Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1934

Vol. 54 No. 4

Sale of Food and Drugs (Milk) Bill, 1934—Report.

Mr. O'Donovan

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, Section 2 (1) (a), line 34, after the word "milk fat" to insert the words "unless it is proved to the satisfaction of a court of competent jurisdiction before whom any charge is brought for an offence under the Acts or any or either of them, that the milk so sold was milk as produced by the proper milking of healthy and well-fed cattle, that there had been no tampering with the milk and that it was sold in the same condition as it came from the cow."

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if he is accepting the amendment.

Dr. Ward

No.

Mr. O'Donovan

The producer has no safeguard in the Bill as it stands, and I suggest that this amendment is necessary for his protection. Without the amendment he will be liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, to severe penalties. Those who have a knowledge of the dairy industry are well aware that it very often happens during certain seasons of the year and in certain parts of the country that the milk which a cow gives may not be up to the standard prescribed. For instance, in a case of the morning's milk, if a sample is taken in the morning and another sample in the evening, it is quite likely that a discrepancy may be found between the two samples as regards the butter-fat content. Producers will be placed in a very serious position indeed if they are not afforded the protection which this amendment seeks to give them.

Mr. Bennett

I desire to support the amendment moved by Deputy O'Donovan. As the Deputy has stated, if some such safeguard as this is not inserted in the Bill, producers will be placed in a very unenviable position. It is a well-known fact that many healthy, well-nourished and well-fed cows do actually give milk of a standard lower than the standard prescribed, and that in such circumstances the owner might conceivably be prosecuted. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Minister to bring ordinary dairy farmers under the operations of this Bill or not, but, as I read it, it appears to me to apply to them; that is, to people who do not sell milk in the towns and cities. In the case of farmers who send their milk to the creameries, they are only paid on its fat content. Therefore, to make such farmers liable to prosecution in the case of cows that produce, possibly, milk of a low fat content would, in my opinion, be unreasonable. There is no inducement to the ordinary farmer to tamper with his milk. He will not attempt to add water to it. Possibly that might be done by those selling milk in towns, but such a thing would not be done by the ordinary farmer sending his milk to a creamery, because while he might add as much water as he liked to it, he would not get paid for the water. He will only get paid for the fat content in the milk. I do not think that such people should be needlessly interfered with by the law. They would gain nothing by adulterating milk. I have had a long experience of cows myself. I have seen good healthy cows give milk that would not be up to a certain standard, and if samples were taken in such cases the owner would be liable to prosecution and, if found guilty, to a fine. The ordinary farmer gains nothing whatsoever by adulterating his milk, and I should like the Minister either to accept Deputy O'Donovan's amendment or to bring in some provision that will exempt from the operations of this Act the ordinary dairy farmers whose milk is not sold for human consumption in the towns.

Mr. Hazlett

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the definition of "whole milk" would not cover the point made by Deputy O'Donovan. As I read Deputy O'Donovan's amendment, I gather that what he wants to safeguard is milk from which nothing has been extracted. Would that definition not be the same thing?

Dr. Ward

The amendment, it appears to me, cuts across the most important principle in this Bill. I think most Deputies will agree that the defence of "straight from the cow" has been abused, and that it has provided, at any rate, a possible means of escape for the fraudulent purveyor of milk. It is all very well to say that the milk is "straight from the cow," but it is very difficult to prove that there has been adulteration if you have not actually seen the adulteration take place. It is a well-recognised fact that adulterated milk is being sold for human consumption, and so long as this defence of "straight from the cow" remains there is a possibility, amounting to a probability, that fraudulent purveyors of milk will escape the full penalties of the law. The Bill gives power to the Minister for Agriculture to fix certain standards of fat content and other content of milk intended for human consumption, but there is no use in fixing standards of fat content or of solids other than fat if the defence of "straight from the cow" is a defence that can still be pleaded in court and is likely to be accepted by the justice. When the public pay a reasonable price for milk for human consumption they expect to get an article which has reached a certain standard of purity and a certain standard of nutritive value. It appears to me to be a reasonable attitude to adopt that we ought to take such steps as will ensure that the public will get the article which the purveyor of milk purports to sell to them.

Deputy Bennett has mentioned that creamery suppliers are paid for their milk on the basis of the fat content. I do not think we could set up machinery fixing the price of milk for human consumption on the basis of the fat content, but at any rate I think we ought to ensure that the fat content must reach a certain minimum. From the amount of discussion which I have had with experts on this matter, and the amount of consideration I have given to it, I am satisfied that a good many of the contributing causes of deficiency in genuine milk are causes that can be removed. Deputy O'Donovan stressed the fact that the morning milk is sometimes deficient in fat. That is undoubtedly so if the interval between the milkings is unduly long, but I think it has been fairly well established now that, by a better regulation of the period between the milkings, and by careful and proper milking, the deficiency in the fat content of the morning milk can be got over. Seasonal variation, according to the information at my disposal on the matter, is not a very big determining factor. The breed of the cattle certainly is, and also apparently the peculiarities even of individual cows in any particular breed.

There are avenues other than the production of milk for human consumption open to farmers who keep milch cows. They can churn the milk and produce their own butter; if it is a creamery district they can send the milk to the creamery. Again, I have to repeat that it appears to me to be the absolute duty of the Government to ensure that milk which is intended for human consumption, and is the main diet of children, should reach a certain standard of quality. We can only ensure that standard of quality if this defence of "straight from the cow" is abolished. There is just one other point that I might mention. Deputy Bennett talks about the unfortunate cow giving the milk as God gave it to her. If we were satisfied that the milk which was sold as coming straight from the cow is always as God gave it to her it would be a different story altogether, but we are not. This matter could, I think, be more appropriately raised and dealt with when the regulations fixing the standards of fat content are placed on the Table of the House. The percentage has not yet been fixed. It will be fixed by regulation by the Minister for Agriculture, and the regulation may be laid on the Table of the House. It will be open to any Deputy to persuade the House that the fat content fixed by the Minister is too high. To me, it would appear to be much more desirable to have a low fat content but to ensure that the milk would reach that standard. It would be better, I think, to be in that position than to leave matters as they are, where practically any degree of adulteration might escape the penalties of the law.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say where it is specified that that regulation would have to be placed before the House? It does not appear in the Bill; at least it is not in the section, as far as I can gather.

Dr. Ward

I do not know that I can lay my hands on it.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is not in the section. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any idea as to what percentage will be fixed?

Dr. Ward

Probably three.

Mr. Curran

Is not that the present standard?

Dr. Ward

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

I have heard of cases where, if there has been a heavy night's rain or frost, the percentage of fat is reduced considerably. I think the case put by Deputy O'Donovan was to deal with and exclude cases of that sort, rather than to reduce the percentage of fat itself.

Mr. McGilligan

Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to state his grounds for objecting to this amendment? At first, it seemed to me as if he were saying that what is aimed at by the amendment is in fact the law, in case law. I think that is what the Parliamentary Secretary started off by saying. I do not know if that is the position. Does the Parliamentary Secretary admit this position—in the end of his remarks he seemed to admit it—that if it can be proved to the satisfaction of a court of competent jurisdiction that the milk is "straight from the cow," that the milking has been properly done, that the cattle milked are healthy and well fed, that there has been no tampering with the milk and that it is sold in the same condition as it comes from the cow, the man who proves that should get off? Or, should a man, nevertheless, in some circumstances be adjudged guilty of an offence, even though he could affirmatively prove as to the condition of the cows? The Parliamentary Secretary said that that was the law.

It is very nearly the law as it is, and there would be satisfaction in having this matter settled, because there have been varying decisions and the circumstances are not always the same. The talk about the purity of milk and milk fats is all beside the point. Does the Parliamentary Secretary want to have a person adjudged guilty, even though he has proved to the satisfaction of the court that the milk was sold as it came from the cow, was not tampered with, that the cattle were properly milked, and were healthy and well-fed? I cannot see any point in including certain words which will be made a matter of doubt. The courts up and down the country have taken various views, according to the circumstances. The amendment is going to make the matter clear. Another point arises in connection with the sale of milk to a creamery, where it does not matter, in the end, what is sold, as what is paid for is what the creamery is looking for. That position will be gauged in terms of milk fats or milk solids. If for some reason unknown an addition has been made to milk, while a creamery has a recognised percentage of fats or solids, is the person delivering the milk guilty of an offence? He has not fooled anyone, and has not sold to the prejudice of anyone, because the milk was sold on a recognised method and the analysis is there. We should have our minds clear as to whether we want to have a man found guilty of an offence when he has healthy cattle, even though the milk is found deficient.

Mr. O'Donovan

The Parliamentary Secretary said——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should remember that this is the Report Stage.

Mr. Cosgrave

This is a very important matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, but I am reminding the Deputy that we are on the Report Stage now.

Mr. O'Donovan

If milk is sold as it came from cows, if it is open to a District Justice under this Bill in a case of that sort to fine the person concerned, there is no hope for anybody who supplies milk.

Mr. Cosgrave

There might be a case where the standard was fixed at 3 per cent. and where the milk supplied was less than that. Owing to severe weather on a particular night the percentage might be reduced, and although the customer may have got value in excess of the requisite standard, still a lapse might occur, as anyone who has experience of these matters knows, and a man might be subject to a penalty, although the cattle were well fed. Some provision should be made for exceptional circumstances.

Mr. O'Donovan

There is no safeguard for farmers supplying creameries.

Dr. Rowlette

I understand the intention of the Bill is to ensure that the purchaser will get milk of a certain standard to be prescribed by the Minister for Agriculture. I do not think that is an unreasonable provision, even if it results, as Deputy McGilligan suggested, in creating a new legal offence —that of supplying milk which does not come up to the standard prescribed. It is admitted that on certain occasions milk may be below quite a moderate standard, but it is not likely that the milk of a mixed herd will be below that standard if it is at all a reasonably good breed. It is not putting an undue hardship on dairymen and keepers of cows to ask them to ensure that their animals will give milk of a reasonable standard, such as one believes the Minister will fix. It might be a considerable hardship on the seller if milk from one cow fell below the standard, and if he was held to be guilty of an offence, but, if milk from a herd falls below that standard, it is reasonable to insist that milk of a certain standard should be supplied. It is true that the milk of particular breeds of cattle differ. If this Bill becomes law it should be the duty of dairymen to keep cows which will give milk of an average standard. The onus is put upon them to supply milk which will be defined by the regulations, instead of leaving them to supply any milk that comes from the cows. The Parliamentary Secretary is right when he said that if the definition is left as it is, it would be almost impossible, in most cases, to establish any offence for selling diluted milk, or milk deficient in fats.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not the amendment.

Dr. Rowlette

Even with the safeguards in the amendment there is the possibility of milk coming from cattle which are well selected, properly milked and properly fed, being below the standard, and being inadequate as a human food, when the purchaser bought it as milk. I hope the amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. Bennett

This is a very important matter for dairy people. We all admit that the object the Minister hopes to achieve is an admirable one, one which will have the support of most Deputies. I should like to point out, however, that Deputy O'Donovan and others are concerned about the position of farmers whose milk never, by any chance, reaches consumers in towns. In recent years legislation has imposed somewhat rigid regulations on these farmers, and they have advanced their system in order to cope with that legislation. Everything possible has been done by them so that milk will arrive at creameries in good condition. There are inspectors to look after the condition of the churns, and to see that they are clean. If extra tasks are imposed on farmers, as a result of which they may possibly be prosecuted because the milk from certain cows is below a certain standard, it will cause hardship on suppliers whose milk will possibly never be used for human consumption, because it is sold at the creameries and is paid for according to the amount of butter fat it contains. Perhaps some way might be found in the Bill to exclude such persons from its operation. If that could be arranged we would have no objection to any legislation that tends to provide milk of the best possible quality for consumption in the cities and towns. Everyone is anxious to see that condition of things attained. From my experience of legislation in this House I am aware that many Acts are passed containing provisions to be used only on rare occasions, but I have found that in practice those provisions are afterwards very extensively used. It may be indicated here that in the case of dairy farmers this Bill will never affect them. Possibly it will not, but there is always the danger that numbers of small farmers in the West of Ireland and in other remote parts of the country may be brought within its scope and they may find themselves faced with penalties for a new crime.

Mr. O'Donovan

Perhaps the Minister will see his way to accept Deputy Bennett's suggestion and so safeguard the interests of the milk suppliers. Of course, we do not stand for the type of man who waters his milk, the type of man for whom the pump is the best cow. We would not tolerate anything like that. We contend that if it is proved that the milk was the milk produced by the proper milking of healthy and well-fed cattle and that it was sold in the same condition as it came from the cow, the person concerned should not be brought to the court.

Amendment put. The Dáil divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 66:—

Tá

Beckett, James Walter.Belton, Patrick.Bennett, George Cecil.Bourke, Séamus.Brennan, Michael.Burke, James Michael.Burke, Patrick.Coburn, James.Cosgrave, William T.Costello, John Aloysius.Curran, Richard.Davis, Michael.Desmond, William.Dillon, James M.Doyle, Peadar S.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fagan, Charles.Finlay, John.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Haslett, Alexander.Holohan, Richard.

Keating, John.MacDermot, Frank.MacEoin, Seán.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.McGovern, Patrick.McGuire, James Ivan.Minch, Sydney B.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Nally, Martin.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Reidy, James.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Rogers, Patrick James.Wall, Nicholas.

Níl.

Aiken, Frank.Anthony, Richard.Bartley, Gerald.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Brian.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Carty, Frank.Concannon, Helena.Corish, Richard.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Timothy.Davin, William.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Doherty, Hugh.Everett, James.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Andrew.Geoghegan, James.Gibbons, Seán.Goulding, John.Harris, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.Houlihan, Patrick.Kehoe, Patrick.Kelly, James Patrick.Kelly, Thomas.

Keyes, Michael.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.Murphy, Patrick Stephen.Norton, William.O'Briain, Donnchadh.O'Doherty, Joseph.O'Dowd, Patrick.O'Grady, Seán.O Ceallaigh, Seán T.O'Reilly, John Joseph.O'Reilly, Matthew.Pattison, James P.Pearse, Margaret Mary.Rice, Edward.Rowlette, Robert James.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Victory, James.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies O'Donovan and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.

Amendment declared lost.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. McGilligan

Sub-section (2) of Section 5 refers to Section 14 of the 1899 Act as not applying to milk. Does it apply to milk?

Dr. Ward

I am afraid I could not tell the Deputy that.

Mr. McGilligan

The sub-section says:

Section 14 of the Act of 1899 shall, in so far as it relates to milk, cease to have effect.

Does it relate to milk at the moment?

Mr. MacEntee

Is this a speech on the Fifth Stage?

Mr. McGilligan

We can have the Fifth Stage any other time the Minister likes.

Dr. Ward

It does apply to milk. It refers to the taking of samples of milk in the course of delivery but we are providing for the taking of samples of milk in course of transit or delivery.

Mr. McGilligan

What else does it apply to?

Dr. Ward

Other articles of food.

Mr. McGilligan

Does it so say?

Dr. Ward

It says "Provided that no samples shall be taken under this section except on the request or with the consent of the purchaser or the consignee."

Mr. McGilligan

Is it confined to the first words that were read? Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what it applies to?

Dr. Ward

I will not say offhand. It relates to the taking of samples of milk only.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not simply repeal Section 14?

Dr. Ward

When the Deputy asks me why not, I suppose the only reply I can make is that I have not been advised by my legal advisers that it is necessary to repeal it.

Mr. McGilligan

You are repealing it in so far as it relates to milk, and it only relates to milk?

Dr. Ward

That would appear to be so.

Question put and agreed to.