Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 15 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 7

Milk and Dairies Bill, 1934—Committee.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government and Public Health;
the expression "purveyor of milk" includes a person who is a seller of milk, whether wholesale or by retail;
the expression "dairy" includes any farm, farm-house, cow-shed, 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, and, in the case of a purveyor of milk who does not occupy any premises for the sale of milk, includes the place where such purveyor keeps the vessels used by him for the sale of milk, but does not include a shop from which milk is not sold otherwise than in the properly closed and unopened receptacles in which it was delivered to the shop, or a shop or other place in which milk is sold for consumption on the premises only;
the expression "dairyman" includes a person who is the occupier of a dairy, or any purveyor of milk.
The following amendments appeared on the Order Paper:—
1. In page 3, line 45, to insert after the word "includes" the following "(save where otherwise provided in this Act)."—Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí.
3. In page 4, line 4, to insert after the word "includes" the following "(save where otherwise provided in this Act)".—Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí.
4. Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
Where—
(a) surplus milk produced on a farm is occasionally sold to persons for consumption by such persons or their families, and
(b) the selling of milk does not form part of the ordinary business of such occupier,
then for the purposes of this Act, such farm shall be deemed not to be a dairy and such occupier shall be deemed not to be a dairyman.
—Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí.

With regard to the amendments offered to Section 6, I wish to point out that amendments of principle should not be debated on a definition section. However, as amendments Nos. 1 and 3 really prepare the way for amendment No. 4, and as no major point of principle is involved, it might be as well to discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and 4 now. This concession is not, however to be taken as a precedent.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are really consequential on amendment No. 4, in anticipation that amendment No. 4 will be accepted by the House. The new section to be inserted before Section 7 is designed to exclude from the provisions of the Bill farmers who sell part of their surplus milk, during the season when milk is abundant, to their labourers or to their poor neighbours. In some parts of rural Ireland this is a fairly extensive custom and it is considered that it would be a hardship on the people who look to their neighbours for supplies when their own cows go dry if the full restrictions of the Bill were to be imposed on the individual farmer. I do not think that the matter requires any further explanation. On the Second Reading there seemed to be general agreement when this matter was discussed that such an amendment was desirable.

If, as the Minister says, this business is fairly extensive, is there not a real danger that it will interfere with the operation of the Bill itself? If there is something which is fairly extensive, then surely it cannot be exempted without having its reactions on the Bill itself in its operation?

I presume the Deputy has read the new section.

I am relying on what the Minister said, that there was a fairly extensive business of that kind.

Perhaps it might be safer in the long run to rely on the terms of the proposed section.

Very likely it would.

"Where surplus milk produced on a farm is occasionally sold to persons for consumption by such persons or their families, and the selling of milk does not form part of the ordinary business of such occupier," then under such circumstances the seller will be excluded from the terms of the Bill. The selling of milk does not form part of the ordinary business of such persons. I think that should meet any objection the Deputy might have to this amendment. I confess I am open to conviction, if the Deputy would make the case very strongly, that farmers who oblige their neighbours in time of shortage should be registered and subject to the full restrictions of the Bill. I confess I would be prepared to reconsider the point. Of course the representations made to me on this matter, very pressing representations, were all from the farming community, and I did certainly think that Deputy Brennan would be one of the most enthusiastic supporters of this amendment in the House.

That is not my point at all. My point is that if this House passes an Act and wants that Act effectively enforced, we should not allow something to interfere with the proper operation of the Act. The administration of this Act is going to cost a considerable amount of money, and we are endeavouring to achieve a certain purpose by it. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it is an agreed measure. We want to make it the best possible instrument to effect the terms of the Act, and it is because it is proposed to insert something which might interfere with the proper administration of the Act itself that I want to draw the Minister's attention to it.

Does the Deputy object to the amendment? Is he opposed to or in favour of it?

Where there is a question of one milk producer obliging a neighbour by supplying him with milk occasionally, when there is a shortage, I do not think anybody would object, but I am afraid that the new section, which the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to insert in the Bill, will lead to abuses, and that it will be extremely difficult to have its terms applied strictly. What is likely to happen, it appears to me, is that a person who is selling milk, possibly a contractor to some local institution, will occasionally be short of milk. He will buy milk to make up that shortage from a neighbour who will oblige him by selling him that milk. If he is charged with an offence under this Act, he will probably put up the defence that he bought the milk for the use of his own family, and that selling milk was not part of the ordinary business of the person from whom he bought it. I am afraid it will be extremely hard to obtain a conviction in a case like that. If the section goes into the Bill, it will be impossible to limit the supply of milk to consumption by the persons who bought it or their families. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the matter before pressing the amendment.

Bearing in mind that this House had in mind the question of the inconvenience that might be caused to producers when the Bill was passed into law, and bearing in mind that the House, having all that before it, came to the conclusion that that inconvenience should be endured, I think this amendment is going to make that decision ineffective in so far as rural Ireland is concerned. The Bill is going to cause inconvenience to producers unquestionably, but you cannot avoid that if you are going to make it effective. If you insert the section proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary, it will simply mean that practically all milk sold for consumption in rural Ireland will be brought within the operation of the section. If that happens, the Bill will cease to be effective outside urban areas. I feel that, once the House has made up its mind to inflict the inconvenience of the Bill on producers, it is imprudent at this stage to hedge and jeopardise the success of the whole Bill in order to try to meet a difficulty that cannot be met, if the purpose of the Bill is served.

I should like again to draw the attention of Deputies to the definition of "dairy" in Section 6: "The expression `dairy' includes any farm, farm-house, cow-shed, milk-store, milk-shop," etc. If this amendment is not accepted it means that every farmer who sells a single pint of milk to his neighbour will have to be registered in future under the Bill. It may be that I misinterpreted the feeling of the House when this matter was under discussion before, but there certainly was a very definite feeling, and a feeling that was very clearly expressed in the course of the debate on the other side of the House, that not only would that be a hardship to individual farmers, but it would be a considerable hardship to their poor neighbours at certain seasons of the year. A man might have one cow or two cows and that man might want to buy perhaps for a month, two months or less, milk from a neighbour who had a surplus although it was not part of that neighbour's business to purvey milk. I do not know whether Deputies Dillon and Brennan fully realise the possible reactions of opposing this amendment, but it appears to me that this amendment is very necessary both for the protection of the individual farmer and for the protection of his neighbours who may occasionally have to get milk from him, but who is not, as I have already said, a purveyor of milk in the ordinary sense.

I should like to point out that the Bill is not brought in here for the protection of farmers but for the protection of the public.

Are they not members of the public?

We want to cause as little inconvenience to purveyors of milk as possible, I agree. The Bill is the Minister's Bill and we are endeavouring to point out to the Minister that there is a pitfall here and that the House, in its anxiety to protect milk purveyors, may be making the Bill itself ineffective. I think the aim of the House was to see that every pint of milk sold was, at its production, clean and that proper steps were taken to ensure that it was produced as hygienically as possible. That is our point and does not this amendment cut across that aim? As I say, it is the Minister's Bill and if he wants to insert this amendment we cannot stop him, but we want to point out to him that there is a real danger of making the Bill ineffective.

I think most farmers will agree with the Parliamentary Secretary in this amendment.

Agree with him?

Yes. If the Bill, as has been pointed out, without this amendment, were pushed to its logical conclusion it would prevent the farmer giving his labouring man a pint of milk. I think the amendment is well designed to meet that particular point.

That is my opinion.

If he supplies him with milk without charging him for it.

That is the point.

In many cases a creamery supplier would come under a system of inspection. If he supplied milk to another person and this Bill were made operative in its present form, it would bring the creamery supplier under the Bill. I do not think that was the intention. The person who, possibly, supplies milk to the creamery would be in a position to help his neighbour in a time of scarcity. I think it is only reasonable that that should be accepted.

Deputy Brennan, in opposing this amendment, seems to give the impression that, while he wants to draw attention to the possible effects of this amendment, he does not want to take the responsibility of opposing it. He wants to draw the attention of the House to the possible implications and effects of it and still be able to represent himself in the country and to the agricultural community, that he says he represents, as not being against it. Now, Deputy Haslett has drawn attention to a case which could possibly arise as a result of the operations of the Bill when it becomes an Act if it were allowed to stand as it was. A man could be working with a farmer and he could be taking his meals there and using the milk that is produced on the farm, and if, at any time of the year, he wanted a pint or a quart of that milk, even if he were willing to pay for it, the farmer could not sell it to him.

He could give it to him.

Then, take the case of even those people whose responsibility largely it will be to enforce the law in the country. Very often, in remote and backward districts—and I am sure Deputy Brennan knows this as well as most of us—there are not many farmers, if there are any at all, who make it a trade of selling milk. Very often, however, as a matter of obliging their neighbours, they give milk——

Exactly.

——or sell milk to the local Gárdaí. They do what I say as a matter of obliging their neighbours, and yet the officers who would be called upon to enforce this Act, if it were left unamended, would have in some cases, in fact, to condone in the breaking of the law. Otherwise, I do not see where they could get it. Any Deputy here who comes from an agricultural constituency knows the dangers that were contained in the section of the Bill as it stood, and those of us who know these conditions agitated for such an amendment as that proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary. I only want to say that it is not fair of Deputy Brennan, who knows these conditions in the agricultural community, to come in here and talk about the dangers of the proposed amendment while, at the same time, he is afraid to say that he is either for or against it.

There is no need to get excited about this, because the matter is purely one of an exchange of views. My advice to the Minister is quite explicit, and that is, to drop the amendment.

Thanks. I am not acting on the Deputy's advice.

That is quite all right, but there is no need to be offensive about it. My advice to the Parliamentary Secretary is to drop the amendment, with the clear intention, if the Bill operates in such a way as to cause undue inconvenience to farmers, to introduce a short amending Bill incorporating the proposals contained in this amendment if it becomes absolutely necessary. The fact is that in rural Ireland the sale of milk, as between neighbours, is very rare indeed. If one neighbour's cow is dry, the other neighbour will usually lend or give milk for the period of scarcity, in the knowledge that later on in the year his neighbour will reciprocate the kindness. The Minister will find, however, if he puts this amendment in the Bill, that on the fringe of every small town in Ireland there is a number of farmers who peddle milk to the residents in the small towns, and it will be absolutely impossible to regulate that traffic under the Bill if this amendment is allowed to stand, because all these milk pedlars in the neighbourhood of the towns run out of milk from time to time during the year and do not maintain a steady supply, with the result that they will be in a position to say that the provision of milk is not part of their ordinary business and you will find that the milk supply of every rural town in Ireland will be virtually uncontrolled. That is what is in my mind, and possibly in Deputy Brennan's mind. There is also the danger of milk being purchased casually for cash and mixed with the creamery supply or mixed with a contractor's supply.

What about the local authority regulations?

It is quite true that with adequate regulation and supervision the thing might be checked.

But the law is there.

If you create an uncertain class of persons, whom it is impossible to define exactly—a class where "the selling of milk does not form part of the ordinary business of such occupier"—you are immediately creating a class that it is impossible to identify definitely. The thing may work, but it certainly does create a danger of aborting the whole purpose of the Bill. In my opinion the sensible thing to do is to put the Bill into operation in its present form, and if the Parliamentary Secretary is informed that the thing is becoming completely inconvenient, he can amend the Bill in ten minutes. To introduce the amendment as it is at present, however, will jeopardise the whole scheme, and I think the amendment should be dropped, with the clear expression of opinion that if the Bill proves unduly onerous to the agricultural community steps will be taken to amend it when the necessity arises.

I did not think that it would be necessary for me to intervene on this issue, because I thought there was general agreement about it. However, I have the advantage of having been reared in the country and I know the conditions there. I know that there are many farmers who supply small quantities of milk from time to time to oblige their neighbours.

But they do not sell it to them.

Dr. Ryan

They do sell it to them. Small farmers in the country very often have no milk for perhaps a month or two in the winter and they have to buy it. I know that where I am living at the present time there are two or three farmers who do that and supply milk at certain times to their neighbours in small quantities, and I am quite sure that if this Act is made apply to these farmers they will not comply with the provisions of the Act and supply milk because they will not think it worth their while to do so. Their attitude will be that they are only doing this to oblige their neighbours or their working men and that they do not see why they should continue to do it in such circumstances. Even in connection with the supply of milk for the poor, a number of boards of health have had to send their officials to ask farmers to supply milk in certain cases where there was a shortage, and the farmers have been reluctant to do so. In order to oblige the board of health and those poor people who are getting this milk, however, they have supplied it, but if they are asked to comply with the provisions of this Act I am sure they will not do it and it will be impossible to get milk in such areas.

I happened to be a medical practitioner some years ago at the time of the serious 'flu, and in one particular district in Wexford there was a number of people whose children were affected. I suggested that the best thing that they could give them would be milk. In four or five places there they told me that they could not possibly get milk. They were willing to pay for it but they said that there was not a farmer who was willing to supply it. Farmers do not want to be troubled with people going to their houses in the evening with jugs or cans. They would not give them milk. You are going to make it increasingly difficult for people in areas like that if this Bill is to be applied to them. From the point of view of farmers and consumers such as these, this amendment is absolutely necessary. As Deputy Dillon points out, it is quite true that it will be more difficult to administer the Bill or to make it really effective if the amendment is left in. Anybody can see that. In every Bill there are safeguards for certain interests, because you always have exceptions. You try to inflict as little hardship as possible on people when bringing in Bills. The amendment is restricted, first to those persons who have a surplus of milk, and secondly—which is the real safeguard—to persons who only have occasional supplies; where it does not form part of the business. If a man had a contract to supply milk all the year round, he would not come under the amendment, because that would not be an occasional supply. An occasional supply would be one where small farmers or labourers, who for a month or two in winter found it hard to get milk, and went to another farmer who had a surplus but who does not want to comply with the provisions of the Bill.

I am very glad that the Minister has spoken on this Bill. He really sees our view of the question. If this House passes legislation, it should be effective. If we take certain steps to see that disease is not carried in milk, by putting restrictions on certain purveyors, if a loophole is left, and if milk from cows suffering from bovine tuberculosis or other disease is allowed to be supplied that would nullify the effect of the other restrictions and we would get nowhere. As the Bill is going to cost money and going to cause a lot of trouble in administering it, we should make it as effective as we can, by leaving no loophole by which disease might nullify its effects.

Dr. Ryan

As effective as possible. I agree with the Deputy there.

If Deputy Brennan's contention to make the Bill as effective as possible was carried out every farm-house in which there is a cow would come under the provisions of the Bill. I admit that the amendment as interpreted by the Parliamentary Secretary is most essential. I should like to have one thing elucidated by the Minister. He stated that if a farmer contracts to supply a pint of milk a day all the year around he is not safeguarded by the amendment. Is that so?

He would not be safeguarded provided he was being paid for the milk.

If part of the wages paid to a man is that he gets a pint or a quart of milk, would he come under it?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Dr. Ryan

You are giving the milk free.

No. It is part of the wages. I do not want to make any point about it, but I should like to have the matter explained, so that if prosecutions arise hereafter there would be no doubt. If the Minister says so, and, if it is on record, that it is not the intention of the Bill to render such farmers' premises liable to inspection and registration, I am satisfied. But I should like to have an unequivocal statement about it. I cannot see how risk or danger could arise from the occasional supply of milk by one farmer to another. In country districts remote from Dublin everyone knows that there are seasons when only an odd farmer has milk. I am not speaking of the dairying districts. It is a regular thing for small farmers, who keep one or two cows, and who are short of milk, to get it from a neighbour. I take it the amendment will enable a farmer to vend milk to such neighbours. Deputy Dillon talked about pedlars of milk on the outskirts of towns. The discussion on this Bill has revealed to me that no local authority is carrying out the regulations except the local authority in County Dublin. Such a thing could not happen there. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that in County Dublin no one can peddle in milk because, as soon as it is found out, he is ordered to get out of the business or to register. Why should not people in Ballaghaderreen, Roscommon, Longford, or Ballina, who deal in milk be licensed?

Deputy Dillon and yourself are at one, but the Deputy does not see it.

Deputy Dillon and Deputy Brennan do not see my point, or do not want to see it. The case made by the Parliamentary Secretary obtains from my native place at Lanesborough to Deputy Brennan's native place in Roscommon. Every year there is a shortage of milk in most farmhouses. That is so throughout Deputy Brennan's constituency. If this amendment does not include farmers who oblige neighbours with milk, there is only one way to deal with the matter, by making them pay for it. It is not part of the business then. In South Roscommon all those who want to buy milk would not make a sufficient round of customers to keep one dairy farmer going.

How would you get local authorities to carry it out if they were not registered?

Are you not on a local authority which could make them register?

The Minister says they need not be registered.

Are they not obliged to be registered under the Dairies and Cowsheds Act? There is not a purveyor of milk in County Dublin that is not registered. Otherwise we would very soon have him out of business.

I do not agree with Deputy Belton that everyone who peddles milk is registered. I am told that there are people in Dublin going around on bicycles with milk who are not registered.

I am not so sure of that. They might do it for a week.

If the Deputy consults some of those in the milk business in Dublin they will tell him.

I know the milk business pretty well, from door to door.

Does Deputy Belton want everyone who peddles in milk to be registered or not?

Will the Deputy tell the House what peddling in milk means?

I mean selling milk at irregular intervals, supplying customers for seven or eight months of the year, and then telling them that there were no more supplies for the present, perhaps for three or four months, and then resuming business.

In the opinion of local authorities in County Dublin such a person is a regular purveyor of milk. He sells it while it pays him. He is not in the business for the natural love and affection of anyone, but to make money out of it. While he is doing that he will stick to it. Why should that person not be registered? The case put up by the Parliamentary Secretary was quite different; that of a farmer with one or two cows, who cannot have regular supplies all the year around, but whose neighbour will have a supply, because the cows calve at different times. Is it the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary that, when this amendment is inserted in the Bill, he will be able effectively to differentiate between a farmer who was merely obliging a neighbour and the individual whom I described as a milk pedlar?

I think it will work all right.

If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that it will be possible to differentiate between these two, then our objection to the amendment falls. We believe that it will be impossible to make that differentiation, and if that proves to be so, then the whole system of registration under the Bill will fall to the ground. What we feel at the moment is that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to let the Bill operate without this amendment. Then, if he finds it is impossible to work the Bill without it an amending measure, which we undertake to put through the House in half an hour, can be introduced.

That is like building a house, leaving a slate off and saying to yourself: "I will put that slate on when a shower of rain comes."

That is very often done in this House.

There may be a lot of slates off in this House. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to put beyond all doubt, by means of an amendment, that the milk allowance given to an employed man by a farmer should not be regarded as the purveying of milk. Though no money passes, we all know that the giving of such milk is part of the workman's remuneration.

I will look into that last point raised by Deputy Belton. If the position is not clear and if such an employer would be considered as coming within the terms of the Bill and is not excluded by the amendment, then I undertake to introduce a further amendment on Report.

Amendment No. 1 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

To delete all words from and including the words "but does not include", line 51, page 3, to the words "premises only", line 3, page 4.

The object of this amendment is to delete the clause which exempts from the provisions of the Bill (1) shops in which bottled milk or cream contained in closed cartons is sold, and (2) restaurants in which milk is sold for consumption on the premises. It appears to me to be necessary that there should be power to inspect such premises, especially in the event of any outbreak of disease being suspected to originate from milk supplied in such premises, and to secure that regulations as to storage and handling of milk under cleanly conditions are being observed. It would also be necessary to secure that milk is not being sold in such places purporting to be milk of special designations without a licence being granted for the purpose. At a later stage we will discuss the amendment to Section 19 exempting keepers of restaurants from the necessity for registration as dairymen.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 16.

It has already been intimated to the Deputy under whose name amendment No. 5 to Section 16 is offered that the amendment is out of order as it would impose a charge.

Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."

My amendment is apparently not in order as it would impose a charge on the Central Fund. What I wanted to bring out in connection with the amendment was this: That the regulations to be enforced under this Bill will throw a great deal of work on local authorities. I pointed out on Second Reading that the main object of the Bill is to carry on the fight against disease, particularly tuberculosis. In the past that was regarded as a national fight, and not a work the cost of which ought to be borne by local authorities. If we are to have an effective machine to work this measure we must, I submit, be prepared to pay for it, but in the present state of local finances you are not going to get the work done effectively if the local authorities have to bear the expense. It is set out in the Bill that all the officials of a local authority required——

On a point of order, is the Deputy moving his amendment? I thought it was ruled out of order.

The Deputy was not allowed to move his amendment, but on the section dealing with finance he may propose alternative methods. He is speaking to the section.

If all the expenses of its administration are to fall on the local authorities, then I think we are not going to have the measure worked effectively. In view of the fact that the main object of the Bill is to carry on the fight against disease, I think that, following precedent, the cost of its administration ought to fall to a large extent on the central authority. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider that. I ask him to realise that the Government cannot expect to have the work in connection with this Bill done well unless they are prepared to pay for it. The local authorities are not in a position to bear the cost of its administration, and unless the Bill is worked in the spirit as well as in the letter it will not be of much use. There is no use in endeavouring to work something that will not go. Consequently, I strongly recommend that some other system of financing the Act be found than the system suggested in this section.

I should like to support the plea put forward by Deputy Brennan that the financial arrangements in respect of the expense of operating this Act should be considered further when opportunity offers. It is quite clear that a health measure depends for success on the cordial co-operation of the local authority. So long as a local authority is hostile or unsympathetic to the working of a statute, that statute will not be fully worked. We have already numerous examples of that. It has been our experience, so far, in this country and it is the universal experience in Great Britain that the sympathy and cordial help of the local authority can be best secured by the central authority bearing portion of the expense. We can learn a great deal from the experience of other countries in this matter. Practically all health legislation in Great Britain for the last half century has been based on the principle of the equal sharing of expenses between the rates and the Central Fund. That principle has been applied in many instances in this country. It has been applied in the case of the salary of tuberculosis medical officers and it has been applied, theoretically, to the salaries of dispensary doctors, though, by a trick of the central authority of the time, a fixed instead of a fluid grant was arranged. This country has already suffered by the long delay in the appointment of county medical officers of health because responsibility was not equally divided between the local and the central authorities. I have very little hope of this Bill being efficiently administered unless a share of the expense is borne by the central authority. Where an offer is made to a local authority of a grant for a particular purpose, the local authority accepts the advice given by the central body, but where the whole financial responsibility is placed on the local authority, they postpone action as long as possible. That happened recently in the case of the appointment of county medical officers of health. By taking legal proceedings, the Minister compelled local authorities to carry out their statutory duty in this respect almost ten years after that statutory duty had been imposed upon them.

From another point of view, it is quite reasonable that work for the protection of health should be regarded from a national and not from a local point of view The interactions of health services between one area and another are most intimate and close. Perhaps in no respect are they closer than in the matters with which this Bill is concerned, having regard to the enormous trade in milk between one sanitary area and another. The nation as a whole is concerned as to the health of every area of the country. The health of an area cannot be a matter for the people of that area alone. I hope that, if not at present, then, in the future, the Government will take some opportunity of making a different provision for all health activities from that which they propose to do in respect of this Bill.

I hope that Deputy Brennan will force a division on this section. The House should be aware from the debates of the past week of the atmosphere in which the Government are asking to have this Bill financed and administered by the local authorities. The Government admit the grave agricultural depression and the difficulty of carrying on. Members of the Government have spoken against the motion for relief of rates for one year, but none of them has gone so far as to say that agriculture is in such a healthy condition now, or will be in the future, that it should bear a further burden. Under this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to impose a further burden. To be consistent in respect of the motion that has been debated for some time and that is now in the safe keeping of another Parliamentary Secretary, this section should be put to a division. Services which had heretofore been local services, such as road maintenance, have been admitted both by this Administration and the previous Administration to have taken on a national character. Consequently, a grant is made from the Central Fund or the Road Fund to assist local authorities in maintaining these services which previously had been entirely maintained by local rates.

Deputy Rowlette has drawn attention to the manner in which health services are interlocked. Local authorities have great difficulty in administering other Acts. I refer to such Acts as that relating to scab in sheep. We find it impossible in County Dublin, even with a great system of inspection, to keep County Dublin herds free from disease because, as the Parliamentary Secretary will admit, that Act is not administered in other counties with the same efficiency as it is administered by us. We have to pay for their neglect. Even if one or two counties administer this Act in the spirit in which the Government would like it to be administered, it will be of very little use if it is not efficiently administered in every county in the Free State. The Government is imposing a new charge on the local authorities by this Bill. They should remember that the local authorities are not millionaires. Anybody associated with local government ought to know the state of the rate collection and the land annuity collection and the large sums that are being deducted for arrears of land annuities. Looking at the local authorities as business undertakings, they have a certain amount of money in the till and they know the extent of their credit in the bank. Now, the Government wants to pile another charge upon them for the sake of the public health. Why should not the central authority bear this charge? It is a matter of national concern. The Act is to be administered by a body that cannot afford to levy any more rates—which cannot, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, collect even the rates already levied. Why impose a further charge upon them? If the amendment were not out of order, I should have supported it. I hope that, by using that expression, I am not putting myself out of order. I trust that Deputy Brennan will put the section to a division.

I am rather sorry that Deputy Brennan's amendment was not in order. However, we must hang our remarks and what we would have said on that amendment upon the section itself. We were discussing, last night, a proposal to relieve agricultural land from rates. Surely we could not be expected the following morning to come in here and pass a section of a Bill that might impose very heavy charges upon already overburdened local authorities. As an instance of what this Bill might impose upon local authorities, I call attention to Section 11, which says:

Any sanitary authority may, with the consent of the Minister, and subject to the provisions of any enactment relating to the appointment of officers by such authority, appoint such and so many officers as such authority shall consider requisite for the execution of the functions, powers and duties conferred or imposed by this Act, and every officer so appointed shall be paid such remuneration as the sanitary authority, with the consent of the Minister, shall determine.

Now we are asked to pass a Bill of which, probably, a large majority of the House is in favour. It is generally accepted that this Bill is necessary. But some of us have maintained that although many important social services are necessary all over the country, the expenses of those services should be borne by the Central Fund rather than by a local charge, and that the basis hitherto acted on of making the rural districts bear most of the expenses of local taxation should be altered. I think, in these circumstances, those who advocate that policy cannot be expected to vote for this particular section which will impose certain charges, and possibly very heavy charges, on people already overburdened.

I am in favour of the very sane and sound principle that the man who calls the tune should pay the piper. Since this Government came into office they have consistently pursued the practice of raising the cost of Government, both local and central, and having one single tax-gatherer. In connection with their tariff policy they have turned shopkeepers into tax-gatherers to the tune of £9,000,000 per annum. They built beet factories and turned their managers into tax-gatherers. They are going to turn the flour millers into tax-gatherers by putting an extra cost on flour, to provide funds for their wheat scheme. Every one of their cracked schemes is being financed by money raised by somebody other than the Central Government whose responsibility it is. Their idea is to get credit for the distribution of money and to put the odium on somebody else of collecting that money which they want to distribute.

Now you have this public service of the control of milk. I believe this measure may be one of the few useful schemes which this Government has sponsored. They ought, however, to allow the people to judge the value of the scheme, taking into full consideration the cost, instead of proceeding to distribute the cost over the local authorities, and requiring the local authorities to raise the requisite money for its administration. At present everyone connected with a public body is being continually faced at the time the Estimates are being prepared, with the statement from the secretary to the county council or the secretary to the board of health; that so-and-so is a statutory charge and you have to strike the rate for it, and so on. That system is undoubtedly wrong. If this House decides that certain services must be put into force the House should provide the money for them. If they devised schemes, and left it to the local authorities to decide whether they would adopt them or not, then the local authority could adopt them if they thought well of them, and could supply the money if they wanted the schemes to work. But I am wholly opposed to the principle of mandatory expenses on local authorities; and as this section will impose new and substantial mandatory charges upon the local authorities of the country I hope the House will divide and those who have some sense of responsibility in local government will combine in the effort to delete this clause in the Bill.

Can we not hear the Parliamentary Secretary make a case as to why any local authority already sufficiently handicapped, should accept this new piece of expenditure?

Did you not hear that last night?

I heard a lot of muck last night and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would not like to be responsible for such stuff.

It is scarcely fair to attack the Parliamentary Secretary because we are not in a position to appraise the value of whatever representations he made to the Executive Council on this matter. The Bill aims at the improvement of the quality of the milk used for human consumption. To effect that purpose the local authorities are to be employed. If they are to be employed and if their cordial co-operation and assistance in effecting this purpose is to be obtained, it is well to examine what policy was pursued with regard to them in connection with similar matters since the Public Health Acts were first introduced into this country. No one knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary how uninformed is public opinion in the rural areas on the question of health. In cities where it is forced upon our attention, and where steps have to be taken, and are taken, to deal with the prevention of disease and so on, we are right up against it. Milk comes mainly from rural areas. People in cities and other such places can see that they require certain inspection in order to secure an excellent supply of milk which is up to the proper standard.

Within the last 20 years a good deal of agitation has been fixed upon the climination of tuberculosis, in the first instance, and on that of a very loathsome disease in the second instance in which the local authorities were asked to take a part throughout the country. In the case of tuberculosis the expenses were paid to the extent of 50 per cent. For every hundred pounds spent the local authorities only pay 50. No wonder there is a desire to co-operate in that case. The money is spent in their own district and they find it is good business. In the case of the loathsome disease to which I have referred, as far as my recollection serves me, 75 per cent. of the expenses were paid. In consequence there was almost an eagerness to co-operate. Here we have a problem that concerns not only public authorities but the whole industry of agriculture, one that calls for the careful assistance of local authorities and their officers. We are trying to get a first-class bill of health in connection with the production of milk. That is well worth paying for; and while the Parliamentary Secretary may have had his viewpoint overridden by authority in the Executive Council, it is his job to put it up to them if this Bill is going to be a success, that they should at least devise a scheme by which the Central Fund would bear some of the cost.

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá: 52; Níl: 20.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Victory, Jamse.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19

I move amendment No. 6:—

To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) A person who sells milk for consumption on the premises in which it is sold and not elsewhere shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act not to carry on the business of a dairyman.

This addition is intended to exempt from registration restaurant keepers who sell milk for consumption on the premises. The business premises of such persons will be subject to inspection and to the other relative provisions of the Bill. It is not considered desirable to have registration applied to restaurants inasmuch as the milk is sold for consumption on the premises.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On the section, I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some more information as to the precise meaning of this section, which is not at all clear to one not versed in the legislation and regulations of the past ten years dealing with milk. Certain classes of persons are to be excluded from liability to the duty of registration. I take it from the remarks which the Parliamentary Secretary made on the Second Reading debate that the class of persons to be excluded are those who supply milk to creameries. Is that right?

It is right as far as it goes.

In a general way?

At any rate those who supply milk to creameries within the legal definition of creameries are to be excluded from any duty of registration. I raised some criticism of that point on the debate on the Second Reading. I pointed out that though the butter which was made in the creameries might be quite safe after it had gone through the process of manufacture at the creameries there was another product of the creamery which might remain very unsafe if the milk from which the butter came was not subject to inspection. That product is the separated milk.

I was told by various Deputies, and I think by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the separated milk was itself pasteurised. I am not sure whether it was meant that a process called pasteurisation is part of the necessary mechanical process of separation, or whether what was meant was that under the regulations under which creameries are carried on separated milk is bound to be pasteurised; in other words, I am not sure whether it is pasteurisation as a matter of practice or pasteurisation as a matter of law. Until I get more information on it I do not know if it is pasteurised at all, or if it is put through any process which is comparable to pasteurisation as regards the destruction of bacteria. I am looking for more information on that point from the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to this section. It is quite clear that if separated milk is not effectively deprived of live bacteria it is a grave danger directly to the health of the cattle of the district, and indirectly to the health of the generations who drink the milk of those cattle in the future. Therefore, the process that is gone through at the creamery has a very direct bearing on the protection of public health. When I raised this point on the Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary said amongst other things: "So far as suppliers of creameries are concerned, if these creameries are engaged merely in the manufacture of butter and cheese this Bill does not affect them." No creamery is engaged merely in the manufacture of butter and cheese; it is in the separated milk that the danger to the health of the community may be carried. Again, it is pointed out that the creameries must be holders of the special designation licences granted under Part IV of this Act. A creamery may be perfectly managed and conform to every regulation laid down by the Minister, but that does not give security as to the safety of the products unless the source of the milk is subject to inspection.

As far as I can understand the section, and taking the very plain statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that the suppliers of creameries are not affected if those creameries are engaged merely in the manufacture of butter and cheese, I think that considerable danger lies hidden in this rather obscure section. That danger is that you will have insanitary and unregistered dairies, in regard to which there is no guarantee that there are not diseased cattle supplying milk to creameries which distribute separated milk possibly and very probably insufficiently protected by pasteurisation or other process. This affected milk is fed to the young stock of the neighbourhood which produce another generation of tuberculous milk cattle.

I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if he has in mind what considerations will operate with the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health so as to render ineffective sub-section (1) and render ineffective sub-section (2) of Section 19. Can we get a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary that, in the case of creameries which sell whole milk to be used as liquid milk, the source of supply of that milk will be subject to inspection in the same way as the source of supply generally will be subject to inspection under this Bill? If not, this Bill will put a burden on one section of milk producers without putting that same burden on the other section of milk producers. In those areas where milk is produced for consumption as milk the local authority will have to provide the full machinery of inspection, and pay for it, and the producers will be compelled under this Act to incur the maximum expenditure in order to produce the article visualised by this Act. But they will not get paid for that, because if creameries, through some kind of simple pasteurisation, are allowed to put their milk on the market to compete with the producers, who have to comply with all the conditions laid down in this Bill, the creameries will inevitably drive the others out of production. It is not fair competition. Instead of all the conditions required here, if it would meet the Parliamentary Secretary's case that milk if pasteurised could be sold for consumption as milk and be as good an article as he wants produced here, then he should say so in this Bill, because I can see a very good reason for it. In County Dublin and adjacent counties where they do not produce milk for butter or cheese, but produce it for food as raw milk, it would be much better if the local authority were to erect depôts to which the milk could be brought for pasteurisation, and from there sent into the City of Dublin. We would save a good deal in the administration of this Bill and we would save a great lot in inspection and in other details if that were done.

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if the creameries are to be exempt from inspection. The position would be that the producers of milk for the creameries would be exempt from inspection if the milk is sold as liquid whole milk from the creameries and sent to Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Waterford. Mainly, it would be sent to Dublin. If this meets the Minister's requirements, that is to say that pasteurisation meets his requirements, I would like him to say so, so that we can in the counties near Dublin have the same opportunity as elsewhere of adopting the system of depôts where the milk could be pasteurised and where a certificate from the depôt would be sufficient. We would prefer this instead of having an intricate system of inspection throughout the country, with inspectors going into the yard of every dairyman who happens to be producing milk. We would not thus be insisting on requiring every man who wants to produce milk in our respective areas to put up separate equipment. I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary on that, because neither I nor any representative of any Party in Dublin City or County, Meath, Kildare, or, perhaps, Louth would vote for a section giving a certain power to a creamery to dump milk in here, milk that is simply pasteurised, while requiring inspection in all places where there are no creameries. If pasteurisation is a sufficient standard let us have it, and if it is not then nobody should be exempt from full inspection of the sources of production.

I agree with what Deputy Belton has said. There should be some guarantee that milk supplied as whole milk from the creameries is free from disease.

I would like that there should be some test. It would be manifestly unfair to the purveyors of milk that they should be subject to certain restrictions from which creameries would be exempt. I believe there is some system of pasteurisation—I would like to know from the Minister what machinery there is to test pasteurisation, or is pasteurisation ever tested. If we are going to put an instrument like this into operation then we are entitled to make sure that it is effective. I would like to know what test the Minister proposes to apply to whole milk from the creamery and if there is not a test, why is there not? It is simply in the interest of the instrument itself and its working that I would like some explanation.

I must confess to ignorance of pasteurisation. I believe that pasteurisation is the raising of milk to a certain heat and then cooling it down again. To meet the standard I presume that the milk would have to be raised to a certain heat and cooled back afterwards. If the Minister is satisfied that pasteurisation—raising the milk to a certain heat—would meet the requirements, I suggest that he should say so specifically in the Bill. I suggest the Minister should say that pasteurisation to such a degree is necessary. Then we can all start from the same starting point.

I do not want to prolong the debate, but as Deputy Rowlette expressed some doubt about this particular section, it is well to have it cleared up. I recognise the Minister's difficulty. I know that while trying to make it as tight as he can, he has to meet objections without destroying the framework or the objects of the Bill entirely. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has fairly met some objections. I thank him for the amendments he has accepted to-day.

He will not let out the creameries.

Even so. We might as well be definitely clear where we are at the moment. I take it from the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation that the farmer giving a temporary supply of milk would not be included as a dairyman, and he has also promised that where a farmer gives a workman milk as part of his perquisites he will do something to meet us. But there is one class on which he did not touch. I refer to a number of farmers who are temporarily called on by the local officers to supply milk to keep up the system of free milk in the schools. I would like to know whether the temporary supply of such milk would bring in these farmers as dairymen?

I am afraid we cannot discuss that under Section 19.

I did not intend to debate the question. I only wanted "yes" or "no" from the Minister.

The object of Section 19 is to exempt temporarily from registration suppliers of milk to creameries who sell efficiently pasteurised milk under a special designation licence.

Did the Parliamentary Secretary say sufficiently pasteurised or efficiently pasteurised?

Efficiently pasteurised milk.

What does that mean?

The efficiency of the pasteurisation will be determined by the regulations made under the Bill.

By whom?

By the Minister.

Will it apply all over the country?

It will be a special designation milk. There will, let us say, be three grades of milk. There may not definitely be three grades, but we will say that for the purpose of explanation there will be three grades. These will be three specially designated milks under licence. Attached to that licence will be the conditions that will have to be observed as to plant and machinery, and conditions as to the pasteurisation process. That process will have uniform application. It will be a process that the dairyman will have to carry out in order to satisfy the Minister that his pasteurisation is efficiently and properly done, and it will have to be carried out with the same care and the same detail at the creamery.

Might I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary——

I would prefer that Deputy Rowlette would draw attention to any points I have not dealt with when I am finished. The milk provided by suppliers to the creameries has, since the passing of the Dairy Produce Act of 1924, been subject to inspection. Now we are dealing with creameries. Let us assume that the creamery undertakes to sell specially designated milk—namely, pasteurised milk. Already under the Dairy Produce Act that milk is subject to inspection and must reach a certain standard of purity and cleanliness. It is an offence under Section 39 of the Dairy Produce Act to tender any dirty, contaminated or stale milk, or milk contained in a dirty vessel, to any creamery.

Deputy Belton has in mind the conditions under which milk is produced for human consumption in Dublin. Of course we all know that there is a much higher standard in Dublin than there is in the country, but Deputy Belton probably knows as well as I do that in the provinces, in rural Ireland, milk is produced and sold or exposed for sale under appalling conditions. A case possibly can be made for the removal of this exclusion of the suppliers to creameries from the rigid inspection which will operate in other areas when we have brought the ordinary dairyman, the dairy farmer in the country, up to the standard of efficiency even that has been reached by the creamery supplier at the present time.

Deputy Rowlette is disturbed about the dangers that may ensue, not directly to the human, but to the animals that are fed on the separated milk returning from the creamery. I can only draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that this Bill deals merely with milk for human consumption; milk for the consumption of domestic or other animals does not come within the scope of the Bill at all. If separated milk is sold for human consumption by a creamery or anybody else, whoever sells or exposes it for sale will be subject to the full restrictions of the Bill. If a creamery sells milk for human consumption other than desiccated milk, milk under a general designation or separated milk, the suppliers to that creamery will have to register and be subject to the full restrictions.

In so far as the production of pasteurised milk is concerned as specially designated milk, the creamery that sells pasteurised milk will supply such pasteurised milk to the public under the same conditions as any other pasteurising concern, but the suppliers to the creamery will be subject to the Dairy Produce Act and the full restrictions of that Act. The suppliers to the other pasteurising concerns will be subject to the conditions of this Bill. When the Deputy was discussing this matter he appeared to be under the impression that suppliers to creameries who sold ordinary undesignated milk or general designation milk for human consumption would be exempt from registration. If the Deputy is clear on that, there is no need to develop the point any further. The exemption is only temporary, and, as I have said already, when we get a higher standard of milk production all over the country undoubtedly the case will be made to the Minister for Agriculture that it is time this exemption was discontinued. There is no doubt that at the present time the restrictions imposed under the Dairy Produce Act on suppliers to creameries have raised the standard of milk production far above the standard of production of the people in the provinces, in many parts of rural Ireland, who are at present producing milk for human consumption.

I would like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to two matters which I think he either misunderstood my argument on or missed a point in some way. From his speech now he appears to me to read into Section 19 some reference to pasteurisation by the producers. There is no reference to pasteurisation by the producers. There is no reference to specially designated milk by the producers. My point is that the regulation as to pasteurisation or special designation will apply purely and solely to the creamery which has been supplied. Further, he said it is an offence to offer dirty, contaminated or stale milk to a creamery. That will only apply where it can be discovered at the creamery. It can be argued that if milk is contaminated it might not be discovered in a routine way when it is being offered at the creamery. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary thinks there is something in Section 19 which is not there, some reference to pasteurisation which is done by the producer.

I am afraid the Deputy misunderstands me. I do not know how I conveyed that impression.

My argument is that there is something needed behind the creamery to control and inspect the source of supply to the creamery and no inspection or care at the creamery can completely get over some mischief at the dairy or the place of production. One other point is that the Parliamentary Secretary has emphasised again that this is a Bill to deal with the health of the human being and not of animals. I am not asking him to protect the health of animals, but I ask him not to insert a section which will expose the animals to a greater extent to tuberculosis than is necessary. When he says that the care of the health of animals that are going to produce milk does not come within the scope of the Bill, I submit that the title is quite enough to bring in that and a great deal more. The title sets out that "this is an Act to make further and better provision in relation to the production and sale of milk with a view to improving the standards of purity and wholesomeness thereof and to make provision for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid." Surely the last portion of the title is enough to cover the protection and the health of animals, the milch cattle that are going to produce the milk in three or four years' time. I am disappointed at the attitude the Parliamentary Secretary has taken up with regard to this section. There may be some reason for giving this consideration to creameries, but I think it goes far beyond what is necessary for their own protection.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to three grades of milk. As regards pasteurised milk, the sheds where that milk is produced are subject to a rigorous inspection, possibly more rigorous than is required by this Bill. Does the Parliamentary Secretary claim, where creameries are supplied by suppliers whose premises are not subject to the same inspection, that pasteurised milk in such creameries will be of the same standard as the milk that is vended in Dublin as pasteurised milk? If he is to accept pasteurised milk as a certain standard for milk, then before he would recognise milk from creameries as reaching the pasteurised standard it should be produced and pasteurised under the same conditions as the pasteurised milk now selling in the Dublin market.

I cannot see how he can get away with it if he is allowing pasteurised milk in here. He must set a standard for its production and for its pasteurisation; otherwise we will have two brands of an article on the market, with no apparent difference in designation, but two entirely different articles. It is not fair that the more costly brand cannot be distinguished from the less costly one. I think it would be necessary to put in the section what in his view pasteurisation means.

I told the Deputy that that would be done in regulations made under the Bill.

I fancy it should be in the Bill.

The Bill would not hold all that would be in the regulations.

Will pasteurised milk from creameries that will be permitted under this Bill reach the necessary standard of cleanliness in the process of pasteurisation?

Certainly.

How can you reach that without having the same inspection of premises in which the milk is produced as you have for the others?

There will be a certain bacteriological test before the milk is pasteurised.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows that we have reached the kernel of the matter now, and if he is going to get pasteurised milk sub-section (1) of Section 19 cannot operate and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that.

Nonsense. I have been wasting my time trying to educate the Deputy all day if that is the case.

The Parliamentary Secretary cannot educate anyone else until he has educated himself. There seems to be a great deal lacking in his education.

Section, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 22, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 7:—

Before Section 23 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where a dairyman has been registered by a sanitary authority—

(a) the premises in respect of which he has been registered shall be inspected by the medical officer or an inspector of such sanitary authority within a period of three months from the date of such registration and shall subsequently be inspected at intervals of not longer than six months so long as such dairyman shall be registered;

(b) the animals on the premises in respect of which he has been registered shall be examined by the veterinary officer of such sanitary authority within a period of three months from the date of such registration and shall subsequently be examined at intervals of not longer than six months.

(2) The sanitary authority shall, in writing, communicate to every registered dairyman any breaches of any order made by the Minister under this or any appropriate Act observed by their officers, and any cases of illness in animals observed by their veterinary officer.

(3) Where there has been persistent failure on the part of any registered dairyman to comply with the terms of any order made by the Minister under this or any appropriate Act the registration shall be cancelled and shall not be renewed until a period of six calendar months has elapsed.

The object of this amendment to insert a new section is to make it clear in the statute that it is not merely within the power of, but that it is the direct duty of the local authority to make periodical examinations of a dairyman's premises. On the Second Reading of the Bill I criticised the fact that, whereas the administration of the Bill was compulsory on the local authority and the local authority was given power to inspect, no duty was imposed on it to inspect, and that inspection, under the terms of the Bill, apparently remained a matter of discretion on the part of the local authority. In reply to that the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that under Section 10 it was the duty of the sanitary authority "to enforce the provisions of this Act and of every order and regulation made thereunder." My argument is that it is not necessary to enforce a provision which does not appear either in the Act or the regulations. It is quite possible that this defect may be remedied. I daresay, if it is not in the Act, that the defect will be remedied by the regulations to be issued; but I think that in what is an essential part of the administration of the scheme it is better to have the terms laid down in the Act. The Parliamentary Secretary said, in fact, that the local authority, in order to comply with Section 10, that is, to enforce the provision, will have to see that these inspections are carried out and that the conditions attaching to the licence on registration are being observed. But there is at the present moment no such duty put on them, and I think we are entitled to ask that it should be put on them by statute and not merely by regulations of the terms of which we are uncertain.

I do not think it is necessary to dwell on the particular words of the amendment on the paper. It provides that within three months after registration the premises in respect of which a dairyman has been registered shall be inspected by the medical officer or an inspector of such sanitary authority; that within the same period of three months the animals on the premises shall be inspected by a veterinary officer, and that subsequently such inspection of premises and examination of animals should be carried out at periods not longer than six months. If the Bill is to be really effective I think that such a provision, whether in these exact words or not, must be in the scheme; and then it is a further matter of opinion whether it should be in the regulations or in the statute. I suggest that it is wise that such an essential part of the scheme should be laid down in the Act itself and not left for regulations which may or may not be issued.

I do not intend to accept the amendment, because I am not satisfied that it is calculated to improve the Bill. The object of the proposed section appears to be (1) to make obligatory on sanitary officers the inspection of dairy premises and the animals in such premises at fixed intervals; and (2) to make obligatory the cancellation for a period of six months of the registration of any dairyman who persistently fails to comply with the terms of any order made by the Minister.

As the Deputy is aware, we have already power to make regulations covering the whole matter of inspection. I would refer the Deputy to Section 31 in regard to the inspection of animals and dairies. I think it is dangerous to set out in the Act the intervals at which inspections are to be carried out. In varying conditions, the need for different inspections at varying intervals must be apparent. I feel on this particular matter I might have Deputy Belton's agreement. If the conditions under which milk is being produced in an area are very primitive, in that area until a certain standard is reached inspections will have to be at frequent intervals. In an area where a high standard has already admittedly been reached and where the sanitary authority have a high appreciation of their duties and responsibility under this Act, such frequent inspections will not be necessary. Obviously, if we fixed a certain interval in this Bill that interval must be the actual interval; but if we fix intervals for inspection under regulations, then from time to time and under different circumstances and conditions we alter the interval and we will get much better results.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary state that the regulations will contain reference to periodic or frequent inspection?

Undoubtedly.

They must; otherwise they would be useless.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 25.

I move amendment No. 8:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Where a sanitary authority are satisfied that any person registered in the register of dairymen has, within a period of five years, been three times convicted of an offence under this Act or of an offence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1935, in relation to the sale of milk, such sanitary authority shall, by order (in this section referred to as a cancellation order) cancel the registration of such person in such register.

In Section 25 we have already a provision that where a sanitary authority are satisfied that any person registered in the register of dairymen kept by them is no longer a fit and proper person to carry on the business of dairyman, etc., such sanitary authority may, by order, cancel the registration of such person. Here, again, the matter is left entirely at the discretion of the sanitary authority. The amendment I have put down is to provide that where there have been repeated convictions for offences—not merely where there has been a breach of some regulation—under this Act or otherwise, in relation to the sale of milk, the sanitary authority shall cancel the registration of such person. That is the penalty only where there have been three convictions within a period of five years. I do not think that that is pressing the matter too hard. Where a person has received the warning of one or two convictions, and still persists in committing an offence, I think it should be incumbent on the sanitary authority to remove such person from the register and that it should not be in his case, as in a much milder case, a mere matter of discretion.

I would support the amendment provided the Deputy inserted the words "with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health." Such a power would seldom have to be used, but when a local authority is given such a responsible job it should be vested with extensive powers. At the same time there should be some check on the manner in which it uses these powers. That is why I should like to add "with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health." Political spite might enter into the decision of the local authority. I will not say that the Minister for Local Government is entirely free from it.

Not entirely free from it? You do not mean that!

I do not mean in his administration but it is through politics he gets his job. Notwithstanding that of necessity he should have a high sense of his responsibility as Minister——

Especially when he is addressing old I.R.A. associations.

Deputy Dillon will never get a chance of addressing them.

I stand for giving a preference to an ex-member of the I.R.A.——

I should like to hear the Deputy on the amendment.

We would like to give them good milk anyway. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this amendment favourably. I know cases in which we had a considerable amount of trouble. We came to the decision that we had no further authority to deal with them though we knew the milk was being produced under conditions in which it should not be produced. We decided that the sale should be stopped forthwith until certain things were done, yet we had not authority to stop it forthwith. We could have done it of course in another round-about way. I should like again strongly to commend this amendment to the Parliamentary Secretary. It can do no harm and it may do a lot of good. I would not however favour its insertion unless the words I have suggested "with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health," are added.

It is reasonable to empower the local authority to penalise a dairyman who has been repeatedly convicted of offences either under this Bill or the Food and Drugs Act. While I say that I am not just satisfied that the penalty contemplated by Deputy Rowlette's amendment might not be too severe—that is absolute cancellation, carrying with it presumably a prohibition from entering into business again. I should like to go into the matter further and at any rate I would be in favour of giving them power to cancel for a period. A six months' or a twelve months' cancellation might be a salutary lesson to a dairyman who had been convicted three times within five years.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider the addition of the words "with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health?"

Yes. I think that would be a useful provision. The general principle behind the amendment is acceptable. I shall look into it further and have an amendment drafted dealing with the matter for the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 26.
(4) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section, where a person is registered, in the register of dairymen kept by a sanitary authority, in respect of two or more sets of premises, such sanitary authority may, at any time, without such application as aforesaid, if satisfied that such person has ceased to carry on the business of dairyman at any of such sets of premises, cancel the registration of such person in respect of such set of premises.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (4), line 40, to insert after the word "any" the word "one", and in line 41 to delete the words "such set of premises" and substitute the words "the set of premises at which he has ceased to carry on such business."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 27 to 31, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 32.
(2) Whenever the Minister makes regulations under the immediately preceding sub-section prescribing a special designation, he may by the same or subsequent regulations provide for all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the grant of licences (in this part of this Act referred to as special designation licences) to sell milk under such special designation;
(b) the authorities (including the Minister) to grant such licences;

Could we not discuss, on amendment No. 10, amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13?

Yes, Sir. The same principle underlies them. I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section 2 (a), line 14, after the word "licences" to insert the words "by the Minister."

The whole object of these amendments is to control the issue of special designation licences and to secure that that power should remain with the Minister rather than be entrusted to local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary in the debate on the Second Reading agreed that that would be a wise procedure, at any rate for the present. He said:

"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."

I think the last remark is perfectly true, that there are some local authorities who can be entrusted with this duty, but I would point out to the Minister that leaving the matter to local authorities, in the near future or at any time, will probably lead to some difference in the standardisation of the milk produced according to these special designations. Further, it is extremely important to ensure that the milk does actually come under these special designations. If the licence is issued by the Minister, the milk vendor will have the guarantee of the State behind him in the form of that licence, and it will mean that if he uses that designation that milk will be exactly as described and in accordance with the special designation. It is of the utmost importance that the public should be assured that, when milk is offered to them under a special designation, that milk will answer fully to the designation which is guaranteed by the State. I think that the issue of these licences by local authorities will not put the emphasis on them and will not emphasise the importance of them as it would if the licence has to be issued by the Minister in each case.

I gather from what the Parliamentary Secretary said during the Second Reading that, in the earlier stages at any rate, the Minister himself would issue the licences. I think it would be wiser, however, if the Minister retained that power altogether. Once he permits local authorities to issue licences, it will be a matter of extreme difficulty to control those local authorities referred to in the last clause where it is mentioned that certain local authorities are to be entrusted with this duty and that other local authorities will not be so entrusted. I do not see what there is in favour of entrusting this power to local authorities. If it is left in the hands of the local authorities it will be very hard to know whether the milk answers the special designation either in name or reality, and I think that they should have the guarantee of the Minister behind them.

If they are to be issued by the local authority, will not the sanction of the Minister have to be got? I suppose that in nearly all the counties now the machinery of the medical services and the veterinary services is established. If it is not, it should be. The reports of the medical officer of health and of the chief veterinary officer of the county will be available to the Minister, and also any special reports on any premises will be available to him. I know of nothing that the local authority can do of itself. The local authority means the elected body, whether it be the board of health, the county council or the committee of agriculture, acting with the sanction of the appropriate Ministries. Accordingly, I think the matter is pretty well covered, and if you want the local authority to take a live interest in this matter, give them at least the responsibility of discretion in the initial stages. There is always the over-riding authority of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and I think it will add to the sense of responsibility of local authorities, and ultimately to the efficiency of local services, to give them discretion in this matter. I think that if Deputy Rowlette had experience of local authorities he would be better able to see, perhaps, the force of my argument. Everything that is done by a local authority is done subject to the sanction of the Minister. Very often, and sometimes oftener than we would like, the Minister stands up against the local authority. That, however, shows that the Ministry of Local Government and Public Health is not by any means an automatic machine. It shows that it examines everything done by the local authority, and seldom if ever does it pass anything of an intricate nature without further inquiries. When it has its mind made up on a certain stand, it makes its stand, and I must say that it is very seldom we can shift them. Very often we should like to win, but we do not.

I only mention this in order to show that the local authority is not an automatic machine and that by delegating powers to them you will not impair in any way the efficiency of the local services, because the Local Government Department must give its sanction. We all know that a certificate from a local authority, in effect, means a certificate from the department which includes that particular authority and the Ministry of Local Government. I think that the case is pretty well met in the Bill.

It is intended that the Minister shall keep control at first of most of the special designation licences. In the case, however, of the larger authorities, as I said before, it will be possible at a very early date to pass that responsibility on to these local authorities. Other local authorities must be entrusted with that responsibility in due course, but we will require to have standards more or less uniform and to have public opinion educated up to the point of, at any rate, appreciating the necessity for a high standard of production of milk. The Minister, I suppose, must be the final judge in the matter, but as soon as it appears to be safe to pass on this responsibility to local authorities, the intention is that ultimately the local authorities will become the licensing authorities. In the early stages, as I said, we can pass on that responsibility immediately to certain public bodies which have had a good deal of experience and which have a high appreciation of the necessity to go very carefully so as to ensure that if milk is a specially designated milk it will answer entirely the designation attached to it, and that if the public believe that the milk has reached a certain standard of perfection and wholesomeness, it will reach that standard. Certain local authorities will be given the responsibility as soon as this becomes law. Other local authorities will require a little time in order to enable them to realise that this is a vital problem affecting the health of the community and that it must be taken seriously. However, as rapidly as possible, at any rate, the full responsibility will be placed on the local authorities for the issue of these licences.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 not moved.
Question—"That Section 32 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 33 stand part of the Bill."

Are we to understand that the fees in respect of special designation licences are to go to the Exchequer, and, in the event of the Minister transferring functions under the special designation licences to the local authority, will the fees for those licences follow the responsibility, and will the local authority get the fees paid by the special designation licensees in their own area?

Where a local authority issue licences the fees go to the local authority, and where the Ministry issue licences they go to the Ministry.

The Minister is contemplating a time when he has educated local authorities to the point that the local fees will go to the local bodies.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35 (1).
The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, make regulations under this section prescribing the descriptive words or signs which may be used, without obtaining a special designation licence, in connection with milk offered or exposed for sale, and references in this section to "a general designation" shall be construed as referring to words and signs prescribed by regulations made under this section and for the time being in force.

I move amendment No. 14:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:

(1) No milk is offered or exposed for sale and in connection with which a special designation licence has not been obtained shall be described by any words or signs other than a general designation which shall be either "cows' milk" or "goats' milk," either of which may be preceded by the word "whole."

May I draw attention to the fact that the word "which" has been omitted after the words "no milk" in line 3. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the special designation which the Minister will define cannot be imitated in any colourable way, and to prevent people, for trade purposes, adapting any designation which might be mistaken for the special designation authorised by the Bill. It seems to me that the best way to arrive at that position is to prevent any vendor using any term except the words "cows' milk" or "goats' milk" as the case may be. For instance, the Minister may have the term Grade "A" milk and some enterprising vendor might use Grade "A" (1) milk. It would be hard for the public, who are not expert in distinguishing such marks, to know the difference, while such milk would have no relation whatever to the regulations required by the Bill. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the advisability of imposing some such restriction on enterprising traders.

It is preferable to retain power to make representations, so as to enable the milk trade to be consulted before such designations are fixed. The section will give greater elasticity in the recognition of general designation than to fix it by legislation, as is contemplated in the amendment. It appears to me that it would be fair to recognise such general designations as "new milk" or "fresh milk.""New milk" is a general term which conveys to the consuming public the information that it is distinguished from "buttermilk." I do not think it would be wise to confine ourselves to the general designation proposed in the amendment. If it was necessary, by any change of circumstances, to alter that we would be bound by it once it was set out in the Bill, and could not use any other general designation. The Deputy would be well advised not to press the amendment, but to leave the question of general designation to be determined and set out in the regulations at a later period. Section 34 (b) says:—

(1) It shall not be lawful for any person—

in connection with any sale or offer for sale or proposed sale of any milk or in any advertisement, circular or notice relating to milk, to describe or refer to such milk by any special designation,

unless such special designation is set out in the regulations embodied in or attached to the licence.

May I draw the Deputy's attention to Section 35 (2):—

It shall not be lawful for any person to use in any advertisement, circular, notice, or otherwise in connection with milk offered or exposed for sale any words or signs which are neither a special designation nor a general designation and which indicate or are intended to indicate that the milk is of a particular quality or prepared in a particular manner or suitable for a particular purpose.

We have ample power there to prevent any of the things that the Deputy has apprehensions about happening. People might describe milk as "Grade `A' milk" or "nursery milk" or purporting to have certain specific nutritive qualities, but there is not any guarantee. We have power to deal with any such abuses. Acceptance of the amendment would not improve the Bill in any way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
if such dairy is within such sanitary district, he shall examine the dairy and, if he so thinks fit, any person engaged in the service thereof, or resident in the dairy, or who may be resident in any premises where any person employed in such dairy may reside, and shall, if necessary, require the veterinary officer to accompany him and to examine the animals therein, and...

I move amendment No. 15:—

In sub-section (1) (a), line 32, to insert the word "require" after the words "if he so thinks fit" and in line 35 after the words "may reside" to insert the words "to produce a certificate signed by a qualified medical practitioner certifying that the person so engaged or resident is free from any disease to which Part III of this Act applies for the time being."

As the Bill stands a medical officer is empowered, not only to examine a licensed premises but to examine "any person engaged in the service thereof, or resident in the dairy, or who may be resident in any premises where any person employed in such dairy may reside..." with or without the consent of the person to be examined. I regard such a section as unenforceable because, if a medical officer attempted to carry out what he has a special right to do under the Bill he would be made liable under common law. There are two good reasons why we should adopt the amendment, one being that as the section stands it is nugatory, and the other, that it establishes a principle of infringement of individual liberty which this House should not subscribe to. My amendment limits the right of the medical officer of health to require a person described in the section to furnish him with a certificate, signed by a qualified medical practitioner, showing that the person so engaged or resident is free from any disease to which Part III of this Act applies for the time being. I submit that that supplies the responsible authority with sufficient guarantee that there will be no contamination or no disease. In support of that I will quote Section 38 of the Pigs and Bacon Bill. It reads:—

(1) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, by order make regulations prohibiting the employment in licensed premises of persons suffering from diseases specified in such regulations and contact cases and known carriers of diseases specified in such regulations until such persons, contact cases, and known carriers have been certified by a duly qualified medical practitioner as free from such diseases.

All I ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to do is to adopt the principle accepted by the Minister for Agriculture, and incorporated in his Bill in preference to what is now before the House.

I do not think I could add anything to the arguments put forward on this principle on the Second Reading. Apparently I have failed to convince Deputy Dillon of the desirability of refusing to insert the amendment. All this talk about the infringement of the liberty of the subject in relation to this matter is so much nonsense. I am sure Deputy Dillon does not like to be accused of talking nonsense. Many people object to being accused of being utterly foolish, and I think Deputy Dillon is particularly sensitive in that matter.

I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's solicitude. It is something quite new.

At the same time I feel that in a matter like this the responsibility devolves upon me of protecting the House and the public from the consequences of Deputy Dillon's foolishness. The principle in the Bill to which Deputy Dillon objects is that the county medical officer of health will have the right, if he suspects that persons employed in certain dairy concerns are suffering from or are liable to cause the spread of certain contagious and infectious diseases, to examine and satisfy himself that they do not suffer from such diseases and are not carriers of such diseases. It appears to me that this is absolutely essential, especially in relation to the production of milk that is consumed, in the main, in the raw condition. If the county medical officer of health has reason to suspect or to believe that an epidemic of diphtheria or typhoid is attributable to a certain dairy, how on earth is he going to deal with that situation if we tie his hands and say: "You will not be entitled to ascertain whether those employed in that dairy are carriers of disease or not; you will not be entitled to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the general community will be protected."

In ordinary everyday matters I am quite sure that Deputy Dillon would not object and does not object to the principle that people should not be allowed to endanger human life. The careless motorist is prosecuted, taken to the courts, and fined, or perhaps imprisoned. He may not have taken human life at all. Apart from that, under our public health laws in force at present we have the statutory right to take all precautions necessary to protect the community from contamination by, or the spread of, certain infectious and contagious diseases that have a high mortality rate. We compulsorily remove people to isolation hospitals. We compulsorily isolate contacts, but we must examine them in order to establish whether they are suffering from diseases that are attributed to them or not. I had never heard, until Deputy Dillon said so here to-day, that public opinion was outraged at the fact that a county medical officer of health was entitled to examine people to ascertain beyond any doubt whether they, because of being the carriers of certain specific diseases, were a danger to the general health of the community or not. I do not know how serious Deputy Dillon may be about this matter, but it appears to me to be the most nonsensical proposition that has ever come before the House. I do not mean to be offensive to the Deputy. I am merely telling him how the matter appears to me as one having some special knowledge. Perhaps the Deputy is not much concerned about this and only put down the amendment in order to hear what answer might be made to it. But if he is really serious about it, then I think he is more irresponsible than I had ever thought he was, and that is going a long way.

The Parliamentary Secretary began by being extremely solicitous for my tender feelings and then, slowly drifting back into his old style, gave his unfortunate colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, a desperate wipe by describing this proposal as the silliest, the most preposterous and foolish and the most idiotic that had ever come before the House. This amendment is taken word for word from a Bill for which the Minister for Agriculture is responsible. The Minister for Agriculture spent some time a couple of weeks ago explaining that the President of the Executive Council could not be such an imbecile as to have said what he was reported to have said. Now the Parliamentary Secretary says that the Minister for Agriculture could not be such an imbecile as to make a proposal of this kind, but the proposal is lying before the Minister for Agriculture on his desk for the moment.

We fry bacon but we do not fry milk.

Section 38 of the Pigs and Bacon Bill at present before the House provides that the Minister for Agriculture may by Order make regulations prohibiting the employment of persons suffering from specified diseases and of contact cases and known carriers of diseases until such persons, contact cases, and known carriers have been certified by a duly qualified medical practitioner as free from such diseases. That is the proposal that I want to get into the Milk Bill. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to describe the Minister for Agriculture by all the adjectives which he has employed I will not quarrel with him, but when he says that he has the power compulsorily to remove people to isolation hospitals I want to tell him that he has no such power, and that he ought to learn his job. He was for long a distinguished medical officer himself, and surely he ought to have learned by now that he has not that power. If a person suffering from these diseases can satisfy the public health authority that he can be effectively isolated in his own house, all that the Minister can do is to stipulate for effective isolation. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he had the arbitrary right to remove a person to an isolation hospital. He has not and never had. All that I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to do is to insert in this Bill the provision to which I have referred which is in the Pigs and Bacon Bill.

In relation to milk?

It is in relation to food. I think that Deputy Briscoe had better confine himself to other matters. These are matters which do not intimately concern the Deputy at the moment, and if he pursues them they may invite tart replies which I do not wish to be drawn into making.

What class of food is the Deputy talking about? His usual food does not seem to give him much brains.

If the Minister for Agriculture thinks that this is a good provision to insert in the Pigs and Bacon Bill, what sound reason can be advanced for not having a similar provision in this Bill? Does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously suggest that a certificate from any doctor, other than a county medical officer of health, cannot be relied upon? That is what Deputy Dillon is seeking to achieve by his amendment, that a person should have the right to select his own medical officer to certify whether or not he is a carrier of disease. The Minister for Agriculture admits that right in his Bill. Why not in this one with regard to milk? Surely to goodness we have no right to say that a certificate from an ordinary medical practitioner is not entitled to as much respect in matters of this kind as a certificate from a county medical officer of health? It is certainly detracting from the liberty of the subject. Examination by doctors is a matter on which people are sensitive. Most families have their family doctors and are very much attached to them. I do not think that we have any right to say that a family or dispensary doctor's certificate is not to be relied upon, but that the certificate of a county medical officer of health is to be relied upon.

I am sorry to have to intervene. It seems that Deputy Dillon and Deputy Brennan treat this subject with a certain amount of seriousness, but also with a certain amount of ignorance. Deputy Brennan, as a prominent member of a local authority, knows that strenuous precautions have to be taken when an outbreak of certain diseases occurs, because the spread of those diseases might mean a tremendous number of deaths. These diseases include typhoid and typhus. Deputy Dillon has no experience of that matter from the point of view of the local authority. He has tried to argue that the same precautions should be taken in the case of bacon as the Minister suggests should be taken in the case of milk. He talks of milk as a food, the same as bacon. He says that he does not want to enter into a discussion with me about it, because there might be some personal objection on my part. We are not here to refer in a back-handed sort of way to personalities. We are here to legislate in the interests of the community.

Deputy Dillon is so ignorant as regards the question of milk and the enormous amount of infant mortality that would arise from infected milk, if there was neglect on the part of the local authority or the Public Health Department, that he suggests that another food should be dealt with in the same way as milk. Deputy Brennan knows that that should not be so. We can excuse Deputy Dillon for lack of knowledge in that regard, because he is not expected to have it. There is, however, no excuse for Deputy Brennan, and I suggest that Deputy Brennan should remove two or three steps from Deputy Dillon, when he might be able to give sane consideration to the question under review.

Is it seriously suggested that a county medical officer of health could not meet the situation by going into a dairy and refusing to allow any employee whom he suspected of discase, or of being a carrier of disease, to work, until he supplied him with a medical certificate showing that the suspicion was unfounded. Is there any argument against that course? I do not see any, so far as the carrying out of his duties by the medical officer of health is concerned.

The answer to that is that only very special methods can be employed in detecting a typhoid carrier. The ordinary doctor cannot detect it.

All that is necessary is to carry out a blood test. That will take the county medical officer of health exactly the same time as it would take a private practitioner. I have not wasted my time at the local authorities.

Deputy Briscoe talks as if a specialist were going to be employed on this job. The gentleman who will be going around on this job of compulsory examination will be a dispensary doctor, just like the Parliamentary Secretary. He will roll in, in the ordinary course of his duties as dispensary doctor, and carry out his functions under the local authority. There is no question of special pathological apparatus. The ordinary dispensary doctor will do the work, and it is a question of whether you are going to allow the citizen to choose his own doctor, or whether you are going to give one of the ordinary practitioners a right to examine a person with or without his permission.

Might I point out that it is not an ordinary doctor who will carry out this examination?

The medical officer of health for the county will carry it out.

And he is not in practice at all.

It does not make the slightest difference because the county medical officer of health, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows well, is an ordinary dispensary doctor who is simply charged with special functions extending all over the county.

Nonsense.

There is no distinction whatever between the qualifications of the two officers in regard to this matter or in regard to the diagnosis of typhoid. If blood tests are required to be carried out, that work will be done at a central laboratory. Any examination that can be carried out in regard to this matter by the county medical officer of health can be just as effectively carried out by an ordinary, competent physician.

Better sit down.

I have a certain sympathy with that part of Deputy Dillon's argument in which he urges that it is undesirable to give a medical officer power to examine the body of any ordinary citizen of the State. That is open to objection, and, if it can be avoided in any way, it would be desirable that it should be avoided. I do not know that there is any statute which gives power to a doctor to examine the body of a free citizen against his will. However, I do not think that the alternative put forward by Deputy Dillon would be in any way effective. He suggested that a county medical officer of health is not in a better position to form an opinion in regard to the person whom it may be his duty to examine than any other practitioner. He forgets that the county medical officer of health is specially trained in these matters, that he has laboratory facilities at his disposal, and that he is expert in the latest methods for establishing whether a certain person is a carrier of a particular disease or not in a way which it would be unfair to expect a dispensary doctor or any practitioner who is not a specialist in that branch to be. On that ground, I do not think that a certificate of health —the person concerned may be in perfectly good health—would be an effective precaution. The Parliamentary Secretary might consider the adoption of an alternative method—to give the sanitary authority power to exclude from work in a dairy any person who refuses to permit himself to be examined by the medical officer. I think that there is a provision of that sort in the factory laws—that the worker who refuses to be examined can be excluded from work during the period of his refusal. There is an option there, and I think that it would be worth while for the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether he could not bring in that alternative here. If the person concerned were the proprietor of the dairy, power might be given to the medical officer to close the dairy temporarily. I confess that I do not like to put the medical officer of health in a position in which he could commit what would, at common law, be an assault on any free citizen or worker in his district. The exercise of such a duty in any harsh way—I do not think it would be so exercised—would be injurious to the friendly working of the Act. I make that suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope he will see his way to adopt it.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 44.

  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Victory, James.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Nally; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Amendment declared lost.
Progress Reported: Committee to sit again on Wednesday next.
Top
Share