Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Feb 1935

Vol. 55 No. 2

Milk and Dairies Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

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

I move: "That the Milk and Dairies Bill, 1934 be read a Second Time."

In deference to representations received from various quarters urging that additional powers should be given to sanitary authorities in regard to the registration of dairymen and purveyors of milk, the Milk Bill, 1934, was withdrawn in the last session for the purpose of having the requisite provisions included. In drafting the new legislation, opportunity has been taken to incorporate therein, as far as possible, existing enactments for safeguarding the purity of milk and for preventing the spread of disease by infected milk. The present Bill, therefore, embodies practically all previous legislative provisions framed for the purpose of ensuring the purity of milk intended for sale for human consumption in the form of milk.

As the members of the Dáil are already familiar with the terms of the original Bill, it is only necessary on this occasion to set out in detail the additional matters which are being dealt with in the Milk and Dairies Bill, 1934.

Part I. of the Bill contains preliminary and general provisions. The principal alterations as compared with the original Bill are as follows:—A new section, No. 9, defines more precisely what are to be regarded as premises utilised by dairymen for the purposes of their business. Section 12 replaces Section 11 of the former Bill and deals with the right of entry of sanitary officers and of inspectors to premises for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act. The object of this amendment is to set out such powers more clearly and to increase the penalty for obstruction of right of entry.

Parts II. and III. of the present Bill represent two new portions which have been added to the original Bill. Part II. provides for the registration by sanitary authorities of dairymen and dairies. A temporary exemption from such registration is granted by Section 19 to suppliers to creameries which are authorised to sell pasteurised milk under a special designation licence. The reason for this exemption is that the milk produced by such suppliers has already for a number of years been subject to inspection in pursuance of the requirements of the Dairy Produce Act, 1924. This Part of the Bill requires every sanitary authority to keep a register of dairymen and to register the name and address of each applicant and particulars of the several premises specified in his application. If a sanitary authority are satisfied that an applicant is not suitable for registration as a dairyman they may refuse to register him or where he requests registration in respect of several premises they may refuse to register him in respect of such of these premises as they do not consider satisfactory.

Every order made by a sanitary authority refusing to register an applicant or premises shall state the specific grounds on which the application has been refused. Appeal to the Minister against any such refusal order is provided for, and he may confirm such refusal order or direct the sanitary authority to register the applicant or premises, as the case may be. The sale of milk by unregistered dairymen or on unregistered premises is prohibited. Provisions are included for the carrying on of business for a transitory period after the death of a dairyman in order to give time for the registration of the new proprietor. Power is taken to cancel registration of any dairyman or of particular premises where the sanitary authority are satisfied that just cause for such cancellation exists. Power of appeal to the Minister is given in respect of cancellation of registration and he may either confirm such cancellation or revoke it. Arrangements are made for rectification of erroneous entries in the register, and for annual re-registration of dairymen. The particulars included in the register are to be admissible in evidence in legal proceedings on the production of a certified copy of such particulars.

Part III. of the Bill authorises the making of regulations by the Minister in relation to dairies and milk and the inspection of animals. These regulations cover a wide field in regard to the construction of dairies, the cleanliness of dairies, vessels, machines and vehicles used in connection with the production and distribution of milk, the precautions to be taken for protecting milk against contamination or infection, and the methods of handling and distributing milk. The regulations are to be made with the concurrence of the Minister for Agriculture. The same right of temporary exemption from the provisions of this part of the Bill is given to suppliers of milk to creameries selling pasteurised milk as is given in Part II. of the Bill. Provision is also included for the inspection of animals in dairies by veterinary inspectors or registered veterinary surgeons, and for the taking of samples of milk from any animal for examination.

Part IV. of the Bill provides for the sale of milk under special designations. The only alteration in this part as compared with the original Bill is in regard to the provision dealing with fees payable for special designation licences. It is specified that such fees shall be collected in money and in such manner as the Minister for Finance may direct. The Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, is not to apply in respect of any fees payable to the Minister. Arrangements are also made for different fees being prescribed in respect of different classes of special designation licences and also in respect of special designation licences granted by the Minister and by other authorities.

Part V. of the Bill deals with the prevention of disease likely to be caused by infected milk. The only alteration in this Part is the inclusion of a new Section 41, which prohibits access to milk in a dairy by persons infected with a disease to which that part of the Act applies or by persons who have been in contact with such an infected person.

Part VI. relates to the sale of milk from diseased animals and contains only consequential alterations.

Part VII. deals with bacteriological examination of milk and has been amended in Section 48 in order that the manner of examination of milk can be prescribed so as to secure uniformity as far as possible in the methods adopted.

Part VIII. provides for the taking of samples of milk and has been altered in Sections 50 and 53 so as to distinguish between the procedure to be observed in sampling:—

(a) milk contained in closed receptacles (such as bottles) for sale retail in such receptacles, and

(b) loose milk contained in churns, cans, etc.

Provision is also being made for the transmission direct to a bacteriological examiner of any milk sample taken on a sampling notice if such notice so specifies.

Part IX. contains miscellaneous provisions. Section 55 has been altered by eliminating the reference to infected milk, seeing that the sale of such milk is already prohibited by Sections 39 and 44 of the present Bill. A definition of contaminated milk is also added. In Section 56 it has been deemed desirable to insert the Irish equivalents of milk, cream and buttermilk, seeing that the word milk in this part of the Act covers these classes of milk as well as separated or skimmed milk. The latter class of milk is dealt with in the following Section 57.

The following additional enactments are being repealed, viz.:—

Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 and 1886, as the powers thereof are incorporated in Parts II. and III. of the present Bill.

Section 4 of the Infectious Disease (Prevention) Act, 1890, which will be made redundant by the passing of Section 38 of the present Bill.

Sections 53 and 54 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, which will become unnecessary on the passing of Sections 59 and 42, respectively, of the present Bill.

Section 19 of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, which will be no longer required in view of the greater power of control of dairymen granted to sanitary authorities under the registration provisions in Part II. of the Bill.

I may add that in framing the new Bill careful and sympathetic consideration has been given to all the points raised in discussions on the previous measure, and the legislation now proposed will, I am sure, commend itself to all persons interested in improving the methods of production and distribution of milk with a view to maintaining its purity and wholesomeness, and will ensure that increased consumption of this important article of nourishment can be encouraged with unalloyed benefit to the public health and more especially with advantage to the physical development and welfare of young children.

Mr. Brennan

The underlying principles of this Bill are sound and must be welcomed by every member of the House. There are a few points, however, that I would like to have cleared up. I am afraid many difficulties in the way of administration may arise on this measure, but they will probably be more suitably dealt with on the Committee Stage rather than on the Second Reading. There is one section in particular, Section 16, dealing with the financial aspects of the Bill, which I think is unfair in a certain respect. Ensuring clean milk is a necessity, ensuring pure milk is a necessity, but the chief purpose of the measure is to fight against tuberculosis. Fighting tuberculosis in this country and in every country in the world must be regarded as a national problem. Under our county councils there are veterinary surgeons appointed to deal with bovine tuberculosis. Their salaries are refunded either in whole or in part by the Department of Agriculture or some Government Department. Now, we find that this Bill, which is superseding practically all the others, is to be financed wholly out of the local rates. I do not think that that is fair. I believe the administration of this Bill is going to present difficulties, but the Government have an opportunity at the present time of taking stock of the administration of similar measures in other States, and in that way they ought to be able to devise a machine which will work more smoothly than could possibly be the case if we were the originators of a scheme of this sort.

In Sections 10 and 11 there is a very hard and fast rule directing the sanitary authority to enforce the provisions of this measure. I have no doubt that a number of officials will have to be appointed to see that the Act is carried out. Ordinarily I think that the Government ought to endeavour to meet this in a national way—to meet the financial aspects in a national way —and in view of the present state of the finances of local authorities I think such a course is extremely desirable. That is my main objection to the Bill. I strongly urge the Government to consider whether this fight against disease ought not to be financed to some extent by them. Local authorities, and particularly boards of health, are having new duties and additional expenses shoved on to them day after day. The result is that, because of their increasing burdens, they are finding it very difficult to carry on. I ask the Government to consider whether they ought not to regard this as a national matter, this fighting of disease.

I do not know whether it is made clear in the Bill that milk producers who sell milk to creameries should be registered. If they are not obliged to be registered, then another difficulty will arise. I understand that some creameries supply whole milk and, in that case, my contention would be that every supplier of the creamery would have to be registered, even though he supplied a very small amount of milk. If they supply any whole milk, I think the suppliers ought to be registered in the ordinary way; otherwise you will not be able to work the Act, and the Act will not be worth printing if it is not administered effectively. The barrier in this respect will be finance. It is very hard to expect local authorities to take on the additional duties and expenses which are being placed on their shoulders at the present time. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should seriously consider putting this point to the Government.

Dr. Rowlette

I think the Parliamentary Secretary is to be congratulated in that this Bill is a distinct advance on the measure that was before the House a couple of months ago. He has improved this Bill very much by accepting the suggestion then made to introduce legislation providing for the registration of dairies. There are other sections of this measure that have also benefited to some extent by the discussion in the House, and the amendments that were submitted with the object of improving the former measure, particularly in regard to the conditions governing sampling. Nevertheless, I am somewhat disappointed that, having had the advantage of a couple of months' consideration of the measure, and the points that were put before him in the debates in this House before Christmas, he has not accepted some more of the suggestions then made to him. He appealed to us then to assist him as far as we could, and I think it is a little disappointing that he has not taken more advantage of the assistance offered to him. During the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Milk Bill, I suggested that the Bill was deficient in three very important points. The first was that there was no consideration of the possibility of eradication of tuberculosis in cattle. If I remember aright, it was suggested that that must be dealt with separately, and I think he said that it was a matter for the Minister for Agriculture. I do not press that point now, as it does not come within the Bill.

The second point to which I drew his attention was the great importance of the system of registration or licences, and he has accepted that. The third point was that there was no power for a sanitary authority to go outside its own district and study at its source the milk that is sold in that district. He has not seen fit to strengthen the measure in that respect. I am disappointed that he has not dealt with that, because it is clearly of great importance. The provision in the Bill, that the local authority of a particular district may invoke the aid of a local authority of another district in order to study the milk sold in the first district at its source in the second district, I do not think is adequate to meet the case at all.

One cannot expect a local authority, working at secondhand, to oblige a neighbouring or distant local authority, to be as much interested in the manner in which milk is produced as would be the authority of the district where the people suffer if bad milk is supplied. Moreover, the local authority, let us say, of a country district which supplies milk to Dublin or Cork, will be loath to interfere with the sale of its milk in distant areas, and will certainly not exercise the same enthusiasm in securing pure milk as would a local authority such as Dublin or Cork if they could trace the milk to its source. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, although he has considered these points for some months, has not closed his mind against further consideration of them, and that he will be willing to consider on the merits any amendment put forward at a later stage.

Deputy Brennan has just drawn attention to an extremely important point, that is, as regards the expense of working the Bill when it becomes an Act. The Bill is framed to be compulsory on local authorities, but its success will depend on the energy with which it is worked. I can quite see such a measure as this, if it receives the hostility of local authorities, becoming a dead-letter within a year. The interest of the local authorities must be aroused, and they must be encouraged. That cannot be done simply by stating that it is their duty to carry out the measure. The principle which governs most health activities both in this country and in Great Britain, where they have a longer experience than we have, has been that expenses in regard to the promotion of health should be a divided charge between the local authority and the State.

In regard to most undertakings there is a fair half and half division of expenditure—the State pays half and the local authority half—and the fact that the State pays half has been a great inducement to local authorities to undertake activities in regard to which they might otherwise have been slack. That is the law in regard to many activities undertaken in this country. It is the law, and in fact is the practice, in Great Britain where, as I say, the experience is longer and more intimate than ours. It is the law here as regards the prevention and treatment of tuberculosis. Theoretically, but not in practice, it is the law in regard to the salaries of dispensary doctors. Unfortunately, it is not the law as regards the salaries of county medical officers of health and that probably has a good deal to do with the fact, as the Minister pointed out in his very interesting broadcast a week or two ago, that many local authorities have been acting in defiance of the law in regard to the appointment of county medical officers of health for ten years this year. If they had the encouragement they have in regard to the appointment of tuberculosis medical officers I think there is very little doubt that they would have been more speedy in obeying the law in that respect. I hope that the Government will take that point into consideration, because I am quite convinced that thorough and energetic and enthusiastic action to protect the milk supply will not be undertaken by the local authorities unless they get some assistance from State funds.

Although this measure is compulsory on the local authorities I note in regard to the control of licences and other matters that the local authorities have power to inspect but that they have no duty to inspect. The Bill does not impose any duty upon them of inspecting dairies. The result is that a dairyman may hold a licence for a considerable time without anything being discovered wrong with the milk because there has been no inspection of the dairies. If the licensing system is to be effective, it will be necessary to impose on the local authorities, as was suggested in some amendments put down in regard to the Milk Bill of last year, the duty of inspecting licensed dairies at regular intervals, certainly not more infrequently than twice a year. Otherwise the licences may become almost a dead-letter and little regard will be paid by the holders of the licences to the necessity for keeping their dairies and premises and methods of high class.

In the debate on the Second Reading of the previous measure it was pointed out that there were still several counties in which there was no county medical officer of health. At that time I said that I thought there were about six and the Parliamentary Secretary corrected me and said there were only five. I see that the Minister in his broadcast a couple of weeks ago stated there were eight, so that we are still in doubt as to the exact number. Since the Minister's statement I have noticed two further appointments gazetted, so that at the outside I do not think there are more than six and quite possibly fewer. The Minister was hardly likely to exaggerate the number of the local authorities that had failed in their duty in that respect. At any rate, whether it is four or six or eight, there are a number of areas in which there is no machinery for administration. The Bill provides that the dispensary doctor is to be the active officer in this respect, but one can hardly take such a suggestion as providing anything like adequate machinery.

I am sorry, too, that in the provisions regarding licences the Parliamentary Secretary appears to have still in mind that even special designation licences should be granted by the local authority. I think it would conduce to greater respect for these special designations if the grant of such licences was confined to the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary has just pointed out that a definition of contaminated milk has been inserted amongst the miscellaneous provisions but, as far as I can see, there is not contained in the Bill any definition of dirty milk. That was one of the points on which the Parliamentary Secretary appealed to the House when moving the Second Reading of the other Milk Bill and two amendments were put down, each of which seemed to be fairly exhaustive. There may be faults in them which did not appear on the surface and the Parliamentary Secretary may have good reasons for refusing to accept either of the amendments, but I think that if he refuses to accept either of the amendments, which on the face of them appear fairly satisfactory and practicable, he should introduce a definition himself.

As regards the control of sickness, both in the workers at the dairy and in the animals themselves, I do not think the conditions, though somewhat stricter than they were, are strict enough. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider an amendment which was put down for the previous Bill in reference to the occurrence of sickness of unknown cause either in a dairy worker or in an animal, and that some provision should be made for excluding a dairyman who has been sick until the cause of his sickness is known, and also preventing the milk of a cow that has been sick going into the general stock until the cause of the sickness is known. I put down an amendment to that effect on the Committee Stage of the last Bill, which was drawn up after conference with experts who had given much thought to the matter.

The clauses dealing with the exemption of dairymen who supply milk to creameries seem to me to contain one very great element of danger. I can conceive no more rapid method of spreading tuberculosis amongst the stock in a neighbourhood than supplying milk that is infected with tuberculosis to the local creamery. The milk goes into the common stock, and it is afterwards distributed over the whole district. If tubercle bacilli are present in milk that is distributed all over the parish, that naturally produces a large number of calves, and subsequently cows, infected with tuberculosis.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not pasteurised in the creamery?

Dr. Rowlett

I do not think so.

A Deputy

It is.

Dr. Rowlette

In regard to pasteurisation, one has to exercise a certain amount of caution, because the efficiency of pasteurisation depends altogether on the method that is pursued and the care with which that method is followed. It has been shown after examination, notably in Scotland, that there was grave danger to the health of the public by milk which had been technically pasteurised. If the milk is efficiently pasteurised its purity may not be open to question, but when the milk is not so pasteurised the criticism has considerable weight.

In the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee some years ago, there was a suggestion made to which I drew the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading Debate of the previous Bill some months ago, but I do not think it received any consideration. The Inter-Departmental Committee pointed out 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 to conform to the provisions of the reformed legislation. I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to that matter again. It is not only necessary to get the sympathy of local authorities in the operation of this Bill but it is also necessary to get the sympathy of producers in order to get milk produced under the best conditions. It may be necessary, in order to safeguard the public health, to hold out some inducement in this way to producers to meet the requirements of the law cordially and willingly and I think that the Government should give some consideration to that recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee. I welcome the improved measure and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will improve it still further before it leaves the House.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Dr. Rowlette in the last few sentences of his speech has laid his finger on the kernel of this question. As the Bill stands it is undoubtedly going to entail more expense on the producer. In a large number of cases, people are being compelled to set up new housing for their cattle. A number of them will have to instal new machinery and things of that description. If any Bill of this description is going to work as successfully as we would wish to see it work, it will have to carry with it some provision for grants or other advances to enable small producers of milk to erect proper housing and instal machinery. It would also require a provision definitely setting out the prices that the producer will get for that milk and the price at which the milk must be sold to the consumer.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that this is a Public Health Bill brought in by the Minister for Local Government. It is not an agricultural Bill and it does not purport in any way to deal with the price of milk.

Mr. Corry

The Bill, as you say, A Chinn Comhairle, is a Health Bill, but what we are concerned with here, I think, is the working of the Bill afterwards. We do not want to see the Bill more observed in evasion than in fulfilment. I suggested that the Bill will be observed more in evasion unless it carries with it some inducement to the producer to produce Grade A milk, for instance. He is undoubtedly entitled to a decent price, and the Bill makes no provision for that. In that way, the question of price will have to be considered on the Second Reading in conjunction with the provisions of the Bill. I consider that a Bill of this description which makes no provision for the producer and only imposes extra expenses on him—expenses which, in my opinion, will drive a large number of the smaller producers out of the market altogether—is a matter which needs very serious attention. This Bill will undoubtedly entail extra expense on the producer, and in a large number of cases, where their housing facilities for cattle are not what they should be, will entail driving them out of production altogether. I think that this Bill should carry with it, side by side, a Bill from the Minister for Agriculture making provision for these things, or that that provision should be contained in the Bill itself. Undoubtedly the present position of the producer in many of our towns and cities is in no way an enviable one. He is producing milk that is being sold at practically butter fat prices to the retailer. The retailer is one of the get-rich-quick profiteers of either Dublin or Cork City, who buy the milk at 4d. per gallon and sell it at 1/8.

Mr. Davin

That is all right in Cork, but not in Dublin.

Mr. Corry

From what I heard, Dublin is about ten degrees worse.

Mr. Belton

Is that why so much Cork milk is coming to Dublin?

Mr. Corry

That is the principal fault I see in the measure, that it does not deal with what, after all, is the kernel of the situation. You cannot expect a farmer to undergo large expenses and all the preparations that are entailed in providing milk under these conditions unless there is a fair price. I think the Bill should carry with it definite provisions for a fair price for the producer, according to the different grades of milk he produces and should also carry with it a definite price for the consumer so as to end, once and for all, the profiteering in milk that has been going on, for the past ten years at any rate.

Mr. Holohan

I am more or less in favour of this Bill. While I think it is a good Bill, it will entail a great deal of extra expense on producers, in order to carry out the milking of cows under the conditions set out in it. The producers will be put to the expense of having to build houses or to put other buildings into proper condition. It is not such an easy problem as some people might think to have cows milked in houses, and to have the milk as clean as everyone would like to have it before it is sent to the towns or the creameries. Farmers will now have to erect cowhouses and sheds with proper floors, proper ventilation and drainage, and that will be a big expense. In addition, there will be further expense entailed in having new inspectors. A great deal of that expense will also have to be borne by farmers. If they are to keep milk in the condition that the Bill requires, some of the expenditure should be borne by the Central Fund. If the Bill is to be a success the State should undertake to bear some of the expenses. Producers have to bear enough expense at present without having to incur any more. If the Bill is to be worked satisfactorily, in my opinion, it will be necessary for the State to contribute the expense that will be entailed.

Mr. Bennett

I am glad that the Minister has in this Bill attempted to meet some of the objections that were raised to the previous Bill. I presume the Bill is a necessity. Every Deputy who is interested in the supply of clean, uncontaminated milk to residents in cities and towns will acknowledge generally that the Minister has produced a fairly good Bill. But I should like to join with the other Deputies in asking the Minister to consider whether on the further stages he could not introduce a clause making a more generous allocation of State funds towards the working of the Bill. If, as Deputy Brennan pointed out, local bodies are burdened with considerable expense in putting this measure into operation, there will be reluctance on their part to work it fully. I objected in the previous Bill to the question of registration being introduced by Deputy Rowlette, and while we all admit that people living near cities and large towns who supply milk intended solely for human consumption should be subject to some provision—if you like some sort of registration—that need does not apply to producers of milk, rather than suppliers, in out-of-the-way parts of the country.

It was the principle of registration I objected to in the previous Bill. The Minister then stated that he would meet the points raised by putting a clause into this Bill excluding suppliers of milk to creameries from the registration section. He has met us in that respect as suppliers of milk to registered premises under the Dairy Produce Act—I presume these mean creameries—are temporarily excluded from the provision requiring registration. I should be opposed to the registration of these producers at any time or in any circumstances, as in recent years they are subject to various regulations governing the conduct of their business, which make it incumbent upon them to produce and supply clean milk. As they are governed by innumerable regulations issued by the Department of Agriculture I would object to bringing them under the terms of compulsory registration. I am glad that the Minister has, in a measure, met us, but I still object to Section 19. The first sub-section excludes creameries from the operations of registration, but the second sub-section gives the Minister power, at any time, to make an order declaring that the first sub-section shall not operate. That means, practically, that these concerns may at any time under a future Ministry, suddenly become subject to registration as well as milk suppliers in towns and cities.

Mr. Belton

Why not?

Mr. Bennett

I object to wholesale regulations to register farmers, because it would entail the setting up of very cumbersome machinery and many new inspectors; an expenditure that would be altogether out of proportion to the benefits that would be obtained, especially as they are already subject to very strict regulations under another Department. That would practically be in the nature of a bombshell to the dairying industry, in districts where milk is not supplied for human consumption, and in many cases would put numerous people out of the business. Deputy Corry stated that small suppliers in cities would have to reconstruct their premises. I admit that if public health officials were sent through the country they would probably declare many byres unfit for the purpose for which they are used, and would propose that the farmers should rebuild them. If that was done it would put many farmers out of the production of milk. I do not know if many Deputies really understand how milk is produced. Farmers may not have the up-to-date cowhouses that are to be found in the cities, with polished walls and other requirements. These places are not to be seen in country districts because the farmers could not afford them.

In the county I represent, as a general practice, the cows are not milked in the byres. They are milked under probably the cleanest conditions known to man, out in the green fields under the canopy of God's sky, where there is no contamination from manure or dirt. Milk produced under such circumstances is probably much cleaner than that produced in cities and towns. If the regulation for wholesale registration is to be applied to the country districts it would create a tremendous agitation amongst farmers. It would be something like a bombshell to the industry and would be universally resented. It is for that reason that I object to the principle of registration being applied to suppliers of milk to creameries. The bulk of that milk never reaches human beings, because it is converted into cheese, butter and other commodities.

As none of it is produced for human consumption as milk, the necessity for registration does not apply to such suppliers as much as to suppliers, where milk is intended for consumption in cities and towns. With that exception I think this is a good Bill, to which there will not be any general opposition. I ask the Minister to reconsider whether, having met us so far as temporarily to exclude farmers, he could not go the whole way, and make the exclusion of registration permanent or, at least, make it clear that the hammer will not be held over the heads of suppliers, by including here a provision which may at any time be put into operation.

Mr. Belton

Were it not for some remarks made by the last speaker I had not intended saying anything on this Bill. Deputy Bennett approves of Section 1, but he does not approve of Section 2 which gives power to the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, to make certain premises subject to the provisions of this measure. Some of the best dairymen that we have had in County Dublin have been put out of business because they had to comply with so many regulations. There was no evasion for them, as suggested by Deputy Corry, and why? Because cheap milk, not produced under the same conditions as apply in the County Dublin—not as good milk—was dumped in Dublin. The result was that the local men had to get out. The creameries in Cork and Limerick, on behalf of which we had speeches from Deputy Corry and Deputy Bennett, are supplying large quantities of liquid milk to Dublin and Cork for human consumption. Both these counties supply more liquid milk to the City of Dublin than the County Dublin itself does. If the Minister feels that the same restrictions as regards the condition of cow houses, method of milking, and so on, are not as necessary for the production of milk used for the making of butter and cheese as for milk used directly for human consumption—if he sees that he can be more lax in the one case than the other—then I leave that question to him to decide. In the case of milk used directly for human consumption, no matter where that milk is produced, there should be, in my opinion, a uniform method of control.

Dr. Ward

So there is.

Mr. Belton

If those competent to judge are satisfied by the arguments used by Deputy Bennett, well, I am. I do say, however, that creameries sending milk to the City of Dublin for human consumption should be subject to the same restrictions as producers in and around the City of Dublin. I do not think it is any hardship on any man to use concrete lavishly in a cowshed because it pays him to do so. If there are men who cannot see the economy of doing that, then the Government should force them to practise that economy because work of that kind will pay for itself. It will tend to make the animals more comfortable, and there is no use in keeping cows if they are not comfortable. The more comfortable and the healthier the cows are the more milk they will give. People of experience know the difference there is in the supply of milk which cows give during mild weather and cold weather. I am sure it will be news to Deputy Bennett to hear that we, in Dublin, must keep a wash basin, clean water, soap and a towel in the cowshed.

Mr. Bennett

I do it myself.

Mr. Belton

Then where is your grievance? And the milker must have a white overall and wash his hands after the milking of each pair of cows. I think that is a cleaner and a better system than the one Deputy Bennett spoke about of milking under the canopy of heaven. I agree with the views expressed by Deputy Brennan, Deputy Bennett and Deputy Corry that the expense of this measure should be borne on the Central Fund. This question of a milk supply is a national one and, therefore, I think the Government should respond to the appeal that has been made. Speaking as a Dublin representative, I want to say that, in my opinion, this measure, when it becomes an Act, should be made operative over the whole country. Acts of the Oireachtas passed by this and the previous Government, having for their object the bringing about of an improvement in the health of human beings and of animals are, in my opinion, very well administered by the local authorities despite what Deputy Dr. Rowlette said. They are impartially and efficiently administered, but it would be most unfair to milk producers in the city and county of Dublin if they were to be squeezed out of the market because milk producers in other counties were not obliged to observe the conditions laid down in this Bill. Regulations dealing with the production of milk are carried out in a very thorough way in the city and county of Dublin, in Meath and in Kildare, but I think in most counties there is a great deal of laxity. I regard the Bill as a good one, and I again urge on the Minister to see that no county is given an option as to whether it will enforce its provisions or not.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

As County Meath supplies a considerable quantity of milk to Dublin, I naturally have some interest in this measure. I think that it represents a good attempt to solve the problem of providing clean and healthy milk for the people of this city. That, of course, will involve some expense. It is important to have maintained for the City of Dublin not only a clean milk supply, but one that will be uniform in quality and constant. The position to-day is that there is no uniformity about the supply of milk to Dublin. The principal complaint made by dairymen down in County Meath— we have at least three distributing centres there controlled by proprietors who convey the milk to Dublin—is that they constantly find a surplus of milk left on their hands. They say that is due to the almost unlimited quantities of milk that reach Dublin from all parts of the country. It comes in spasmodically. During the past few days there has been a shortage again but, during the week before last, there seemed to be a considerable supply of milk coming in from some place. Nobody seems to know where it came from. The railways did not indicate any increase. It must have come through other channels and it left a surplus in the hands of the dairymen, Dublin dairymen included, I suppose. It is not possible to dispose of surplus milk in a short time. That state of affairs is a great source of loss and this registration would, to a large extent, obviate that loss if it were insisted upon. I take it that to insist on registration and on up-to-date methods will put quite a number of small men who have not the necessary capital to change over out of action. For the benefit of the public-health, they must be put out of action if they cannot conform to the terms laid down by the sanitary authority. A number of farmers have objection to these inspectors and officials coming to their premises. In general, the real source of the objection is that they have not the capital to make the necessary changes. It is extraordinary how little money was spent on the supply of milk to children in County Meath. I made inquiries about the matter. The money was there to pay for the milk and the children were there to drink it, but quite a number of people who were in a position to supply the milk were afraid to do so lest the public health authorities should come down upon them and compel them to carry out changes in their dairies.

The object of this Bill is to secure a uniform and clean supply of milk to the city. The city is paying for that milk. The price being paid is sufficient to maintain a continuous supply and sufficient to give a profit to the farmers. The fact, however, is that milk in County Meath is sold at 7d., while it is sold here in the city at 14d. I think that Deputy Belton will agree with me that a price of 7d. or 8d. is not sufficient to enable a producer to keep going. Therefore, in order to ensure the success of this Act something more is necessary. Financial assistance should be given. Many Deputies here justly advocated that course. The price being paid for milk leaves plenty of room for that. In between the producer and consumer there is great profiteering, or if not there is extravagance.

Mr. Belton

Uncertainty is the cause of it. There is no profiteering.

Mr. O'Reilly

It may be uncertainty, because the supply is not uniform or controlled, and nobody is able to estimate what it will be from time to time. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that this form of registration will give the certainty of which the Deputy speaks. That certainty is necessary. In other words, the producer ought to be able to invest capital in his business with the object of producing the very best milk without being open to the danger of being left with a surplus because of a sudden inspiration to somebody in the country or because somebody avails of a cheap lorry going to town and forestalls him in the market. The increased supply would, of course, result in reduction of price. It is necessary to pay a good price to get proper milk. If some steps could be taken to guarantee a market to the producer, and if there were certainty of demand, I believe the stability that is necessary would be created. If the section which covers registration is worked to the full, it may do that. I believe it is possible to bring about those results.

Those are the real reasons why farmers have not gone into milk production in this country as they should have done, and as they have done in other countries. They have never been sure that they would not be forestalled on the market. That is the main difficulty. In Meath, this question of milk production has developed, and we have a new milk distributing station known as the Royal Meath Dairy. That concern has quite a considerable amount of capital, and is, I believe, installing machinery at a cost of about £4,000. That is a step in the right direction, and every assistance should be given to people who see, from a business point of view, the necessity for providing the city with a clean and proper supply of milk. At first, these people were afraid to venture upon that because a creamery might have lapsed at no great distance and there was nothing to prevent an increased supply of milk reaching the city. I understand that they are now about to adventure on that business, and, if they do, I believe it is up to the consumers and to the Government, representing the consumers, to guarantee that they will have a certain market so that they may be able to go on with their business.

Mr. Dillon

I want to express once again my strong objection to the principle that one man should call the tune while another pays the piper. A practice has grown up in this State during the past ten years of increasing mandatory services on the local authorities. It is very easy to understand why. It is far easier to put a Bill through this House unconnected with a Money Resolution than it is to put through a Bill necessitating a Money Resolution. If the Parliamentary Secretary were obliged to tell us what the administration of the scheme was going to cost, this House would sit up and take notice. But we are going to impose on local authorities what, in my opinion, is going to be an extremely costly scheme. Having imposed it upon them, we are going to tell them that they must find the money. Everybody in this House is concerned to secure free milk and to prevent the recurrence of diseases which are normally caused by the consumption of impure milk. But the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health knows as well as I do that if the boards of health and the county councils meet this Bill or Act in a grudging spirit and feel that it is an imposition upon them, it will be impossible to administer the measure efficiently.

Mr. Belton

The medical officer for health will insist upon it. That is his job.

Mr. Dillon

I think that the Deputy will agree that if boards of health find that they have to ask the county councils for substantially increased amounts for board of health services, because of the administration of this measure, it will interfere with its efficient working.

Mr. Belton

I do not think so.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy has long experience of public bodies. My experience of public bodies is comparatively short, but I must say that I have found that, where the board of health is labouring under a grievance, one does not get that co-operation that makes for efficiency. The Deputy will remember that, in respect of the appointment of county medical officers of health, many of the boards of health resisted the law for years because they were required to find the money to supply the service.

Mr. Belton

I might inform the Deputy that, when a medical officer of health is appointed, he has duties to perform and he will perform them. His reports in the performance of his duty will find their way to the Ministry, and the Ministry will be aware whether the board of health is carrying out its duty or not. I am with the board of health as regards the question of expense. That should not be borne by the local authority.

Mr. Dillon

I have not the slightest doubt that, in due course, the central government will be able to coerce the local authorities into operating the letter of the law. But we will find that if we want to avoid the spirit of legislation we can very often conform with the letter of the law by constant postponement. My point is that if this House is sincere in its desire to provide a pure milk supply for the people, the best proof of that desire is to furnish the requisite money. That money is going to come from the people in any case. If we distribute the cost of that over all the people of the country, nobody will be able to measure the cost, but if all the burden is heaped upon a small section of the community, that section has to exercise prudent economy. If it is spread all over the country, no such pressure can be brought to bear in a scattered way.

In this particular case I object, but on general principles I object to this whole system of coming down on local authorities and compelling them to set up local services and then compelling them to bear the cost. This House should take responsibility, in my opinion, for the expense. If the central government feels that the people are responsible for certain social services, this House should also know the cost which such social services will entail on the community.

I am anxious to see some scheme for the supply of pure milk succeed, but Deputy Rowlette said that he hoped that before this Bill is passed, measures would be taken to secure that every dairy must be inspected at least twice a year. Now, a dairy, as defined in Section 6 of this Bill, is "any farm, farmhouse, cowshed, milk store, milk shop, or other place from which milk is supplied on or for sale, or in which milk is kept or used for purposes of sale," etc. That means that any farm, upon which milk is produced for sale in its raw state to the consumer, is, for the purposes of this Act, a dairy. Do Deputies realise the magnitude of the task of inspecting every such dairy at least twice a year, and do they realise the expense that would be involved?

Mr. Belton

We do it every month.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is speaking for the Dublin County Council.

Mr. Belton

You are competing with your more cheaply-produced milk against us. Where it is a question of a number of scattered farms, the problem becomes comparatively simple, but where you have an inspector, moving between one district and the other, that is where the expense begins to pile up. Now, I see enshrined in another part of this Bill a portion of the Bill that seems to me to be extremely obnoxious: and that is where a man applies for and is refused registration, but seeks, under Section 22, to appeal against such refusal to the Minister. It seems that there is no further appeal in that case. I can see no reason whatever, so long as we have courts in the country which have a guarantee of immunity against interference, why the appeal should not lie against the authority of the district justice. The grounds of the appeal must be stated, and I take it that the only grounds upon which the application can be refused are for a breach of some regulation which the Minister has made under Section 30. Now, the district justice is just as competent to decide on the matter of fact about people who are living in his normal area of jurisdiction as is the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. The applicant can bring the county analyst or some local official as a witness, and, which is more important, can appear in person himself and make his case, whereas, if he comes to Dublin, nothing will convince the people in the country that he has had a fair hearing of his appeal. Therefore, I suggest that instead of having his appeal to the Minister, there should be an appeal from the local authority to the district justice, and, in the event of the local authority refusing, the district justice should be constituted the licensing authority and have the right to reopen the case and grant a licence if it is thought fit to do so. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is the intention to take down the amendments, which we proposed on the old Bill, to this Bill, or must they be re-submitted? They must be re-submitted, according to the Parliamentary Secretary. Well, then, under Section 38, paragraph (a), it is provided that—

If the medical officer of a sanitary district has reason to suspect that any disease... 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... and, if such dairy is within such sanitary district, he shall examine the dairy and, if he so thinks fit, any person engaged in the serving thereof, or resident in the dairy, or who may be resident in any premises where any person employed in such dairy may reside, and shall, if necessary, require the veterinary officer to accompany him and to examine the animals therein.

I know of no legislation which gives a medical officer of health the right, arbitrarily, to examine medically somebody whether they wish to submit to that examination or not, and I regard it as an altogether intolerable infringement of individual liberty for a man or a woman who is working as a dairy employee, to have to leave himself or herself open as to whether he or she is willing to submit to such an examination on the promise of employment.

I can quite see that the circumstances here obtaining would justify an Act providing that unless the employee was prepared to submit to examination, or to produce, from a qualified medical practitioner a satisfactory certificate, the medical officer of health could close the dairy or require that person to withdraw altogether until he or she produced satisfactory evidence of good health. But I warn the House again that, if power is given to medical officers to examine a citizen of this country, with or without his or her consent, they are doing something that is highly undesirable, and that may inevitably develop into further encroachment in the name of public weal upon individual liberty. I feel so strongly upon this that I may be tempted to use violent language; and I feel it particularly in as much as this examination is to be carried out on persons employed. The fact that a man is earning his living does not entitle any medical officer, or any other Government official, to interfere with his liberty. There will be no attempt made to suggest that any general medical officer would be entitled to interfere with the citizens of the State in that way for the purpose of preventing possible danger to public health. I cannot emphasise too strongly that I am quite prepared to accept a proviso authorising medical officers to examine medically the person himself, or, in the alternative, to be shown a certificate of health from a qualified medical practitioner that would satisfy him that the person was in good health, but I strongly object to giving the medical officer of health power to examine, without the consent of the examinee.

Mr. J.M. Burke

I am in entire agreement with Deputy Dillon in what he stated about the propriety of an appeal to the District Justice. After all, the District Justice lives on the spot; he is conversant with the local circumstances, and he has all the facts before him when he pronounces his judgment. The Minister living here in Dublin has to depend upon a report of an inspector, who is sent down probably hurriedly, and who has neither the time nor the opportunity to inquire into all the circumstances of the case. On a former occasion when this, or a similar Bill, was before the House, and was withdrawn in order to draft the Bill now before us, I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary—I may be wrong—that he was in favour of such an appeal to the District Justice. With all the emphasis in my power I ask him again to reconsider the position because he must know as well as any Deputy in this House, that the proper person to deal with questions of this kind is not an itinerant inspector from Dublin, but a person on the spot, who can call witnesses and who can inspect the buildings in reference to which a licence may be refused by the local authority.

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

A number of points have been raised here that are searcely relevant to this Bill at all. Deputy Brennan talked about the fight against disease in general being a national fight, and went on to dwell upon the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle as being, in particular, a matter that ought to be dealt with on national lines. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with the cradiction of tuberculosis in cattle. As I said, when the previous Bill was before the House, the question of the eradication of tuberculosis in cattle is one for the Minister for Agriculture, and, I said then, that it was having the attention of the Minister for Agriculture. I have had several discussions with him on the subject before the introduction of the last, and, even, since the introduction of this Bill. I can assure the House that the Minister for Agriculture is fully alive to the pressing need for dealing with that particular aspect of the spread of tuberculosis. I believe, in the near future, as soon as the pressure of urgent legislation allows of it, the Minister for Agriculture will introduce a Bill dealing with that particular matter.

There has been a good deal of confusion of thought in regard to the position of creamery suppliers under this Bill. The Bill deals with the production and sale of milk for human consumption. So far as the suppliers of creameries are concerned, if these creameries are engaged merely in the manufacture of butter and cheese this Bill does not affect them. The Minister for Agriculture has his own machinery, under the Dairy Produce Act, for regulating and ensuring purity and cleanliness in the supply of milk to creameries for manufacturing purposes. If a creamery sells or distributes milk for human consumption, in the form of milk, then the supplier of that creamery would come within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Belton

Quite right too!

Mr. Curran

If a farmer happens to sell a quart of milk to his neighbour——

Dr. Ward

If the Deputy would let me explain the position it might not be necessary to interrupt at all. I am not aware—I may not be completely informed on the subject—of any creamery that supplies ordinary milk for human consumption. As far as my information goes creameries that distribute milk for consumption distribute pasteurised milk only, and the suppliers of such creameries are temporarily exempt from the scope of this Bill. Deputy Bennett complained that temporary exemption does not altogether meet his point. At any rate temporary exemption will continue until the Minister for Agriculture is satisfied that it would be advisable to extend the full scope of the Bill to suppliers of such creameries. Such creameries under this Bill when it becomes an Act will be supplying designated milk, namely pasteurised milk, and such creameries will have to comply with the same regulations—not the supplier but the creameries—as any other licence holder of special designation milk. I think that is only reasonable and fair.

Deputy Rowlette, on the subject of pasteurisation, very truthfully conveyed to the House that pasteurisation might be carried out in such a way as to be absolutely useless as a safeguard against the spread of infection, but, under this Bill, regulations having uniform application governing pasteurisation will attach to a licence to produce or sell pasteurised milk, and the special plant or machinery that may have to be used will be prescribed by the Minister. All these regulations will be laid on the Table of the House, and the House will have an opportunity of discussing them and, if dissatisfied, getting a majority of the House to disagree with them.

There has been a good deal of discussion on the question of the cost of the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act, and many Deputies have advocated very strongly that the cost of administering it should be borne by the State. Leaving that principle aside for the moment and coming to the probable cost of administering the Bill, I confess that I cannot see that that administration is going to involve local authorities in any considerable cost at all. The Bill will be administered in the main by the county medical officer of health. He is already an official of the local authorities, and the State is contributing very substantially towards his salary and travelling expenses. We have our veterinary staffs already appointed, and I do not anticipate that there is going to be any elaborate machinery necessary at all. We shall certainly have to allocate duties to existing officers under the Bill, but I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to have many appointments.

Deputy Rowlette also complained that we were taking power to inspect dairies under this Bill, but that there was no duty to inspect. Though he is not in the House at present, I had better deal with the points that were disturbing him in order that his mind may be clear before the later stages of the Bill are reached. Section 10 sets out:—

It shall be the duty of the sanitary authority to enforce the provisions of this Act and of every order and regulation made thereunder ....

The local authorities in order to comply with Section 10 will have to see that these inspections are carried out and that the conditions attaching to licences and registration are being observed.

On the question of the dispensary doctors having to administer this Bill in certain parts of the country as medical officers of health, I think that by the time this Bill becomes law, that particular difficulty will not arise at all. There is only one county outstanding where the necessary steps are not being taken to have a county medical officer of health appointed, and in that one county we are taking the necessary steps to compel that county to fall into line with the others, so that there need be no anxiety on that score. We will have uniformity. Deputy Rowlette also expressed anxiety at the contemplation of local authorities issuing special designation licences. I think that, in the earlier stages, at any rate, until standards have become more or less uniform, it may be considered advisable to have such special designation licences issued by the Minister, but at any rate, the Bill gives power to the Minister to issue such licences, or the local authorities, and as our standards are raised and local authorities realise the necessity of insisting on these standards for special designation licences being maintained, it will be possible, I think, to place without any risk, the responsibility for the issue of these licences on the local authorities, and probably some local authorities who already appreciate the importance of the matter could very well be entrusted with the full responsibility at the present time.

We have also had a good deal of discussion on the question of providing financial assistance to dairymen in connection with the alterations they may have to make in their dairy premises under the terms of this Bill, and we have had discussion on the price of milk and the whole economic aspect on this branch of agricultural industry. Again, of course, this being purely a public health Bill, these matters are not appropriate to it at all. They are matters for the Minister for Agriculture and whether he can find any solution along the lines suggested or not, I am not in a position to say.

Deputy Corry complains that the Bill will drive a large number of small dairymen out of the business. I do not see any earthly reason why it should. As a matter of fact, the provisions that have alarmed some Deputies are statutory requirements already. The provisions as to the lighting, ventilation, cleansing, drainage and water supply of cowsheds and dairies and the precautions to be taken by persons following the trade of cow-keepers or dairymen are already statutory requirements under the Dairies and Cowsheds and Milk Shops General Order, made under the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act of 1878 and 1886. Deputies were probably not aware of the fact that these statutory requirements already existed and I suppose they possibly had come to the conclusion that there might perhaps be a more rigid enforcement of these requirements in future than in the past.

Mr. Dillon

The regulations under this Bill are not defined.

Dr. Ward

Any regulations that are made under this Bill will be laid on the Table of the House and the Deputy will have an opportunity of discussing them. I am dealing with the point which Deputy Corry and other Deputies made here that under this Bill, extensive structural alterations, etc., would have to be made to dairies and cowsheds and I am making the point that the law at present—whether it has been enforced or not, I cannot say—does require that all the provisions that we would make under regulations regarding ventilation, air space, cleansing, etc., shall be observed.

Mr. Dillon

That is a very important statement. You do not intend to go beyond the existing regulations?

Dr. Ward

Not in any material respect. If Deputies interested in this matter would read the Dairy and Cowsheds and Milk Shops Order, they would probably be amazed at the stringency of the conditions that have to be observed at present. Deputies may have thought that statutory conditions that have not been enforced in the past may be enforced in the future.

Mr. Belton

It is not fair that the Parliamentary Secretary should treat Dublin in a different way from Donegal. He lets Donegal off and makes Dublin comply with it.

Mr. Dillon

I will want an assurance now that the regulations will not be made any more stringent in any case.

Dr. Ward

The Deputy seems to prefer that the appeal should be to the court against the refusal of a local authority to register an applicant. Now, it appears to me that the refusal would be on public health grounds. But the Minister with his expert advisers would be in a better position to adjudicate on a public health matter than the district justice. We have heard a good deal of discussion on the subject of costs. Now an appeal to the Minister would be much less costly than an appeal to the court. I hope it has not any special significance, but I cannot fail to observe the fact that the Deputies who want an appeal to the court instead of the Minister are lawyers—whether that has anything to do with it or not——

Mr. Dillon

I suppose it would be very discourteous to say that the Minister who is introducing this Bill has been for a long time a dispensary doctor.

Dr. Ward

I have the greatest respect for dispensary doctors.

Mr. Belton

It looks very pleasant for the poor farmers.

Dr. Ward

I will deal with that point too. I am assuming that Deputy Belton is one of the farmers' representatives. Deputy Rowlette seemed to be very disappointed that we did not include in the provisions of the new Bill powers of extra territorial inspection. The necessity for including these powers in the Bill is not apparent to me in the light of the terms of the present Bill. It is a matter that other Deputies as well as Deputy Rowlette have been interested in. I would refer them to Section 9 of the Bill, which reads:—

(1) A dairyman shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to carry on the business of a dairyman at every premises used by him for the purposes of his business as a dairyman.

(2) Where a person carrying on the business of a dairyman in a sanitary district does not occupy any premises in such sanitary district for the purposes of such business, every vehicle which such person uses for the purposes of such business shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be premises in such district.

So that the sanitary authority will have complete control even though the dairy may actually be situated in the district of another sanitary authority. Every vehicle will have to be registered with the sanitary authority in whose area the milk is being distributed.

Mr. Belton

Would that apply if the milk were passing through a certain sanitary area to another sanitary area?

Dr. Ward

It would not have to be registered if it were only passing through the area.

Mr. Belton

Would the cans require to be locked?

Dr. Ward

No.

Mr. Belton

Then, how can you be sure that he is not a purveyor of milk in that area?

Dr. Ward

If he is a purveyor of milk in that area the sanitary authority there will get after him.

Mr. Belton

How can he?

Dr. Ward

If he is a purveyor of milk in the area, he must register his van or whatever vehicle he is using for the distribution of the milk. The local authority can refuse to register him, and, in fact, can prohibit him from selling milk in the area if, in their opinion, there is sufficient reason. His van will be a "dairy" for the purposes of the Act.

Mr. Belton

I thought we would get a chance of stopping Cork milk coming by road to Dublin.

Mr. Corry

We kept Deputy Belton out of Cork anyway, even though he succeeded in getting Corkmen into Mountjoy Jail in Dublin.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Dr. Ward

The right of the medical officer of health to examine persons who might be suspected of conveying contagious or infectious disease through the milk supply is one that we will have to discuss on the Committee Stage. I gather from Deputy Dillon that he feels so strongly on this point that he proposes to move an amendment on Committee Stage. From that point of view, perhaps I should not deal with the principle now because, in all probability, anything that I can say at this stage would not satisfy Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Parliamentary Secretary stand by the principle?

Dr. Ward

Yes, and I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that it is not a new principle at all. Perhaps, the Deputy would, between now and the Committee Stage, look up the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations, 1929. On page 9, he will find in Part 3, paragraph 2 (1) this regulation:—

"If a medical officer of health has grounds for suspecting that any person in this area who is employed in any trade or profession concerned with the preparation or handling of food and drink for human consumption is a carrier of Enteric Fever or Diphtheria or Dysentery infection, he will report accordingly to the Sanitary Authority, who may give notice in writing to the responsible manager of the trade or business concerned, certifying that for the purpose of preventing the spread of the disease they consider it necessary for their medical officer of health, or a medical officer acting on his behalf, to make a medical examination of such suspected person, and the responsible manager and all other persons concerned shall give to the medical officer of health all reasonable assistance in the matter."

So that this is not a new principle at all. To my mind, it is a principle that is very necessary to embody in this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

That is a statutory order, but it is not the Act of this House.

Dr. Ward

As the Deputy knows, a statutory order has the force of an Act.

Mr. Dillon

I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary in that.

Dr. Ward

I am not a lawyer, but in any case it has the force of law. That appears to be the material consideration. Surely, if the medical officer of health has reason to suspect contagious disease such as diphtheria, enteric fever, dysentery or typhoid fever or if he has reason to believe that a particular person who is engaged in the dairy industry is responsible for the spread of any or all of these diseases he should be empowered to make the necessary examination and in the interests of public health he should be in a position to examine the person concerned. It may be a typhoid carrier or a diphtheria carrier, but it is a very serious matter from the public health point of view. I must say I am surprised at Deputy Dillon's attitude on this matter. There is no new principle whatever involved in it. It is an absolutely essential power to give to the county medical officer of health if he is not to be hampered in tracing an epidemic of infection that may be of a very serious character. I think, on the whole, that the Bill is considered very satisfactory by the House.

Mr. Belton

Has not the County medical officer of health the power to close a dairy at present if there is an infectious disease about it?

Dr. Ward

If there is an infectious disease about it; but, preparatory to closing it, he might require to make a whole lot of investigations. Closing a dairy is a very serious step. We are giving him certain powers in the Bill, if he has reason to suspect, so that prior to closing he may make an investigation in order to ascertain whether such a dairy, or anybody employed there, is responsible for the spread of the disease.

Mr. Belton

If he has reasonable doubt, or as a matter of precaution, can he not close it?

Dr. Ward

He can. Dealing with the position of the individual farmer I may say that I am not concerned with the farmer who supplies milk to a creamery or the farmer who habitually or ordinarily sells milk in a town or city for human consumption, but there is a practice in many parts of the country, in rural Ireland particularly, where in a certain season of the year a man with one or two cows that may happen to run dry gets a supply for a temporary period from his neighbours and pays them. I have been looking into this question with my technical advisers and we are anxious that such a farmer should be excluded because he is not a purveyor of milk in the ordinary sense and, if he were to be subject to the full restrictions of the Bill, it would inflict a hardship on him and probably it would inflict a hardship on some of his poorer neighbours. If it is necessary to have that position clarified in the definition of dairying, we will have it done at a later stage. A farmer who is not habitually or continuously engaged in the sale of milk will be excluded from the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Bennett

In connection with the scheme for the distribution of milk to poor people, I may say that there are many farmers, some of them neighbours and relations of mine who, just to help out the scheme, have been in the habit of giving a little milk to the relieving officers for distribution. If they were to be brought under the restrictions contained in this Bill a lot of them would cease giving that milk. They do it voluntarily at the moment in order to help out the scheme.

Dr. Ward

I quite understand. So far as my information goes on that subject, we have not had any great difficulty in getting supplies of milk. Deputy Bennett will realise that, in the first place, such milk is usually for the poorest classes of the community.

Mr. Bennett

Exactly.

Dr. Ward

The Deputy may not be in such full agreement, perhaps, when I have finished. In the second place, it is intended for a class of children who are usually below the normal physically. In the light of these two facts the Deputy will agree with me that it is essential that we should insist that such children will get a pure milk supply. The State is paying for the milk, and I would be very slow to acquiesce in the expenditure of State funds to provide milk for necessitous children if it did not carry with it an absolute assurance that that milk was safe and wholesome and pure. I will look into that point, but my reaction at the moment is against giving any facilities to that particular type of supplier.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Thursday, 14th March.