup, scarlatina, or any other disease which may be declared by the Minister to be a disease to which this part of the Act applies. Where an outbreak of any of the above-mentioned diseases is suspected to be due to the consumption of infected milk, the medical officer of the district concerned shall ascertain the location of the dairy from which such milk is derived, and may inspect the premises and examine any person engaged therein. If satisfied that it is the source of infection he may prohibit the disposal of any milk from such dairy. Appeal to the District Court against the making of such prohibition order is provided for and unless such order has been made in consequence of the dairyman's fault or neglect, the dairyman will be entitled to recover from the sanitary authority full compensation for any loss or damage he may have sustained in consequence of the Order. Any dispute as to such damage or loss or the amount of compensation therefor shall be settled by arbitration under the Public Health Acts.

A dairyman who sells milk infected with a disease to which the Bill applies, shall, if previous knowledge is proved, be guilty of an offence and be liable to a penalty for the first offence not exceeding £50, and in the case of a second offence to a fine not exceeding £100, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. or to both fine and imprisonment. In the event of an outbreak of a disease to which the Bill applies occuring in connection with any dairy, the dairyman is required to give notice in writing to the local medical officer of health and not to sell any milk produced or kept in such dairy without the permission of the medical officer until the expiration of 24 hours after the giving of such notice.

Part IV of the Bill relates to cows affected by tuberculosis of the udder or uterus, and certain other forms of disease likely to affect injuriously the milk produced from such cows. The sale of milk from such diseased cows is prohibited and it is provided that it will be an offence for any person to sell such milk if he knows that the cow from which it was derived was suffering from any of the above-mentioned diseases.

Part V of the Bill deals with the bacteriological examination of milk samples, the appointment of bacteriological examiners for the purpose, the fees to be fixed in connection with the examination and testing of samples of milk, and the bacteriological certificates to be issued by the examiners on testing samples of milk submitted to them.

Part VI of the Bill relates to the appointment of milk sampling officers who are persons whose professional or special training will enable them to appreciate the necessity for the observance of special precautions in taking such samples so as to avoid the introduction of any external contamination in the course of taking the samples. The procedure for dealing with samples of milk taken is also set out. Power is given to take samples of milk in course of transit from one sanitary district to a dairy or purveyor in another sanitary district.

Part VII of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions. It is possible at present to sell, with impunity, milk which is dirty, contaminated or infected, and the Bill contains a provision making the sale of such milk an offence punishable in the case of a first offence by a fine not exceeding £5, and in the case of any subsequent offence by a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment. This portion of the Bill also requires vehicles, cans or other receptacles from which milk is being delivered in any highway or public place to be conspicuously inscribed with the words "Bainne ar Diol." The procedure in regard to the service and production of bacteriological certificates as evidence at legal proceedings is laid down. Power is given to the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, to make regulations for the labelling or marking of tins of separated or skimmed milk exposed for sale. Provision is made for the establishment by sanitary authorities of district depots for the sale of milk specially prepared for the use of infants.

A provision is included requiring dairymen to supply to medical officers of health on demand a list of all sources from which the dairyman's milk supply has been received during a specified period. Procedure for service of notices under the Bill on dairymen and penalties for obstruction of officers carrying out duties under the Bill are also provided for. Finally Section 9 of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, 1899, which requires the name and address of every person selling milk on a highway or place of public resort to be inscribed on the vehicle, can or other receptacle used therefor is repealed, and also Section 11 of the same Act which deals with the labelling of condensed, separated or skimmed milk. Section 16 of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, empowering the taking of milk samples by medical officers of health for examination or analysis is also repealed.

I am glad to be able to say that the experience gained in connection with the schemes for the provision of free milk for necessitous children at the cost of the State has demonstrated that there are many milk producers in this country ready to adopt progressive methods by submitting their cattle to the tuberculin test and improving the conditions of milk production if they are given encouragement by receiving preference for their product over milk produced in the ordinary way. Such preference was given for milk from tuberculin-tested herds in connection with contracts under the free milk supply schemes, and in Dublin, Limerick and Waterford County boroughs and in 18 urban districts tuberculin-tested milk was supplied under these schemes during the half-year ended 31st March, 1934, while portion of the milk provided during the same period in eight county health districts was also derived from tuberculin-tested cows. The testing of the dairy herd in each case was certified by a veterinary surgeon. The growth of this movement is shown by the fact that under the free milk schemes for the current year tuberculin-tested milk is being supplied by 144 contractors in three county boroughs, 25 urban districts and 12 county health districts.

The production of clean milk does not involve any very elaborate equipment or necessarily entail any considerable expense on milk production. It demands closer attention to the grooming of the cattle, greater care and cleanliness on the part of the milkers and distributors, together with the provision of facilities for cleaning and sterilising milk vessels and utensils.

It is to be hoped that the result of this legislation will be to improve the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the milk supply so that the more general use of milk as a nutritive beverage can be recommended without reserve and with the full advocacy of the medical profession. It would then be possible to undertake safely an intensive campaign to educate public opinion as regards the wonderful properties of pure milk, and it might be possible in due course to replace to a great extent the use of tea which is so detrimental to many in this country, by this nutritive native product. Such a change would benefit the physical and mental development of the race and would also redound to the advantage of our dairying industry.

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time.

General Mulcahy

I think the Parliamentary Secretary should have taken the House a little more into his confidence as regards the necessity for this Bill in the first place, and that he should really tell us what he expects the Bill to do. The Bill is put forward as something to help us to get greater purity of milk and a better quality of milk. A very considerable amount of agitation is raised from time to time that milk is a very dangerous thing. On this aspect of the matter the Inter-Departmental Committee drew attention to the more important features of the supply of milk so far as infection and impurity go. But the present Bill does not seem to me to do anything more than to cross the t's and dot the i's as regards a certain amount of the present machinery for looking after milk from the point of view of food and drugs. Those who have had a certain amount of discussion with the Department in the last few years will recognise the whole of Part II of the Bill, the whole of Part III and the whole of Parts IV, V and VI of the Bill, in addition to the greater part of Parts I and VII. These Parts of the Bill have been at least three, if not four, years in draft. Those who had a knowledge of the discussion that took place on this matter will probably miss from the Bill as it stands now one or two Parts dealing with matters affecting the control of the purity and quality of the milk, matters that perhaps in their minds are much more important than anything in the Bill as it stands.

The report of the Inter-Departmental Committee to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred states in page 25:—

"We consider that the surest and most feasible method of securing a pure, safe and sufficient milk supply at a reasonable price for the general community is by strict supervision of the cow, the dairy and the distribution."

The Parliamentary Secretary himself pointed out that one of the most important things in getting a pure milk supply is the method of handling the milk. The Parliamentary Secretary has completely turned his back on the cow. No one can go near the cow unless some medical officer in some part of the country has reason to believe that there is a diseased or infected cow knocking around from which milk has been taken and supplied. That is the position as I judge it to be. I think the matter that most struck the Inter-Departmental Committee is that the real place in which to tackle the milk question is being deliberately ignored. As I say, no one can look at a cow with any authority to bring about improvement under the Bill except the cow is known to be diseased or that there is good reason for believing that the cow is diseased.

I may be misconstruing the position, but it seems that that is so. If the Inter-Departmental Committee were wrong in putting their finger on the cow as the most important subject in this matter, I would like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about it. Again, turning to the cow, the Inter-Departmental Committee on page 9 of their report, in referring to the eradication of bovine tuberculosis as far as possible and as early as possible in the country, state that the Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926, if actively enforced, is a very useful first step towards the eradication of the disease. And in paragraph 33 they state:

"It should be made a condition that where the Government provide free tuberculin testing to producers under the `Bang' system, reactors must not be disposed of for further use for dairy purposes."

They say that the most effective method would be to slaughter reactors and partly to compensate the owners. If this were done it would remove one of the causes which tend to raise the cost of tubercle-free milk. The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that it is proposed to have three grades of milk under the Orders to be issued. I hope it will be possible on the Committee Stage to indicate what these three grades are, why these three grades are being selected, what the cost will involve to the producers, and what it will involve in price to the purchasers of milk. I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure the House when he talks of licensing producers for certain grades of milk that he is not going to charge a substantial fee for these licences. Because if the milk is the important thing that he tells us it is, then the people who qualify for the licences ought rather to get some small subsidy if you like from the State, for having gone to the trouble that they undoubtedly will have to go to if they are to produce better grades of milk. I do not stand for a subsidy for milk production, because if we are to have a subsidy for milk production, as for everything else, it is difficult to know who is to pay for it in the end.

So much encouragement is necessary to get the proper care taken in the case of milk I hope, when the Minister talks about a fee, that he has in mind a twopenny stamp rather than a fee of £1 or £2. If we are going to have any kind of wide production of a better class of milk, or the eradication of the worst types, I think the Minister ought to take the House into his confidence as to what is going to be done with regard to tuberculous cattle. We did have a case here to-day, when attention was drawn to the fact that under a seizure for land annuities, two or three cows were taken, and two of them were sold at 5/- each, while the other cow was sold at 12/-. I think the State would get much more out of it if, instead of pinching cows at that price, they went to the person who was offending under the land annuities business and slaughtered his tubercular cattle. At least, the State would make as much out of it, and they might be helping to reform citizens whom they might otherwise regard as bad citizens. It would be more profitable if attention were devoted to doing away with some of the tubercular cattle that are said to be in the country. If it is going to cost something to do away with them, then the present time would be perhaps the cheapest time to tackle the job.

As regards the whole milk situation, except the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to tell us what he is going to do with regard to the inspection of cows—that, in an unexpected way, has been dropped from this Bill—and what he is going to do with regard to tubercular cattle, we will not be in a position to make much progress.

Mr. Dillon

We are all in favour of securing pure milk, but one of the great dangers of a Bill of this kind is to cause a sense of false security. If we are going to put milk producers under a series a fairly stringent regulations, I want to ensure that we will get value for the regulations and for the annoyance that they must inevitably cause. It does not matter how much annoyance they cause if they are effective in eradicating disease and impurities from milk, and it is with a view to examining that aspect of the question that I am interested in this Bill.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary contradict me if I say that the only milk you may definitely declare is absolutely free from deleterious bacteria is pasteurised milk? You may be pretty certain other varieties of milk are, but the only milk about which you may be definite is the milk that is pasteurised. Therefore, when we start talking about tuberculin tested milk, pure milk, and so forth, we are creating in the public mind the impression that these tuberculin tested milks, Grade A milks, and so forth, are in fact something which they are not. Despite the most exhaustive tuberculin tests that may be carried out, it is quite possible that milk contaminated by tuberculosis could come from a tuberculin tested herd. For instance, the tuberculin test, in my experience with cattle, is wholly unreliable, and it is very easily circumvented. No beast will react to the tuberculin test twice in 48 hours and, if I want to avoid the rise in temperature which constitutes the positive reaction to the tuberculin test, all I need do is to go through the tuberculin test procedure 48 hours before the veterinary surgeon does and I have an absolute guarantee that no reaction will present itself.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm me in that. You might, therefore, have a situation in which the medical officer of health, or the veterinary surgeon, or whoever is provided for in the Act, would test a herd with the tuberculin test and certify it all as perfectly sound and qualified to supply tuberculin tested milk when, in fact, half the cattle would be tubercular. What is the danger? The danger is that many a mother of children, who habitually pasteurises the milk she gives them, would be deluded by the tuberculin test certificate into abandoning the precaution of pasteurising the milk herself; she would be misled into giving that milk to her children and possibly starting tuberculosis in her family. I think that is a matter that ought to be examined very carefully, and it is a matter that ought to be examined with particular care when the time comes for the Minister to prescribe grades of milk and to authorise milk vendors in the manner set out here. I think he will be bound, when he is prescribing the grades, to require some kind of warning note to be sounded, cautioning potential buyers that even though the milk comes from a tuberculin tested herd, and even though it is Grade A milk, required for the feeding of young children or susceptible persons, the ordinary precautions such as have been taken in the past should be taken.

Part III of the Bill deals with the prevention of disease likely to be caused by infected milk, and we have a group of diseases set out here— tuberculosis, typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever, diphtheria, membranous croup and scarlatina, and every other disease which may from time to time be declared by an order for the time being in force. I take it this has reference to diseases of human beings who work in the dairy, so that here we are not dealing with bovine tuberculosis but with human tuberculosis. Am I to assume that is correct? Am I to take it as correct that the diseases in Part III, beginning with Section 23, are the diseases of human beings working in the dairy?

Dr. Ward

They are the diseases which might be spread by persons working in the dairy.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot quite see why, if you take these precautions in this instance, you should not take them in respect of a draper's shop or a grocer's shop, or any other centre of distribution.

Dr. Ward

So we will. It is a case where the medical officer of the district has reason to believe that the outbreak is attributable to a particular dairy. If he has reason to believe that the outbreak is attributable to a grocer's shop, for instance, he can take action.

Mr. Dillon

Has he the power to do that?

Dr. Ward

He has.

Mr. Dillon

And is it necessary to give him these powers in order to enable him to deal with a dairy?

Dr. Ward

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

I see no objection to that, on the whole. I do strongly object to Section 24 (1) (a) which gives power to the medical officer of a sanitary district not only to examine the dairy but, if he so thinks fit, to examine any person engaged in the service thereof or resident in the dairy or who may be resident in any premises where any person employed in the dairy may reside. That is an infringement of personal liberty which goes far beyond what the situation would justify. It would be quite legitimate to empower the medical officer to offer to undertake the examination of any such person or require such person to produce to him a certificate signed by a qualified medical practitioner giving him a clean bill of health before he would resume work in the dairy or in the premises referred to in sub-section 1 (a). But I do strongly object to statutory power being given to a medical officer of health to examine a free citizen of this State against his or her will. There is, I think, no precedent in any statute of the Oireachtas for giving a physician the right to examine any individual, whether the physician commands the confidence of that individual or not. I submit that that is a section urgently requiring amendment.

Now we come to the process of sampling milk and the procedure to be adopted in examining the samples. I do not know if the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary has been directed to an article which recently appeared in the Lancet from the medical officer of health in Hammersmith. The article appeared in the Lancet of the 10th November, 1934, page 1073. The writer points out that the sampling of milk which has been going on under the relevant legislation in England has been extremely unsatisfactory. He points out that it frequently happens that a sample of milk, having been divided into two or more parts and submitted to analytical or bacteriological chemists, will produce most astonishingly different results. I quote from the article in the Lancet:

"Recently, I have had further tests made with startling results. A quart bottle of pasteurised milk was taken and, after being thoroughly shaken, divided into six parts. Sterile bottles were used and every precaution taken during the division. Two of these bottles were submitted to each of three laboratories."

He appends a table giving particulars of the reports received. These were six samples taken from the same bottle of milk, which had been adequately shaken. The first laboratory reported the sample as having been received at a temperature of 13 degrees centigrade and as containing 9,270 bacteria per cubic centimetre. The second laboratory reported as receiving the sample at the same temperature, but found that it contained 14,300 bacteria per c.cm. The third laboratory received the sample at a temperature of 11 degrees centigrade, and found that it contained 147,333 bacteria. The fourth laboratory, receiving the sample at the same temperature, found that it contained 3,400,000 bacteria per c.cm. These were four reports on the same sample of milk. The medical officer of Hammersmith goes on to say that, in his opinion, these results arise from lack of uniformity in the procedure adopted by bacteriological chemists in conducting their tests. He suggests that, in a Schedule to any future Bill, there should be set out some prescribed procedure through which the milk should be passed with a view to arriving at uniform results. It will be readily seen that, under this Bill, a milk purveyor might be prosecuted for having impure milk, a Government analyst might report that it contained 3,400,000 bacteria and a bacteriological chemist employed by the person concerned might report that it had a bacteria content of 9,270. It is necessary that some procedure should be prescribed by the Department, so that when the certificate referred to in Section 39 is produced, it will be possible under paragraph (c) of that section to cross-examine the bacteriological chemist with a view to ascertaining whether or not he carried out the correct procedure as laid down in the schedule to the Bill.

Section 42 refers to the necessity for labelling cans in which skimmed milk is offered for sale or sold. Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that this section will not affect skimmed milk returned to creamery suppliers who, normally, take this milk in the can in which they brought the new milk to the creamery? Obviously, it would be extremely inconvenient if a farmer were liable to prosecution for having skimmed milk in his creamery can on the ground that the creamery manager had sold it to him in that container.

Deputy Mulcahy mentioned that this Bill did not seem to authorise the Minister to tackle the cow. Of course, the Minister has pretty wide powers under the Tuberculosis Prevention Act, by which tuberculosis cattle can be arbitrarily slaughtered, subject to a certain amount of compensation. I am not sure that it would be materially useful for the Minister to direct too much attention to the cow beyond the disease of tuberculosis, because, so far as I am aware, the only other disease which is liable to be conveyed from the cow to the human being is the human manifestation of contagious abortion. That very rarely manifests itself, though I believe cases have recently been reported in Great Britain. If the Minister had to dispose of every cow in this country with contagious abortion it would be very difficult to maintain the cattle population at all. I think probably the Parliamentary Secretary can assure the House that he has adequate power in every case to deal with cattle that are tuberculous, and that they can be slaughtered without any difficulty. Subject to the observations I have made, I see no objection to this Bill. But I would impress upon the Minister most strongly what I think all see in connection with Section 24, and more so in connection with the danger that can flow from guaranteeing a tuberculin tested herd.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister, introducing this measure, said it was designed to secure purity and quality in the milk supply. In the latter portion of his statement he said that some penalties were to be imposed for the sale of dirty milk, contaminated milk and affected milk. The Medical Officer of Health for Cork City has placed on record his dissatisfaction with this measure. The main ground of his objection is that there is no definition in the Bill of dirty milk. In the British Medical Journal for September 29th there is a reference to the Milk Bill and Dr. Saunders's objection to the Bill. It says that Dr. Saunders set out in his general commentary (1) “the difficulty of obtaining convictions for the sale of dirty milk in the absence of a specific definition of dirty milk.” The article goes on to say “the Department has dealt with Dr. Saunders's objection as follows (1) “As regards the necessity of defining dirty milk, this term is included in the Dairy Produce Act of 1924, which prohibits the supplying of dirty milk or cream to a creamery, and it is understood that no difficulty has arisen in securing convictions under that law.” The section of the Dairy Produce Act referred to is Section 3, sub-section (1), paragraph (c).

"The milk or cream and all other ingredients and materials used in the process of manufacturing dairy produce on the premises shall be clean."

There is some difficulty in connecting up the definition of dirty milk with this. I think the Minister will require to put in a definition of dirty milk. Dr. Saunders deals, in the course of his statement, with this measure and is apparently very disappointed in connection with its provisions. The Bill seeks to empower the Minister to licence persons who will sell special quality milk or as one might say, for the richer people. But so far as provision is made for the general sale of milk there is no security whatever in the measure. Reference to Dr. Saunders's statement is made to the effect that he is disappointed that there is to be no licence for the milk vendor. In the report we find that Section 52 dealt with milk vendors in districts and the premises to be used by them for trade operations. Section 110 recommends a penalty for selling dirty milk, and the cancellation of the milk vendor's licence, after three convictions. Dr. Saunders goes on, in the course of a statement which it is unnecessary to read in full to the House, to say that "some of the provisions of the Bill are of little or no advantage to us; in fact" he says, "the great bulk of the child population will remain exposed to the risk of epidemics of diarrhoea which is almost entirely due to dirty milk produced in unhygienic surroundings." The Bill deals with licences for better class or quality producers. There is no provision whatever for licences to people who sell fresh milk or pure milk or whatever it is called.

In the course of examination of this question by the inter-departmental committee, and subsequently, they made certain recommendations. Recommendation No. 26 reads "milk vendors in county boroughs and urban districts should be licensed persons and, in respect of premises, there should be the right of appeal in cases of refusal to grant a licence." They also recommended that persons employed in dairy farms or other positions where milk is kept and intended for sale should be personally liable for any neglect in the matter of cleanliness. There is no provision in the Bill for a penalty in any such case. There is a penalty for the employer. But the employer has on occasions to go to fairs, markets, and other places of that sort. He is not always on the premises. In any case, it is not a selection of these penalties that we are called upon to make in this case. This is a scheme to ensure perfectly clean wholesome milk, free from contamination and infection and certainly produced in hygienic surroundings. If liability is not to be evaded, one or two things is likely to happen. If the employer is fined he will fire his man; if the man is fined it will have a wholesome effect upon the other employees. If the desire is to ensure that the whole conduct of the business is to be hygienic and cleanly, and that all the purposes of the measures shall not be departed from, it should be capable of deciding on the person who is really responsible. There is just a danger in connection with the consideration of a measure of this sort that too much attention could be directed towards the diseases of animals in the country. The percentage is negligible. It is presented in the report published in 1928. They say in paragraph 26:—

"The percentage of infection (25 per cent.) estimated from the results obtained at the Veterinary Research Laboratory points to a total of at least 3,000 animals giving tuberculous milk among the aggregate of 1,200,000 cows in the Saorstát. Slaughter of affected cows has taken place at an average of 800 per annum."

It would be much better, notwithstanding the cost, to dispose of any animal giving tuberculous milk immediately. It would be well also in that connection if full compensation were paid. The amount involved is inconsiderable, the advantages to be derived are illimitable.

On a previous page, paragraph 19, the report states:

"In a general consideration of the disease it should be understood that—

(a) A large number of cows reacting to the tuberculin test are affected only to a slight degree, some so slightly as to make it difficult to determine the existence of the disease on a post mortem examination.

(b) It is only a relatively small percentage of reacting cows that give tuberculous milk, but every reacting cow must be regarded as a potential danger.

(c) Cows may be extensively affected with the disease but show no evidence of it during life.

(d) Cows in some instances in good condition, apparently normal to the owner, may give tuberculous milk."

I have no desire in connection with a discussion of this matter to raise that particular question. It is inevitable that in the course of the examination of this question and a discussion of it here on Second Reading, owing to the highly competitive condition of world markets to-day, special attention might be directed in other countries to the fact that we have had to bring in a Bill of this sort. It is interesting in that connection to turn to page 47 of the Report to see what the Medical Officer of Birmingham has to say on this question. It is stated:—

"Very few children in Birmingham suffer from tuberculosis, and Sir John Robertson attributes this largely to the use of sterilised milk. He thinks that probably some of the vitamins are destroyed, but if the diet is supplemented by orange juice, there should be no harm in this. The death-rate from non-pulmonary tuberculosis in Birmingham is very low.... In his experience 35 per cent. of dairy cattle react to the tuberculin test."

Having regard to the very small percentage of reaction we have amongst our cows, it is fairly obvious that the health of the animals is certainly on a higher level than it is in England. This report goes further. It emphasises a point which is likely to be lost sight of in the maelstrom of political and economic conflict here. The Parliamentary Secretary knows more about vitamins than I do, and the nutritive properties which are to be expected from animals exposed to the sun as distinct from animals kept in dairy cow-sheds. Most of our competitors, particularly in Northern Europe, keep their animals in during the greater part of the year. In this country they are out during most of the year. It may be interesting in a few years' time to hear some man engaged in medical research pointing out the obvious advantages there are in consuming the produce of animals which have the advantage of exposure to the sun as against the produce of animals that are not so favourably treated.

In the course of the recommendations there are some matters which I suppose do not affect the Parliamentary Secretary. The very first deals with legislation recommended for the slaughter of cows affected with tuberculosis which, they say, should be concentrated under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order by the repeal of Section 18 of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not concerned with that matter, it is at least his duty to impress on the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Finance the desirability of affording such money as will enable that main difficulty to be dealt with. No. 3 of the recommendations says: "All cows should be subjected to veterinary inspection at least twice a year." In the course of this year a great number of appointments will be made. No better appointments could be made than those of officers who would carry out that particular recommendation. It is far better than taking samples of milk. In fact, as this report says, or as can be read into it, it is better to secure the desired result by means other than penalties, licences and other penal measures. The Parliamentary Secretary laid some stress in the course of his speech on the desirability of getting herds which are free from any of those affections. That particular phase is also dealt with in the course of the report. The cost that is cited, taking one of the best herds in England, Lord Raleigh's, is considerable. It amounts to £3 per cow. In the beginning it cannot be effected at a smaller price than £8 or £9 per cow. These are not times when one can expect farmers or other people engaged in this particular service throughout the country to embark on high expenditure of that kind. Some assistance could be reasonably afforded by the State. The tuberculin test is a very expensive item of itself.

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any experience of it but I am told that if one is entering an animal for the Show and wants to get a tuberculin test, it costs two guineas. It will be all the more expensive in the country having regard to the fact that a veterinary surgeon may not live in the neighbourhood. Although the fee of two guineas may look considerable, the work may occasion a journey of 20 to 40 miles. That points to the necessity of having some helpful institution at the disposal of those who are engaged in the distribution of such an important article of diet for the people. I would much prefer to see appointments of veterinary officers to do work such as that to help to eradicate the disease.

Better opportunities than are proposed in the measure should be afforded for the inspection of dairies that are outside the area in which the milk is consumed. Take the case say of Dublin or Cork. It may be that in the case of one or other of those boroughs, very considerable journeys may be made. This Bill expects the local authority in the area in which the dairy is situated to co-operate in the work. Now, that is none of their business. It does not concern them at all and the Minister should know by this that there is no great co-operative spirit amongst local authorities in connection with matters of this kind. One of the first things an official will say is "This is Dublin again. They are never satisfied there." You are expecting them to do work which is essentially work of the various other areas. It does not appear on the face of it to be a better system than that which was put to the committee and in which, they say, a plausible case was made for extraterritorial inspection in connection with the desire on the part of medical officers of health to ensure that they would get perfectly clean milk.

In considering this measure the Minister would have been very well advised to have had consultations with a committee of medical officers of health from centres such as Dublin, Cork, Waterford and other centres. They have to deal with the trouble which is occasioned by the delivery of dirty, contaminated or infected milk. Once disease, such as typhoid, shows itself then the work of the medical officers of health starts. I think it would be better to prevent the doing of that sort of work rather than have the job of curing it. In all the circumstances I think it would be a good thing, even at this stage, if the Minister were to consult with the medical officers of health throughout the country to see whether it is necessary to supplement and strengthen this measure in order to effect the purpose of supplying wholesome milk to the people.

The Bill, as it stands, has a peculiar character about it. In the first place, it is going to ensure for those who are engaged in the production of Grade A and tuberculin-free milk a fairly safe business, but so far as the vast majority of the people of the country are concerned—those who cannot afford to buy that milk—there is no such security. So far as the ordinary dairy proprietor in the country is concerned the Bill is going to put him in this position, that he will have to be watching for the inspector. He ought not be put in that position but rather in the position that he would welcome the inspector. The Bill does nothing to ensure that milk cans shall be covered when being taken through the streets. The medical officer of Cork has drawn attention to the faulty method proposed for the taking of samples. In connection with the taking of samples the Minister knows perhaps much better than any member of the House, with the exception of those who belong to the medical profession, that while one may take a sample at Limerick or Cork of milk that has been consigned to Dublin, it will, when subjected to bacteriological examination, show certain results, but if the sample be taken at Kingsbridge it will show, I suggest, very different results and for reasons which the Minister knows. The Bill should be amended in respect of the liability of any person, no matter who it may be, engaged in the handling of milk or dealing in milk. I think he should be made liable himself personally for any act of uncleanliness. If the Bill cannot be amended in that direction, then I suggest to the Minister that another measure be introduced to enable compensation to be paid for the slaughter of cows that give tuberculous milk. There is a section in the Bill calculated to arouse the cupidity of any dairyman if he wants to get out of a contract. All he has got to do is to buy a cow suffering from tuberculosis and his contract goes by the board. I grant that the Minister did not intend that, but as the Bill is drawn it has that effect. The last point I want to make is that there should be a licensing of persons in urban districts engaged in the sale of milk other than Grade A and tuberculin free milk. If the Minister, before the Report Stage of the Bill is taken, consults the persons I have referred to I think it should be possible to get a Bill through which would have the active support and co-operation of all classes in the community.

Dr. Rowlette

I think that the Minister for Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary are to be congratulated on having produced a Milk Bill at all. We have heard a good deal of criticism of the defects in the Bill and with most of those criticisms I agree. We have waited so long for this Bill—it has been so long overdue—that one had fears that it would never see the light. Therefore, I express thanks to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary that we have seen a Bill. In my opinion the Bill, as far as it goes, is a fairly good Bill. But there are many defects in it. Legislation dealing with a matter of health such as this is, if it is to be effective, must depend on the success of three different things: one, the terms of the statute itself—in this case the Bill that we are dealing with; secondly, the regulations that the Minister will have to draw up in obedience to the Bill; and, thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, the manner in which the Bill is administered.

At the moment we are mainly concerned with the terms of the Bill itself. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill went as far as was practicable at the moment in carrying out the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee. I am inclined to think that a little more courage on the part of the Government would have really made the problem smaller and given a better chance of rapid success. If the problem had been tackled in a more thoroughgoing way, as was suggested by the Inter-Departmental Committee—I think that the present time is peculiarly appropriate for such a campaign—and that instead of having very protracted legislation and administration going on for many years—step by step legislation—this matter of healthy milk would have been settled in the course of a couple of years. In the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee there were some 32 recommendations made. In the opinion of that Committee 18 of these recommendations required legislation in order to be carried out, and the other 14 dealt with administration. Of these 18, one, that in regard to the manufacture of tuberculin, became law two years ago under the Therapeutic Substances Act. Of the other 17, only seven, as far as I could identify them, are carried out in this Bill. That, I suppose, is as much as the Parliamentary Secretary thinks practicable, but I would suggest to him that many of the other recommendations, most of which have been drawn attention to in this debate, are practical.

The most important of these, to my mind, has been omitted altogether from the Bill; that is the attempt to eradicate tuberculosis completely from dairy cattle. The Committee mentioned several plans by which such a complete eradication could be effected, and it should be borne in mind that such complete eradication has been effected in other countries. In certain States of the United States of America, diseases which are extremely common among us here—you will see them in any hospital ward that you go into—are quite unknown. I have seen American surgeons look at these cases with immense interest because they had not seen any in their own country for several decades owing to the effectiveness of the campaign for the eradication of tuberculous cattle.

The Inter-Departmental Committee in discussing the question pointed out that at the time—this was six or seven years ago—such a campaign for complete eradication of tuberculosis might be expensive. The time is certainly more suitable now for the carrying out of such a campaign. The expense would be very much less at the present day than it would have been in 1928, when the Committee reported. I think it will be within the memory of the House that some months ago a colleague of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister for Agriculture, in speaking of the necessity for reducing the number of cattle in the country, suggested that the diseased cattle should first be got rid of. I hoped that his view that the number of cattle might be reduced by the destruction of diseased cattle might be borne in mind in this Bill, and that we might have had some plan included in the Bill for the complete eradication of tuberculous cows at any rate. It has been said—and quite rightly—by Deputy Cosgrave that the incidence of tuberculosis in Irish cattle is not high as compared with that of other countries, but it is high enough to constitute a great danger to the health of the country. Of the cows slaughtered in the Dublin abattoir in 1926, as quoted in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, 23.69 per cent. were suffering from tuberculosis—almost one-fourth of the cows which came for slaughter in the routine way. Those were not cows slaughtered on account of ill health, but cows which came to be slaughtered in the ordinary way for human food. The incidence in bullocks and heifers was much lower, so that that does not represent the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle as a whole. However important—and I agree that they are very important—the control of the dairy, the control of the cow, and the control of the methods of production and sale of milk may be, one cannot be secured by any method against the spread of tuberculosis except by the destruction of diseased cattle. We will not have a complete guarantee as to the safety of the milk supply of the country until this problem of the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle is tackled squarely and fairly, with determination to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

The second great defect of the Bill, in my opinion, is the absence of licensing of milk vendors, whether on the farm or as distributors. The administration of this Bill will be almost impossible in the absence of some such licensing system. The penalty of losing the licence in the case of a milk producer or distributor who is distributing milk which is dangerous to the public health will be much more effective than any ordinary penalty of a fine that could be put upon him. I have no hesitation in pressing on the Parliamentary Secretary that there should be included in the Bill a scheme for the licensing of sellers of milk. He will find the administration much easier; he will find control much more effective and he will find that his task will be accomplished sooner and with much more success. With that would have to go what Deputy Cosgrave has just spoken of—the ex-territorial control of the milk supply by the authorities of a board of health area. It is intolerable that the inhabitants of such an area as Dublin, or any other city of considerable size, should be subjected to a supply of dangerous milk coming from certain parts of the country, and that the health authorities of the city should have no power to go into those parts of the country and satisfy themselves as to the conditions under which the milk is produced. Such power to go outside its own boundaries in the control of the milk which is going to find its way into the boundaries of the city is necessary if the milk supply is to be rendered anything approaching safe.

These are, it seems to me, the three points of most importance which are absent from the Bill. There are various others, of course, in the Report of the Departmental Committee of which notice has not been taken.

In regard to administration, the administration of this Bill will present problems of peculiar difficulty. In establishing any new system which has to do with health there is always considerable difficulty, owing to the fact that the people of the country have not been accustomed to public health control until comparatively recent years. Special difficulty will arise in certain areas. While the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill is rightly made compulsory on the sanitary authorities throughout the country, the executive officer in the areas where there is such an officer will be the medical officer of health for that area, but in a very considerable area of the Irish Free State there is no medical officer of health other than the dispensary doctor. A few months ago we were told here by the Minister that medical officers of health had been appointed in 18 of the 27 county areas. I think that since that time medical officers of health, either temporary or permanent, had been appointed in perhaps two more areas. At any rate, we have still six or seven county areas which have no control by a medical officer of health. It is provided by the Bill that in such areas the executive officer is to be the district medical officer of health, otherwise the dispensary doctor. In those areas, without any disrespect to the dispensary doctor, one may say that the administration of the Bill will be quite impossible. The dispensary doctor has no experience of such work, and it is work which requires experience and training. It would require far more time than it would be possible for him to devote to it while continuing to give his attention to his duties to the poor of the neighbourhood. Moreover, the dispensary doctor is very largely dependent on private practice for his livelihood, and it would be impossible for him to exercise an active and zealous control over the milk supply, of his district so long as he is dependent on those very milk producers for the main part of his livelihood. He is not paid a salary for doing such work. His salary as medical officer of health varies from £10 to £15 a year. Perhaps in some instances it goes as high as £20. It has been a policy, both of local authorities and of the central authority, since this office was instituted, to keep the district medical officer of health on a salary deliberately contemptuous in order to emphasise the opinion of the local authority—and until recent years the opinion of the central authority— that the less public health work he performed the better. It is quite impossible to expect an officer working under such conditions, without independence and without remuneration, to do the work planned in the clauses of this Bill. Of course, that is a matter that can be got over, but I stress it now, mainly because of its importance, and to impress on the Department the necessity of insisting on the appointment of medical officers of health in these areas in which they have not yet been appointed. Unless the Minister insist upon such appointments this Bill will fail in six or seven of the county areas and will be a dead letter in these areas.

In the Report of the Departmental Committee, there is another point to which, I think, little, if any, attention has been given so far. The Departmental Committee drew attention to the point, that it might be difficult for small producers to meet the necessary expenditure required, in order to conform with such restrictions as might be imposed on the production of milk, and suggested that there should be power to give financial help to them, so that they might fit themselves to carry on their business in a way that would be satisfactory to the community, and conform to the provisions of the reformed legislation. I hope the Government will not lose sight of that, because I am quite sure if help was given in that way, it would go far to persuade public opinion of the propriety of the legislation now before the House. If that legislation is to be effective it must have public opinion on its side, and that public opinion must affect members of local authorities and producers of milk, as well as purveyors. There are various other points which can be dealt with, perhaps better, on the later stages of the Bill. I think the provisions regarding samples are impracticable and are bound to be a failure. The absence of any definition of "dirty milk" has been referred to. It will be extremely hard to get a conviction for selling "dirty milk" unless there is some definition of "dirty milk." I say further that while one should have regard to the bacteriological examination of milk, the results of that examination will have to be interpreted with great care, regard being had to the period that elapsed from the time the milk was taken to the examination, and the temperature to which it has been exposed during that time. On that account these results have to be interpreted with considerable care and knowledge. I would rely more on control of production and the marketing of the milk, upon the direct personal supervision of the cows or byres and cowsheds, of the dairy itself, of the people transporting the milk until it is sold to the public. I welcome the Bill, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will give sympathetic ear to the amendments which may be proposed in an endeavour, in which we are all united, that the Bill shall be an effective means of improving the milk supply.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to offer one or two comments on this measure, mainly from the angle of its administrative side. Like everyone else, I welcome the aim behind this measure. That is the aim, as I think it can be truly stated, of trying to provide that milk sold hereafter is, as far as is humanly possible, free from disease and free from infection. I do not think there is any solidity in the sentiment expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, when he expressed the hope that people would, in the future, become milk addicts or that milk hereafter will take the place now occupied either by tea or other beverages. It would be a bad day if that happened, as one might see if he considered the position of milk when in the future it might have to bear the heavy weight of taxation now imposed on tea and on the sugar used with it. If revenue failed because of the decline in consumption of tea and of such sugar as is taken in it, and if milk had to raise that revenue, it might be more of a set-back to milk than anything we do for milk in this measure. I am wondering if in attempting to get this very good idea carried out, there has not been a lack of proper consideration of the administrative side. The Departmental Committee referred to one or two matters, such as the selling of milk in uncovered cans—a practice observed in Galway more than any place else—and the practice of leaving cans outside doors while the roundsman was delivering milk, but outside one or two matters of that kind there was nothing special in the report complaining of failure to detect adulteration, to detect milk from which the fats or solids had been abstracted. Yet there is a section in this measure which changes the law considerably. This Bill is indeed very drastic as far as administration goes. One section says:—

Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect any other enactment for the time being in force relating to milk and dairies.

There are, of course, three sections of two Acts repealed. Some of these deal with cans and receptacles; they are not important, but they are substituted by other more extreme provisions. There is a repeal of the Food and Drugs Act, 1899, Sections 9 and 11. These deal with the method of marking "skimmed" milk and oblige people selling milk to have on cans, from which the milk is sold, the seller's names marked in a conspicuous way. We now are to get our nationality advanced by clause 41, which ordains that in future it will be an offence to sell from "a vehicle, can or other receptacle," unless the can, vehicle or receptacle has not merely the name or address in a conspicuous place, but also the phrase "bainne ar diol." The word "receptacle" has been brought in, advisedly, I presume. Previously, it was a matter of some doubt, when a man was delivering milk from the ordinary milk tin as we know it and poured a certain amount into a smaller tin with which he served a person holding a jug at a door, whether the smaller tin need have his name and address on it. According to this Bill the small receptacle will have to be labelled with his name and address and have the Irish phrase as well. As far as the Bill goes, if there is milk in a dairy or in the custody or possession of a dairyman, it is in the absence of proof to the contrary presumed to be kept for sale, and then by other sections where you keep milk for the purpose of sale the milk is supposed to be there for sale for human consumption, and further, as far as certain sections are concerned, for sale as whole milk. These are big presumptions arising from the mere fact of keeping or having in custody or in the possession of a dairyman a particular substance.

There is another Bill which we are going to discuss to-day which adds on to the present regulations in regard to the sale of milk the provision that samples of milk may be taken no longer as they used to be, merely in course of delivery, but in course of transit or delivery, so that the point that Deputy Cosgrave was adverting to is not merely met, but, I think, has gone far beyond what was necessary in the way of the reasonable meeting of a difficulty. Suppose there is a practice by which people send up milk from, say, the Limerick area to Dublin. Some people at the moment have the practice that an examination of that milk is made on arrival in Dublin to see if anything has happened to it on the way, and it is not actually put into course of delivery until it has been taken from a particular platform in Dublin. As this measure, combined with the other measure, go at the moment, the moment that milk is put on the train at some wayside station in Limerick, it is in course of transit or delivery and a sample can be used to have a man found guilty of an offence under the Food and Drugs Act.

Take the sample sections. Deputy Rowlette says that he thinks they will be ineffective and will fail to achieve their purpose. I can see a frightful embarrassment being caused to anybody who sells milk in the future. Under Part VI of this measure, each of the following persons shall be a milk sampling officer for the purposes of the Act—the second is a medical officer of health, and that is quite all right; the third is any sanitary officer of a sanitary authority whom such sanitary authority appoints to be a milk sampling officer, and that is not too wide; but the first class is any inspector, and when you go round to the definition section you find that an inspector is any person authorised by the Minister in writing, either generally or for a specific purpose, to exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties conferred or imposed on an inspector under this Act. Remember that nothing in this is to prejudice powers already had, and already under other Acts, any medical officer of health, any inspector of nuisances, any inspector of weights and measures, any inspector of a market or any police constable, under the direction and at the cost of the local authority appointing such officer, constable or inspector, may procure certain things and by a later Act, every officer of what was in the old time the Local Government Board, and which now, I presume, means every officer of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, has a roving commission under the Act of 1899 to take samples and to procure in that way evidence with which to get a person convicted of a criminal matter under the law.

We are going to have all these inspectors—the people who are mentioned here are not to be in substitution for any of the previous people— but there is this further point added, that when it comes to giving evidence in court, samples will be taken as before, and the samples divided according to Section 38 more or less along the old lines and parts made of them, one part being given to the seller and another part sent off for examination. A part is to be produced in court but a later sub-section of Section 38 says that "in any proceedings under this Act, a certificate purporting to be under the hand of a sampling officer who took a sample of milk"—"who may be an inspector or any officer of the Department authorised generally or specifically..."—"that the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section were complied with by him"—that is, that the sample was properly taken—"that certificate is prima facie evidence of the matter so certified, and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature of such officer or that he was in fact such officer.” This certificate—although again it may not be meant, and I take it that there was deliberation about all this; it is in substitution for clauses running right through the Food and Drugs Act, either with regard to analysis or the certificate—shall be prima facie evidence unless the defendant serves notice that he or she requires the sampling officer or the inspector to be produced at the trial.

It may be said that there is no necessity to have these people produced. They will only be called on when the person accused—and remember that we are dealing with a criminal matter in all this—thinks there is a reason, because if they are called on and if the man brought forward for this particular offence is accused, he will pay for them, for the extra expense he has put the State to in bringing these men along. There is always that prohibition on a man from bringing an officer along unless there is good reason, so that I do not understand it particularly as the departmental report, on the reading I have been able to do of it, did not seem to me to indicate that they had found very many gaps in the procedure, but without any recommendation and without any case being made for it by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day, we have the whole tendency of the Act, so far as the seller of milk is concerned in the future, a harassing by a very big number of officials, many more than he used to have on his track, and he is not to be allowed for the future to call for the production of the man who signed the certificate as to the doing-up of the sample.

I think it is a notorious enough fact that in quite a good number of the cases that are brought forward, at least 30 per cent., I would say, the whole decision turns upon whether the sample was properly taken; whether it was divided in the proper way; and whether the sample of milk sent for examination and subject to analysis was in fact the milk that the person was selling at the time, and without any reason being offered in this House we are apparently going to have this new procedure adopted whereby a man can be harassed by very many more officials than ever before, while being deprived of the rights of rebutting a charge that he had previously. That is entirely on the administration side. Any of the other points that were raised were dealt with by previous speakers. I do ask those who are in charge of this measure not simply to rest content with the fact that they have a laudable aim in all this matter, but to see that the powers they are seeking are necessary in the circumstances and that the House, before it is asked to pass these very enlarged powers to any group of people, will have cause shown and will be told where the previous Acts have failed and why it is now considered, for any reason either of convenience or expense or the better facilitating of the apprehension of unlawful people, that these powers should be given. Some case should be made that the old Acts were defective in these respects and that these particular precautions that are now being taken are necessary. The general purport of the Bill is to be commended.

Dr. Ward

I might perhaps say at the outset that I fully realise that this legislation is rather difficult and that it is not a very popular measure. There are many of the matters that have been raised in the course of this discussion that have given me considerable cause for thought during the past few weeks. I anticipated most of the criticism we have heard here to-day but I did anticipate that we would get some helpful suggestions from the Deputies who took part in the discussion here. The flaws and drawbacks of the Bill have been adverted to, as I expected they would be, but the remedies have not been suggested. I still hope that, on the later stages of the Bill, if any of the Deputies who are interesting themselves in this particular legislation have any better solution of the problem we are trying to solve than we have produced, they will give us the benefit of that solution. Anything that is calculated to improve the Bill will be very welcome to this side of the House.

Deputy Mulcahy reminded us of the fact that the draft was four years old and that there were a few things missing from it. Why was it four years old? It was four years old for the obvious reason that, the Bill being considered to be bad politics—a Bill that would be calculated, perhaps, to lessen the political support that a political party might have—Deputy Mulcahy left it there for four years. I do not know whether it would be fair to assume that if Deputy Mulcahy were still there, the Bill would still be in draft. I do not want to make any particular point about that, but I think that when Deputy Mulcahy mentioned that certain things were missing from the Bill that he had in draft for four years, in cold storage, he might have conceded that there were certain very useful additions made to the draft he handed down to us.

There has been a good deal of discussion on a question that really does not properly arise on this Bill at all. Deputy Mulcahy, in the course of his remarks, talked about the powers we had under the Bill, but he said that nobody had any power to look at the cow, and practically every speaker took the same line and dwelt upon the necessity, as they saw it, of incorporating in this Bill methods for the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle. I am quite in agreement with steps being taken—perhaps more urgent steps than have been taken—towards the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle as an absolute essential if we are to succeed in our ultimate aim; but that is a matter that cannot properly be dealt with in a Milk Bill. That is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, and it ought to be borne in mind, too, that only a small proportion of tubercular cattle may give tubercular milk.

I need not dwell upon that. I think that any Deputy that has been interested in the question at all will understand that a cow suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, or from tuberculosis other than tuberculosis of the udder, may not necessarily give tubercular milk at all. Viewed from that point of view, the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle cannot be looked upon as a matter that, adequately or properly, could be dealt with in this legislation; but I may say that we, in the Department of Local Government and Public Health, are very much interested in that subject, that we are in touch with the Minister for Agriculture on the matter, and that I believe that the Minister for Agriculture is giving it his close attention. I believe that he will introduce his own proposals and submit them to the House with the object, as far as he can, at any rate, of eradicating tuberculosis.

Deputy Mulcahy was rather disturbed at the possibility of exorbitant fees being charged for the licences for the special designations. I do not think that there need be any anxiety on that score. The fees for these licences will be fixed after consultation with the trade, and, anyhow, it has got to be borne in mind that people who secure licences for the sale and distribution of designated milk will be compensated by the fact that the public will have confidence in their product and that they will get a better market and a better price as a result of having secured a designation licence.

Deputy Dillon, apparently, is under the impression that pasteurised milk was the only form of milk that was really safe. I do not know how deeply he has gone into the subject, but those of us who have been considering the question of pasteurisation are fully convinced that there are methods of pasteurisation that are absolutely useless from the point of view of protecting the public by purifying milk, and that if pasteurisation is to be recognised at all, and if pasteurised milk is to be designated milk, the process of pasteurisation must be definitely set out by regulation; in other words, that any form of pasteurisation will not be sufficient to secure a designation licence.

Deputy Dillon also referred to the possibility of tuberculin-tested milk not being absolutely pure. Well, there is no doubt that there is that possibility; but he apparently did not appreciate the fact that milk from a tuberculin-tested herd will not, under this legislation, be designated as under the special designation unless it has reached a high standard of purity apart altogether from the fact that it has come from a tuberculin-tested herd. As well as reaching a high standard of purity, it will also have to reach the prescribed standard in the matter of percentage of fat and percentage of other solids. In the course of Deputy Dillon's criticism, he took particular objection to paragraph (a) of sub-section 1 of Section 24, and considered it an outrage on the liberty of the subject to give the powers to the medical officer of health that the Bill purposes to give in that paragraph. Perhaps I had better read the sub-section for those members of the House who have not the Bill before them. It reads as follows:—

(1) If the medical officer of a sanitary district has reason to suspect that any disease to which this part of this Act applies, is caused, or is likely to be caused, by the consumption of any milk which is being exposed or kept for sale within such sanitary district, he shall ascertain the location of the dairy in which the animal or animals from which such milk was obtained is or are kept...

The diseases have already been outlined in an earlier section and are very serious diseases for any unfortunate human to contract—tuberculosis, typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever, diphtheria, membranous croup and scarlatina.

If a medical officer of health has reason to suspect that a certain dairy is responsible for the spread of any one or more of these diseases, he is empowered under this section—and Deputy Dillon is outraged at the thought of it—to examine the dairy and, if he so thinks fit, examine "any person engaged in the service thereof, or resident in the dairy, or who may be resident in any premises where any person employed in such dairy may reside," and so on. If we are, under the operation of this Bill, to place a medical officer of health who is responsible for the health of his district in a position to protect the community from the spread of these contagious and infectious diseases, we must give him the powers outlined in this Bill. There may be typhoid carriers in that dairy, or diphtheria contacts, and unless he has power to examine the persons who are engaged in, or who have contact with the dairy, his efforts to ultimately trace and stamp out this infection will be utterly futile.

In the course of Deputy Dillon's discourse on pasteurisation he mentioned the widely different results that were got by different bacteriologists and in that way would, I suppose, create in the lay mind the idea that all this bacteriological examination was so much nonsense and really was not a useful guide as to purity. I should like to have asked Deputy Dillon, if he were here, if the samples that were taken from the same bottle and examined by these four different bacteriologists were kept in ice; because, if they were not, even an intelligent layman knows that bacterial multiplication is very rapid and that, unless the sample is stored in ice, in a few hours the bacterial content might be very considerably altered. However, I do not suppose I need go into that any further.

We have had a good deal of criticism of the fact that we have not attempted to define dirty or contaminated milk in the Bill. Deputy Rowlette was honest enough, however, to admit that it was a very difficult matter to give a definition of what would constitute dirty milk or what would constitute contaminated milk. That is one of the matters on which I hoped to get some assistance from this debate, but I must say that, as far as dirty or contaminated milk is concerned, I am not any wiser than I was before this discussion started. Generally speaking, dirty milk, in the Courts at any rate, is held to be milk that contains visible dirt and contaminated milk is usually held to be that which contains certain bacterial contamination. The question of a definition of either one or the other is an exceedingly difficult one. We are still examining it and still hoping that we may be able to get a satisfactory definition. If a satisfactory definition can be evolved before the Bill reaches its final stages, we will still attempt to define "dirty" or "contaminated"; but if we cannot get a satisfactory definition, I think we will have to leave it to the Courts to interpret what "dirty" or "contaminated" means.

Mr. MacDermot

The only convictions for dirty milk under the old Act were where dirt was visible to the naked eye?

Dr. Ward

Yes, visible dirt.

Mr. McMenamin

Cannot milk be dirty without the dirt being visible?

Dr. Ward

It can. It is only a very rough and ready definition that is held in the courts up to the present: dirty, when it is visible dirt; contaminated, when it is invisible dirt. Someone raised a point about the fees for the tuberculin tests and complained about the additional burden that this would be on the owner of a dairy herd. It is usual to have all the animals tested at the same time and the fee per cow, of course, is correspondingly reduced then, depending on the number of cattle that may be tested at a particular time. I think, however, the fact that 144 milk producers have at their own expense carried out the procedure of tuberculin testing in order to be able to compete for the contracts for the free milk supply is in itself evidence enough that the fees are not deterring people from getting their herds tuberculin tested.

A good deal of stress has been laid on what has been considered a defect in the Bill inasmuch as it does not provide for the licensing of all milk vendors. I presume that Deputies realise that the Bill does provide, at any rate, for the licensing of vendors of designated milk. We have at least made that advance—that under the Bill nobody can sell milk purporting to have special qualities or special degrees of purity unless the milk has actually reached that standard of purity. We have power, of course, for the registration of all people who sell milk—for the registration of dairies— and we have the power of inspection. I am open to conviction on the question. It is quite likely that the licensing of all milk vendors would be a useful addition to the Bill. If any of the Deputies on the opposite side of the House or on the Independent Benches introduce an amendment to that effect it certainly will be very sympathetically examined, and unless it can be shown that there is some reason why it should not be incorporated in the Bill, I think there is a reasonable chance that it would be added to it.

On the question of machinery, Deputy Rowlette is dissatisfied, of course, with the machinery in the counties where we have not a county medical officer of health. Even since Deputy Rowlette got these figures we have made some further advance in the matter of having county medical officers of health appointed. When the appointments, pending at the present time, have been made there will only be five outstanding areas and we will hope that we will lessen that number in the near future by friendly negotiation.

I think we are coming rapidly to the time when if we cannot have these county medical officers of health appointed by mutual agreement the Minister will exercise the powers vested in him and compel the local authorities to appoint county medical officers of health. In the meantime the assistance of the veterinary inspectors will be available in each area and, I think, in the few areas that will be outstanding when this Bill becomes law, that during the transition period and until such time as we get uniformity as to the county medical officers of health, we will have such machinery, though it may not be the best machinery, that will secure the benefits aimed at by this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 28th November.