Milk and Dairies Bill, 1935—Committee Stage (Resumed.)
SECTION 38.
(a) 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
(b) if such dairy is situate in another sanitary district, he shall forthwith serve by post on the medical officer of such other sanitary district a notice of the facts of the case and the location of such dairy and thereupon the medical officer of such other sanitary district shall do the following things, that is to say:—
(i) 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
(ii) he shall report to the sanitary authority whose medical officer he is and to the medical officer by whom such notice was served, the result of such examination and any action taken by him under the next following sub-section.
(9) If a prohibition order is made against a dairyman—
(a) such dairyman shall, unless such order has been made in consequence of his own default or neglect, be entitled to recover from the sanitary authority full compensation for any loss or damage he may have sustained by reason of the making of the order.
(b) such dairyman shall be entitled to recover from the sanitary authority full compensation for any damage or loss which he may sustain in consequence of any unreasonable neglect or refusal by the medical officer of such sanitary authority to withdraw such order.
The following amendments in the name of Deputy Rowlette were on the Order Paper:
In sub-section (1) (b), line 39, before the word "if" to insert the words "If the medical officer is a medical officer of a rural sanitary district and".
At the end of sub-section (1) to add a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) if the medical officer is a medical officer of an urban sanitary district and if such dairy is situated in another district he shall, in co-operation with the medical officer of such other sanitary district, 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 examine the animals therein.
Deputy Rowlette asked me to move these amendments. They deal with the question of extra-territorial authority on the part of a medical officer of health, and it is one of those questions to which attention has been directed by the medical officer of health for Cork. It was, I think, referred to last night at a meeting in University College and a strong representation was made in favour of the proposal embodied in the amendment. It is one of those cases in which the medical officer of the sanitary district may get a communication from outsiders regarding matters within his jurisdiction. Generally, in connection with those matters one need not expect the major attention of a medical officer of health to representations made outside his district; the most that one could expect would be that his operations would be directed to such representations after he had done his own work. This matter is sufficiently serious to merit the closest co-operation between the two and, in my own view it ought, by reason of co-operation between the two medical officers, to be effective, depending absolutely upon, let us say, the medical officer of health in Dublin visiting a dairy in Wicklow, in Meath, in Louth or in Kildare.
It is not an easy proposition to expect the medical officer of a sanitary district in those cases to operate immediately after getting a communication from the medical officer of health in Dublin seeking activity on the part of the local medical officer in respect of something which concerns a body outside his own immediate neighbourhood. It must get second place. With active co-operation between the medical officer of a sanitary district in which the dairy is situated and the medical officer of the district in which the milk is sold, fewer communications will fall to be made and it might be expected that, if this Bill be worked energetically and cordially, those diseases which can be exterminated will be exterminated within a short period and then only ordinary normal inspection will be called for. The main use of this Bill will depend entirely upon that active co-operation of the various officials of local authorities which will make for its success and, in the beginning, it is quite possible that more than the usual amount of work will fall to be done.
In that case it appears to be a mistake to limit the jurisdiction of the medical officer of health in the district in which milk is sold from outlying districts. It seems a pity to limit his jurisdiction to the area of the place of which he is medical officer. It is rather a pity Deputy Rowlette cannot be here, but these are amendments which normally, having regard to the views expressed by the medical officer of health of Cork, I would have put down myself.
As Deputy Cosgrave has explained, these amendments are intended to give powers of extra-territorial inspection to the medical officer of an urban district in case of an outbreak of infections disease in such district, attributable to milk from a dairy outside the district. A good deal more could have been said in favour of this amendment when the original Bill was before the House. Perhaps within the terms of that Bill a convincing case could have been made for incorporating such an amendment in the legislation. But the registration of dairymen and all purveyors of milk considerably alters the position. There appears to be no necessity for taking this power, seeing that every urban district will be subject to the supervision of the county medical officer of health as medical superintendent officer of health of the district, and the county medical officer of health will be in charge also of the rural areas in the county. In the case of a county borough it will be possible for the medical superintendent officer of health to rely on the county medical officer of health of the outside district to conduct any examinations that may be necessary.
It seems to me that the amendment must have been based on the assumption that the dispensary doctor would be the medical officer of health. His jurisdiction as the medical officer of the sanitary authority would be confined to his own dispensary district, but in Section 7 the expression "the medical officer" means (a) when used in relation to a sanitary district which is a county borough, the medical superintendent officer of health for such county borough or the person for the time being acting as such medical superintendent officer of health, and (b) when used in relation to any other sanitary district, the county medical officer of health who acts for such district, or the person for the time being acting as such county medical officer of health.
As I stated previously in relation to the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act, we hope shortly to have county medical officers of health in all the counties. Steps are being taken by the local authorities in all the outstanding counties but one to have these appointments made, and necessary pressure is being put on the one county that has not of its own accord taken action in the matter, to secure uniformity in relation to these appointments. In the light of the fact that the county medical officer of health will be medical officer of the sanitary district and that he will be the officer administering the Act for both the urban and rural authorities, it seems to me that the necessity for this amendment cannot very well be established. Apart from the fact that the dairyman will be registered with the sanitary authority in the district in which he has his dairy, he will also have to be registered if he purveys milk in a sanitary district outside the district in which his dairy is situated, so that in any event he will come under the direct supervision of the county medical officer of health. If he does not purvey milk in his own district he will come under the direct control of two sanitary authorities and their medical officer of health.
Apart from these aspects of the case, I doubt very much if the extra-territorial powers of inspection that Deputy Cosgrave has in mind would secure the better co-operation to which he has referred. It would appear to me that if the county medical officer of health of one county were to go into a neighbouring county and, perhaps, adopt a critical attitude as to the manner in which the medical officer of health in that county was discharging his duties, instead of securing that closer co-operation we could very well secure a certain amount of friction. The Bill provides that where a medical officer of health has reason to suspect that disease is attributable to milk that is produced in a sanitary district outside his area, he will request the county medical officer of health of that district to examine the dairy and take such steps as may be necessary to establish definitely whether such milk is responsible for the outbreak of infectious disease.
I think that under the scheme as set out in Section 38, and in the light of the principle of registration that has now been incorporated in the Bill, we have a better machine, a machine that will work more smoothly and with much less liability of friction between neighbouring county medical officers of health than we would have if we adopted powers of extra-territorial inspection. Consequently, I feel that it would be unwise to accept this amendment and I will have to ask the House to reject it.
I shall withdraw the amendment and allow Deputy Rowlette to make his own case on it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Sections 38 and 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
I beg to move amendment No. 19:—
Before section 40 to insert a new section as follows:—
Where—
(a) any milk, which is kept by a dairyman for the purposes of being sold, becomes infected with a disease to which this Part of this Act applies, and
(b) any person who is employed by such dairyman for the purposes of his business as a dairyman, while such milk was so kept by such dairyman, either knew or had reasonable grounds for suspecting that such milk had become so infected, and
(c) such person fails or neglects to inform such dairyman forthwith of such knowledge or grounds of suspicion,
such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and imprisonment.
The object of this new section, to be inserted before Section 40, is to secure that a dairyman's employee will inform him of any case in which the milk becomes infected with disease within that employee's knowledge. An amendment similar to this was tabled by Deputy Cosgrave when the Bill was originally before the House and I had intended incorporating the principle in the new draft, but it came to be overlooked. To meet the case made by Deputy Cosgrave on that occasion, this amendment is now being inserted. I think it will be a definite improvement of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Deputy Rowlette asked me to move amendment No. 20, but I think it would be better to leave it over until he returns himself.
The amendment we have just accepted practically covers the point.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 41.
(1) If any person, who has been infected with a disease to which this Part of this Act applies, has, while so infected or within fourteen days after ceasing to be so infected, access to milk in a dairy, such person shall, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Court (i) that he did not know or could not by the exercise of reasonable care have known that he had been so infected, or (ii) that, before having such access, he informed the owner of such dairy that he had been so infected, be guilty of an offence under this section.
(3) If any person, who resides in the same house as a person (in this sub-section referred to as the infected person) who has been infected with a disease to which this Part of this Act applies, has, while the infected person is so infected or within fourteen days after the infected person has ceased to be so infected, access to milk in a dairy, such person shall, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Court (i) that he did not know or could not by the exercise of reasonable care have known that the infected person had been so infected or (ii) that, before having such access, he informed the owner of such dairy that he resided in the same house as the infected person and that the infected person had been so infected, be guilty of an offence under this section.
I move amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23:—
21. In sub-section (1), line 7, to delete the words "or within fourteen days after ceasing to be so infected."
22. In sub-section (3), lines 25 and 26, to delete the words "or within fourteen days after the infected person has ceased to be so infected."
23. Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
For the purposes of this section a person who is infected with a disease to which this Part of this Act applies shall be deemed to continue to be so infected until a duly qualified medical practitioner has certified that such person is free from such infection.
Section 41 says: "If any person, who has been infected with a disease to which Part of this Act applies, has, while so infected or within 14 days after ceasing to be so infected, access to milk in a dairy, such person shall, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court," and so on. The phraseology "within 14 days after ceasing to be so infected," appears to me to be rather dangerous, inasmuch as it would be very difficult to establish when the 14 days should begin and end or when a man should be deemed to have ceased to be so infected. It is a matter of drafting for all practical purposes, and these three amendments have been put down with a view to being specific and getting away from the complications that might arise from differences of opinion as to when a person ceased to be infected.
Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 42 and 43 agreed to.
I think we had better leave over amendment No. 24 until Deputy Rowlette returns. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would like to express a view on it.
I do not propose to express my view on the matter beyond indicating that I am not accepting the amendment. However, in the absence of Deputy Rowlette perhaps it would be better to have the amendment again on Report Stage so as to give him an opportunity of defending it.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider that some amendment of this kind would be useful?
I do not know whether it would be sufficiently like this amendment to satisfy Deputy Rowlette. I think there would be considerable dangers in it.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Sections 44, 45 and 46 agreed to.
I think that amendment No. 25 is covered in the next section.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Sections 47 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 50.
On Section 50. There seems to be no payment for any samples taken. The Parliamentary Secretary probably knows that in the case of contracts there are sometimes penal provisions in respect of the non-delivery of a given quantity, and even though the amount might be small it could be sometimes held that a lesser quantity than the given quantity would lay a person open to the penal provision. Take a case in which there is a rush, such as the Horse Show or some time like that, if a series of samples were to be taken, it might produce a difficult situation, and I presume that if they are not going to pay for the sample some discretion will be exercised so as not to take an unusual number of samples. For instance, an individual might have a sample taken in his own sanitary district. Another could be taken at the railroad, and again on arrival in Dublin. That would be three sets of samples in the one case. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will look into that.
I shall look into it, but the sample would be a small quantity, and I think we may be justified in assuming that the officers administering this Act will not do anything so unreasonable as to deprive a man of a large number of bottles of milk which would probably bring about the invalidation of his contract. However, I shall look into the matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that what would be worse than the question of the contract would be—although it is not likely that it would happen—the interruption of the man's business in such a way that it might be thought better not to place a contract with him. If that were to be done it would put certain people out of business.
Speaking on this section, perhaps it will save the time of the House to raise the general question of the procedure to be followed in preparing samples for examination. Doubtless, cases have been brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary from England where extraordinary discrepancies arose between the results of tests carried out by different pathologists on samples of milk which had been divided into two or three parts, and it was suggested in some technical papers that these discrepancies arose from the fact that one examiner took particularly vigorous measures to mix his sample before submitting it to a microscopic examination, whereas another examiner did not take such precautions. I suggest, therefore, in view of the fact that court proceedings are likely to ensue on these tests being made, that the Minister should lay down some minimum procedure through which a man would have to swear in court that he had gone before his evidence would be acceptable as having made a test.
Perhaps I might draw Deputy Dillon's attention to Section 48, which says: "Every bacteriological examiner shall in the prescribed manner examine and test each sample of milk submitted to him." The manner will be prescribed, so as to secure uniformity, under regulations, and similarly with the manner of taking samples. It will be laid down.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary also bear in mind that in the report that Deputy Dillon refers to mention was made, I think, of the fact that some samples were taken at the commencement of the journey, some half way, and another at the end of the journey? Some uniform system should be prescribed for taking the sample either at the commencement of transit or at the end, so as to avoid these discrepancies.
That could be done under the regulations also.
Sections 50 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 53.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
26. In sub-section (4), page 22, to insert the words "in the prescribed manner" after the words "send it", in lines 3 and 13, and after the word "send", lines 9 and 11.—(Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Slainte Puiblí).
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 54 and 55 agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Sections 56, 57 and 58 agreed to.
I have informed the Deputy responsible for amendment No. 28 that that amendment cannot be moved as being out of order. A fair wages clause is not more relevant to this than to any other Bill of the same nature.
Sections 59, 60, 61, Schedule and Title agreed to.
Would it be in order at this stage, in view of the fact that the Report Stage is the only one remaining in which to introduce amendments, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if, in the cooler atmosphere this afternoon, he would give his consideration to the representations I made to him in respect of the section which gives power to a medical officer compulsorily to examine somebody who is in a licensed premises, and to invite him to consult with those officials of the Department of Agriculture who have satisfied themselves that the powers they are taking in Section 38 of the Pigs and Bacon Bill are adequate for their requirements? I recognise that I am making a case to the Parliamentary Secretary which is not so much germane to his Department as it is to the Department of Justice or somebody concerned with the individual liberty of the citizen. I put it to him that if he had heard Lord Hugh Cecil last night speaking on liberty he would sympathise with the point of view which I put before him now, that we are sometimes induced to take very drastic and Draconian measures in order to improve something, and to find that by interfering with liberty we are doing far more harm than if we had contented ourselves with a more modest and moderate precaution.
Bill reported with amendments.
Fourth Stage to be taken this day week.
