Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate to the House whether he proposes to accept the Seanad amendments.
Milk and Dairies Bill, 1934—From the Seanad—Committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary indicated to the House some days ago that the Government proposed to accept all these amendments except amendment No. 10.
I propose that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—
Section 7. Paragraph (b) deleted and two new paragraphs substituted therefor as follows:—
(b) the occupier of such farm does not in any one day sell more than one gallon of such milk, and
(c) the selling of milk does not form part of the ordinary business of such occupier.
Section 7 of the Bill exempts from the conditions of registration farmers who occasionally sell surplus milk to neighbours, and this amendment is intended still further to restrict the exemption conferred by Section 7 so as to prevent persons possessing surplus milk engaging in the milk trade to any substantial extent, the farmer to be confined to one gallon of milk per day.
Amendment agreed to.
I propose that the Committee agree with amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4:—
2. Section 26, sub-section (1). After the word "may" in line 22 the words "subject to the provisions of this section" inserted.
3. Section 26, sub-section (2). After the word "may" in line 28 the words "subject to the provisions of this section" inserted.
4. Section 26, sub-section (5). The sub-section deleted and the following new sub-section substituted therefor:—
(5) The following provisions shall have effect in respect of the making by a sanitary authority of a cancellation order in relation to a person (in this sub-section referred to as the dairyman) registered in the register of dairymen kept by such sanitary authority, that is to say:—
(a) before making such order, such sanitary authority shall cause a draft of the proposed order to be prepared:
(b) such sanitary authority shall serve on the dairyman a notice in the prescribed form of their intention to apply to the Minister for his consent to the making of the proposed order, and such notice shall incorporate a copy of the said draft;
(c) the dairyman may, within fourteen days after the service of the said notice, make representations to the Minister in relation to the proposed order;
(d) as soon as may be after the service of the said notice, such sanitary authority shall apply to the Minister for his consent to the making of the proposed order, and such application shall be accompanied by a copy of the said notice having endorsed thereon the date of service thereof on the dairyman;
(e) on receipt of the said application the Minister shall, but not earlier than fourteen days after the date of the service of the said notice on the dairyman, consider the said application and any representations made by the dairyman, and shall, after such consideration, do one of the following things, namely—
(i) consent to the making of the proposed order in terms of the said draft, or
(ii) amend the said draft and consent to the making of the proposed order, in terms of the said draft, as so amended, or
(iii) refuse his consent to the making of the proposed order;
(f) such sanitary authority shall not make the proposed order if the Minister has refused his consent and shall not, if the Minister has consented to the making thereof, make the proposed order otherwise than in the terms of the said draft or the said draft, as amended by the Minister, (as the case may be).
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential on the acceptance of amendment No. 4 The new section proposed is a redrafting of another section of the Bill. But it embodies the principle that the Cancellation Order shall not take effect until and unless the Cancellation Order has been approved of by the Minister.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
The following are amendments Nos. 5 to 9:—
5. Section 26, sub-section (6). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
(6) Where a sanitary authority make, with the consent of the Minister, a cancellation order they shall serve a copy of such order on the person to whom such order relates, and such order shall come into force on the seventh day after the date of such service.
6. New section. Before section 32 a new section inserted as follows:—
32—(1) The Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Agriculture, may from time to time by order make regulations prohibiting the sale, except under a special designation, within the meaning of Part IV of this Act, and under and in accordance with a special designation licence granted under the said Part IV, of any milk which has been heated to a temperature higher than the temperature specified in such regulations or has been pasteurised.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of any regulation made under this section 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 under this section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and, in either case, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day during which the offence continues.
(3) An offence under this section may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the sanitary authority within whose sanitary district the offence was committed as prosecutor.
7. New section. Before section 32 a new section inserted as follows:—
32—(1) The Minister may, on the application of the sanitary authority, of a sanitary district, from time to time by order under this sub-section prohibit the sale of milk, in case such district is an urban sanitary district, within the meaning of the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, in such district or, in case such district is a rural sanitary district, within the meaning of the said Acts, either (as may be specified in such order) in such district or a specified part thereof, unless such milk is sold under a special designation, within the meaning of Part IV of this Act.
(2) Where an order has been made under the immediately preceding sub-section in relation to any sanitary district or a part thereof, the Minister may, on the application of the sanitary authority of such sanitary district, by order under this sub-section revoke such first-mentioned order.
(3) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to an application by a sanitary authority for an order under this section, that is to say:—
(a) such sanitary authority shall, before making such application, give such public notice as may be prescribed of their intention to make such application;
(b) the making of such application shall be—
(i) in the case of the county borough of Dublin or the borough of Dun Laoghaire, a reserved function for the purposes of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930 (No. 27 of 1930), and
(ii) in the case of the county borough of Cork, a reserved function for the purposes of the Cork City Management Act, 1929 (No. 1 of 1929), and
(iii) in the case of the county borough of Limerick, a reserved function for the purposes of the Limerick City Management Act, 1934 (No. 35 of 1934).
(4) If any person acts in contravention of any order made under sub-section (1) of this section and for the time being in force 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 under this section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and, in either case, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day during which the offence continues.
(5) An offence under this section may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the sanitary authority within whose sanitary district the offence was committed as prosecutor.
8. Section 39, sub-section (1). All from the word "serve" in line 26 deleted down to the word "notice" in line 27, inclusive, and the words "by the most expeditious means available inform the medical officer of such other sanitary district" substituted therefor.
9. Section 39, sub-section (1). Line 40 deleted and the words "from whom such information was received, the result of" substituted therefor.
Amendments agreed to.
10. Section 39, sub-section (1). A new paragraph added at the end of the sub-section, 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.
I propose to ask the Committee to disagree with this amendment. The principle involved was fully discussed when the Bill was before the House here previously. I do not think it is necessary to go into the details at this stage. The machinery set up under Section 9 would be in conflict with this amendment. The amendment proposes that if a medical officer of health of an urban sanitary district has reason to suspect that milk produced in another sanitary district is likely to spread a certain disease he would have power to go into that district and make an inspection of the dairies therein. The medical officer in that district would be bound by statutory obligation to co-operate with him. But under Section 39 of the Bill the medical officer of health of the district in which the dairy is located is under a statutory obligation, when he receives notice that milk produced in his area is under suspicion, to make an inspection and, if he thinks necessary, to examine the person engaged in the dairy and to report to his own sanitary authority and the medical officer of health of the district in which the milk is being sold. It would be, I think, a rather impossible position if he were under a statutory obligation to do those things and at the same time under a statutory obligation to do the same things in a different way by co-operation with the other medical officer of health in his inspection.
The Parliamentary Secretary recognises that the medical officer of health in an urban district has some responsibility for the health of the people of that district. Therefore, when milk comes into that urban district from an outside district the medical officer of health for the urban district has some responsibility in the matter to get to the source of supply. This amendment only asked for co-operation and why should it not be given? I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation is the whole of the reason why this amendment will not be accepted. Has the Parliamentary Secretary nothing more to add to what he has said? Take, for instance, a medical officer or a veterinary officer for the City of Dublin, which is supplied with milk from various parts of the country from animals that, under the Bill, will not be subject to inspection, whereas the animals under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin medical officer of health are, and will be perhaps to an even greater extent, subject to inspection. If the Dublin City authorities want to provide the City of Dublin with a milk supply of a certain standard they can do it from the source of supply within their jurisdiction; but milk from outside their jurisdiction will be dumped on them and they know that the animals supplying that milk will not be under the same control or inspection as the animals within the City of Dublin.
It is only when they suspect that the milk which the citizens of Dublin are paying for is not up to the standard and they have a reasonable ground for suspecting that it is not produced under the conditions required by the standard set in the City of Dublin, that the medical officer of health can get into touch with the medical officer of health of the area concerned, and both of them inspect the source of supply. What is wrong with that? If the Bill is a genuine attempt to get the best milk possible for the people, this is only an evasion of what is presumed to be attempted in the Bill, just as Sections 20 and 30 are deliberate evasions of what this Bill proposes to do—to provide people with a supply of pure milk. I hope there will be a division upon this.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he has been in contact with medical officers of health in cities like Dublin, Cork, and Limerick with regard to this matter? It is perhaps much easier to set out in the Bill precautions for dealing with a case like this than to make arrangements for having the precautions carried into practical effect. One can see very great difficulty in the case of a medical officer of a fairly large city who receives, say, two or three complaints, and finds it practically impossible to go to different parts of the country to make investigations. While there is a case for excusing him from undertaking such responsibilities, there is, on the other hand, the possibility that the local medical officer of health may be engaged on local business. Obviously one would expect that he would look after his local matters before he would deal with complaints from an outside district.
It may be that too much stress is being laid upon the necessity that will arise for these inspections. It must be admitted that the quality of the milk, taking it all round, is fairly high, and that not many cases will occur. But, if a case were to occur in a particular district, we can scarcely measure the damage that would arise. It would, therefore, be a matter of some consolation at least to those acting in a representative capacity in cities to know that, while the medical officers of the various municipalities did not get all the safeguards they asked for in connection with this Bill, they were satisfied to give it a working chance.
If the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure us in that connection, I think that a good deal of confidence would be restored. It may be that the medical officer in one of the cities might have on the same day to go to two counties far apart. To that extent, it may not be a practicable proposition. On the other hand, if we could be assured that immediate attention would be given to the matter by the medical officer of the district being acquainted by the medical officer of the municipality of the necessity for visiting these dairies, one might feel a little more secure in the matter.
I am disappointed to learn that the Parliamentary Secretary does not propose to accept the amendment which the Seanad put in in regard to this question of the possible outbreak of a disease, or of a source of disease being some distance from the place where the disease occurs. It seems to me that, unless an amendment which confers the powers proposed to be conferred by this amendment is accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary, the administration of his Act will be lacking in a very important particular. I take it from what I heard from the Parliamentary Secretary on other occasions that he is satisfied that he will, in the near future, have such an efficient system of sanitary administration through the country that there will be no need for any visiting by a medical officer from a distance, or of any intervention by anybody else than the medical officer of the district in which the milk is produced. I think he is not taking a sufficiently human view of the problems that will arise. It will be of immense importance to the population of such a City as Dublin or Cork that the milk supply which reaches these cities from the country should be subject to the fullest supervision from the moment of its source to the moment of its distribution. The administration of the medical officers of health in such large cities is at the moment, and is likely to be for a considerable time, more efficient than the administration of the county medical officers of health. In saying that, I am not casting any slur whatever on the county medical officers of health, but it must be remembered that they are only starting work in districts that have been unaccustomed to any sanitary work of any sort. It must be remembered that they are only starting to build up a system which has not existed outside the large cities in the past and that they will have an enormous amount of work to do in order to establish an efficient system of administration. It is not reasonable or human to expect these county medical officers of health to make a system in the country districts as efficient as such systems are, after very considerable experience, in the larger cities.
Again, the medical officer of health in the county district is concerned primarily with the protection of the health of the people in his district, and he is only indirectly concerned, and not at all officially concerned, with the protection of the health of people in cities 100 miles away from him. He has a moral concern, certainly, but he has no official concern, and it is no part of his duty, even after the Bill has been passed, to concern himself with the health of the people who consume the milk produced in his district but consumed many miles away. The whole trend of opinion in his own district will be against the medical officer of health in the district concerning himself in any way in hampering the sale of the produce of that district. Public opinion in the district will be against his busying himself in it. He will be told that he has enough to do to look after the health of the people in his county and that it is not his business to interfere with the trade of the people in his county by putting obstacles in the way of the sale of milk which may or may not be safe.
It has been said that the medical officer of health in the city has a remedy other than that proposed in this amendment: to prohibit the sale in the city of milk from a source that he suspects. Even if he has that power it is a power that he can only exercise when he has established that such and such a dairy was the cause of an outbreak of disease. He could not, with any freedom prohibit the sale of milk of any particular dairy entering his city until he had practical proof that the milk was diseased and diseased at its source. In mere fairness to the producer, he could not act on suspicion. He must have actual proof. This amendment suggests a remedy which is easy to apply. It would be welcomed by the medical officers of health of the cities—they have demanded it urgently—and by the medical officers of health of the counties, because it would share the responsibility of doing what would be definitely an unpopular thing in the district in which the county medical officer of health is working. I believe that any county medical officer of health would give the freest and fullest co-operation to a medical officer of health visiting him from the large cities, and I believe that he would be glad to be relieved of the responsibility of condemning a dairy. If it is left to the medical officer of health of the county, I believe that, in the nature of things, his action will not be as effective as if he were taking action in co-operation with his colleague from the city. I believe that we will continue to have diseased milk reaching Dublin, Cork, Limerick and the other large centres of population, from dairies which are practically uncontrolled in the country. It is not a matter of possibility for the man to examine every dairy in his district in the country.
The Parliamentary Secretary has told us, in an earlier debate, that this Bill will not increase the local expenses. I think that he is unduly optimistic in that regard. It is bound to increase the expenses very largely, so far as the Bill is concerned, because very much more assistance will be required than is required at present. Whatever help the medical officer of health has, he can never make the examination of all the districts in his area as efficiently as if he had the assistance of his colleagues in the city. I believe that it would make for the better working and administration of the Act, both in town and country, if some such amendment as the Seanad has suggested is inserted in the Bill. I hope that at this last moment, after many months of cogitation, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to admit the strength of the arguments put forward to-day.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary concluding, Sir?
As no Deputy offers to intervene, I presume he will.
If we knew that the Parliamentary Secretary was going to conclude, perhaps there might be no necessity to talk further. Is he going to conclude now?
Since no Deputy has risen I shall call on the Parliamentary Secretary to conclude.
It did not seem to me that either Deputy Cosgrave or Deputy Rowlette quite appreciates the practical side of this. Sections 20 and 30 deliberately exempt premises from inspection. It is quite possible then— in fact, it is certain—that those premises that are not inspected at all and that nobody has authority to inspect—much less has the medical officer of health for a county area an obligation on him to inspect—will, via a creamery, supply the City of Dublin with milk. In Dublin, the premises— the very source where the milk is produced and the cattle from which it is produced—are subject to inspection, and it is a direct responsibility of the veterinary officer of health and the medical officer of health for the city area to inspect all the premises within their jurisdiction. That is not done purely to keep the premises, as premises, in a sanitary condition, but to ensure its being healthy milk that is supplied to the citizens. Most of the milk comes from outside the jurisdiction, and, as Deputy Rowlette pointed out, in rural areas where milk is produced for consumption outside those areas, the local authorities are not going to enforce such rigid inspection, because, as Deputy Rowlette pointed out, it would be unpopular, and it is not their immediate concern because the people of that district are not going to consume the milk. Surely the authority within the area where the commodity is consumed should have some responsibility for that article of food and some control—joint control, of course—as suggested in this amendment when it goes outside their area so as to ensure the production of a proper article. Deputy Rowlette talked of control vested in the medical officer in the area in which the milk will be consumed. Precisely that suggestion was put up by the responsible authority for the Dublin Union within the last two or three months, and the Parliamentary Secretary's Department vetoed that unanimous wish of the Dublin Union Committee to have milk that came closely to the specification which this Bill pretends to ensure for the City of Dublin. Their decision was vetoed by the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, and, in all probability, by the Parliamentary Secretary himself. I would test the genuineness of the Parliamentary Secretary's objection to this. If he does not want the veterinary officer of the City of Dublin to come outside his area and co-operate —perhaps he might look on it as intruding on the duties of a brother officer—with his brother officer in another area, will the Parliamentary Secretary agree to substitute in this Bill for the medical officer of the area in which the milk is consumed an officer from the Department of Local Government?
If the medical authorities in an area make a request to the Department for inspection of the source of supply of milk, as indicated in this amendment, will the Parliamentary Secretary agree to have inserted in this Bill a provision, whereby, on receipt of such request, his Department will send a medical officer instead of the medical officer of the City of Dublin to the area suspected or to the area in which the milk is consumed as the amendment suggests? In other words, if the authority in the City of Dublin have grounds for suspecting that contaminated milk or milk not produced under proper conditions is coming into the City of Dublin and if they can indicate the source of supply of that milk-and request that the Minister provide a medical officer to go to that district and carry out the inspection and tests as sought in this amendment, would the Parliamentary Secretary agree to such an arrangement? If he does not agree to that I have not the least hesitation in saying that this amendment is being rejected deliberately to evade the provisions of the Bill and the time of this House has been wasted in discussing this Bill—if some provision such as is indicated in the amendment or with the slight modification I have suggested is not inserted.
As I have said already, the principle of this amendment was debated at great length when the Bill was before the House on Committee and Report Stages and I do not think that any argument I might put before the House now, in favour of the Bill as it stands and against the amendment, would make any impression whatever on Deputy Belton.
No, because you have no argument to sustain your case.
If the Deputy would have the good manners not to interrupt me, we would probably get on with the business more expeditiously. Deputy Rowlette has been pushing this amendment on the various stages of the Bill and I have had several discussions with him, apart from the debates we have had in the House, and I think that, deep down in his heart, at any rate, he was inclined to agree that the machinery in the Bill was at least as good a machinery and would be likely to produce as good results as would be produced by the acceptance of this amendment. However he has been so definitely committed to the incorporation of this principle of extra-territorial powers of inspection in the Bill that I could scarcely expect him to retreat at this stage.
I have no reason to.
What is the position under the Bill? If a medical officer of health in a district in which milk is being sold or exposed for sale has reason to suspect that certain infectious diseases are attributable to the milk and if the dairy is situated outside his own sanitary district, he notifies the medical officer of health of the district in which the dairy is situated, and the medical officer of health—who will be the county medical officer of health in both cases—of the district in which the dairy is situated is under a statutory obligation immediately to examine the dairy and examine any persons engaged therein if he so thinks fit. He is given power under sub-section (2) of Section 39 to prohibit absolutely the further sale of milk from that dairy. The dairyman must be registered, in the first instance, with the sanitary authority in the area in which his dairy is situated. If he is a puryeyor of milk outside the area of his own sanitary authority, he must be registered with the outside sanitary authority as well. In the first instance, he will be registered as a dairyman on the advice of the county medical officer of health in the area in which he resides and I do not agree with Deputy Rowlette that the average county medical officer of health cannot be entrusted with the responsibility that will be placed upon him in relation to the production of milk under this Bill. While I would be prepared to concede that the medical officer of health in a city like Dublin or in a city like Cork might have more experience in certain public health matters than the average county medical officer of health, I would not be prepared to concede that he would discharge his duties any more conscientiously than the county medical officer of health of another county.
I did not suggest that.
Apart altogether from these points in relation to the amendment and the Bill as it stands, it would be utterly impossible to administer this amendment. The City of Dublin, I presume, gets its milk supply over a very large area of the Free State. If the medical officer of health in the City of Dublin had reason to suspect that milk from certain dairies down the country was responsible for the spread of certain infectious diseases he would have to proceed down to that county to inspect that dairy himself, and I believe he would be very likely to spend a good deal of his time carrying out such inspections altogether outside his own district. The fact that the medical officer of health of one district would be entitled to the co-operation of the medical officer of health in another district in inspecting dairies or in any other public health work and that the medical officer of health was under a statutory obligation to co-operate with the outside medical officer would, I believe, undoubtedly lead to friction, because it would carry with it the assumption that the medical officer of health in the district in which the dairy is situated was not consistently discharging his duty, or was not properly advising his sanitary authority, or that dairy would not have been registered in the first instance. If a dairy or the milk from a dairy is likely to cause the spread of certain infectious diseases, who is more likely to know or who is in a better position to know of the possibility of contamination by contact or otherwise than the county medical officer of health in the district where the dairy is situated? Surely he is in a better position to know than the county medical officer of health in a neighbouring district, or in the city, many miles away.
Coming again to the clash in administration which would occur if this amendment were accepted, let me again point out to the House that under Section 39 the medical officer of health in the district in which the dairy is situated is under a statutory obligation, when he receives notice from the medical officer of health of an outside district that a certain dairy is under suspicion, to go to that dairy and make an examination of it; to examine, if he thinks it is necessary, the persons engaged in that dairy; to report the result of his examination and investigations to his own sanitary authority, and to the medical officer of health who notified him about this particular dairy. If the amendment is accepted, in addition to doing that he must go with the medical officer of health from the outside district and carry out a further examination. He must examine, in conjunction with the medical officer of health of the outside district, the persons engaged in that dairy. Then, having consulted with the medical officer of health, and having come to certain conclusions regarding the possibility of the spread of disease from that dairy, he will go home and, under Section 39, he will have to notify that medical officer of health of his other inspection and the results of his investigations. That would be absolutely absurd. If the principle were to be accepted at all, the whole section would have to be recast, and the existing provisions under Section 39 would have to be taken out. We cannot have both principles embodied in the Bill at the same time. As I said at the outset, no amount of argument, however logical or reasonable, is going to persuade Deputy Belton. Most of the other Deputies in the House would, I believe, be open to conviction. Consequently, if we are to have a division on this matter, we had better have the division and get it over, but I believe that acceptance of this amendment would definitely interfere with the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I believe it is a much better and more efficient machine as it stands at the present time than it would be after the incorporation of this amendment.
The only thing is that it would prevent evasion, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that.
Question—"That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10"—put and declared carried.
The following Seanad amendments were put and agreed to:—
11. Section 39, sub-section (8). After the word "appellant" in line 25 the words "or any person who, immediately before the making of such order, was an employee of the appellant" inserted.
12. Section 39, sub-section (9). After the word "neglect" in line 32 the words "or that of any person who, immediately before the making of such order, was an employee of such dairyman" inserted.
13. Section 39, sub-section (9). Before paragraph (b) a new paragraph inserted as follows:—
(b) every person who, immediately before the making of such order was an employee of such dairyman shall, unless such order was made in consequence of any neglect or default by himself or by such dairyman, 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.
14. Section 39, sub-section (9). After the word "dairyman" in line 36 the words "and every person who, immediately before the making of such order, was an employee of such dairyman" inserted.
15. Section 39, sub-section (10). The word "dairyman" deleted in line 53 and the words "the person claiming such compensation," substituted therefor.
16. Schedule. In the third column opposite the reference to the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, the words and figures "Sections 16 and" deleted and the word "Section" substituted therefor.
Agreement reported to all amendments except No. 10.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in their Report"—put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Seanad be notified accordingly.