Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1949

Vol. 116 No. 7

Diseases of Animals Bill, 1949—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill, in effect, contains all that is in it in Section 1. There is an ancillary purpose which I will explain in a moment, but the prime purpose of the Bill is to replenish the fund out of which compensation is paid to farmers for cattle that are slaughtered if they are suspected by the county veterinary officer to be suffering from tuberculosis. The Diseases of Animals Fund also is charged with certain other expenses relating to the prevention of scab and other animal diseases for which provision is made, although most of the charges in respect of veterinary schemes relating to prevention are met by funds provided by the Government. So that the major purpose of the General Cattle Diseases Fund which, I think, is the technical name of this fund, is to pay the farmer for the beast slaughtered because it is suspected of having tuberculosis. This fund had its origin in an Act of Parliament as early as 1878, called Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act.

Provision for its replenishment was made in further Acts which were passed in 1894, 1914 and 1932 and the procedure always adopted was to authorise the local authority to strike a rate in any given year not in excess of a ½d. in the £, and in the Act to prescribe an overriding maximum which imposed the necessity on my Department to return to Parliament, if, all the ½d.s that were permitted having been struck, it was necessary further to replenish the fund. All the ½d.s permitted under the 1932 Act have now been raised by the local authorities and paid into the fund and it is necessary to make provision for a further period of about four years.

This Bill then will authorise local authorities to strike not more than a ½d. in the £ in any year for four years with an overriding maximum of 2d. The reason why the period for which provision is made in this Bill is shorter than it was in any of its predecessors is that we are in the process of reorganising the whole veterinary service. All the veterinary services which used to be in the Department of Health have now been transferred to the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture is charged with the responsibility of reorganising them in consultation with the Department of Local Government and the local authorities so as to provide a comprehensive scheme for the whole country which will deal with all these several services which are now dealt with under a multiplicity of schemes and Acts of Parliament many of which have become obsolete.

I do not think there is any obligation on me, but I think it right to inform the House that, in connection with the expenses that fall upon this fund for the slaughter of suspected cattle, I have instructed the officers of my Department to make it known to the veterinary officers of local authorities that we would find no fault with a veterinary officer who erred on the side of caution in this matter. I want to make it clear what I mean by that— that if a veterinary officer has reasonable grounds for suspicion that an animal is suffering from tuberculosis he should seek to secure the farmer's consent and have the animal slaughtered. If it transpires, as a result of a post-mortem, that the beast was not suffering from tuberculosis but from some other conditions, it is far better that a few such beasts should be inadvertently destroyed, provided the farmer is fairly compensated, than that reluctance to face that risk should leave a tubercular animal giving milk which might be consumed by children with the disastrous consequences that habitually follow.

I do not believe that the consequential drain on the fund will be dramatic. I think the House will probably approve of its being said in public that, with the approbation of everyone in the House, we do not wish economies to be effected by forbearing from the slaughter of an animal which was reasonably suspected of being tubercular, and that we would rather see the fund charged with payment for a beast that was slaughtered in error than that a tubercular beast should be allowed to contaminate the children that drank its milk because the veterinary surgeon was reluctant to take the risk of imposing on the fund a charge arising from the slaughter of what superficially appeared to be a thriving animal but which, to the expert eye, revealed reasonable evidence on which to found at least a doubt that, despite its external appearance, it was, in fact, very probably tubercular and so a danger to the children who consumed its milk.

The second section, in effect, confers on the Minister for Agriculture the right to add to the description of birds which are covered by the generic term "poultry". That arises from the recent disastrous experience which overtook the fowl-keepers in Great Britain. If my information is correct it became necessary, owing to the special food difficulties that exist in Great Britain, to accept delivery of a consignment of dead fowl from countries whence such consignments were not usually admitted to Great Britain and, most unhappily, that which was foreseen and which gave rise to the original prohibition of imports from those quarters transpired. I avail of this occasion to tell the story so that Deputies may sympathise with the Department of Agriculture if, sometimes, some regulations we make restricting the imports of live stock or fowl appear to be at first glance capricious. The fowl pest, which was introduced into Great Britain with this consignment of poultry, on the Continent manifested itself as a very acute condition, with the result that it was very easy to circumscribe it. The moment its symptoms appear the most untutored eye could discern them and veterinary precautions taken to isolate the district and destroy the fowl so as to prevent its spread.

The disease, as it has manifested itself in Great Britain, is a low chronic condition and the most discerning eye would have very grave difficulty in detecting it at an early stage. The untutored eye very often does not discern its presence at all. In turkeys, it has manifested itself in Great Britain with a trembling of the bird's head. As a result of the form in which it showed itself in Great Britain, its control presented problems infinitely greater than those which continental countries had to contend with.

Deputies will, therefore, understand that, if we refuse to permit presents of bacon from the United States and Canada to be delivered to their consignees in Ireland, it is not just because we like to deprive people of a piece of transatlantic bacon, but it is because we have discovered that every time we let in bacon from transatlantic sources, the admission of that bacon has been followed by sporadic outbreaks of swine fever. Deputies may not have noticed, because I suppose it is human nature not to observe blessings while we lament misfortunes, that whereas up to 1934 swine fever was epidemic in this country—there was not a week in which an outbreak had not to be brought under control— not a single case of swine fever has appeared in this country since, I think, 1934, with one exception, when one consignment of transatlantic bacon was admitted to this country about 1939 and within a fortnight we had an outbreak of swine fever. It was brought under control. No further imports from that source have been permitted, and not a single further outbreak has taken place.

Therefore, we are asking in Section 2 not only for the expansion of the definition set out, but for the further power from time to time by Order to enlarge the definition lest it became urgently necessary to do so and not be under the necessity of returning to Dáil Éireann for statutory authority to do so, when we might be prevented from taking the necessary steps to prevent such a catastrophe as that which, unfortunately, overtook the British in this particular matter. It will cause them great inconvenience, but no doubt they will overcome that as they have overcome many other things. In seeking these powers we protect not only ourselves, but we would hope to continue in the future as in the past to collaborate with the British Ministry of Agriculture in mutual protection because, as Deputies no doubt know and will be glad to know, constant consultation takes place between us and we find ourselves not infrequently indebted to their good offices, and we would like to think that they not infrequently find themselves indebted to ours.

Mr. Smith

Some information on two or three matters concerning the work being achieved under this legislation would be of value to the House. Is the Minister in a position to let us know the number of animals slaughtered inside the past 12 months, or the number slaughtered over a period of years? What would be the average price paid by way of compensation to farmers who own those animals? What is the total amount expended in that way?

I do not think, when the Minister talks of the injustice that would be done to the community by being, if it is the right term, over-sensitive about taking steps to destroy an animal suspected of suffering from one of the dangerous diseases, that these Acts can be taken in a serious way as serious machinery for the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis or some of the other dangerous diseases.

The Minister has mentioned the intention of the Department to reorganise the veterinary services. That is a subject on which I would like more information. When I was in the Department a decision was arrived at to bring all the veterinary services under the control of the Department of Agriculture. The plans we had in mind are the plans we are now told of in the same sort of way that I would have spoken of them two years ago. I admit that a year or two does not mean much to those who have to handle these problems, but, at the same time, some two years have elapsed and we are still in the position that apparently we do not know what is meant by the reorganisation of the veterinary services. We do not know to what extent progress has been made in that direction.

These are points which would be of greater benefit to the House than the explanations given by the Minister. This legislation is all right, but in my own limited way I must confess I have not seen such results from it that one could describe as encouraging or hopeful. The number of cases in which reports are made by owners of live stock to the authorities of their suspicion that certain animals are suffering from contagious disease is very limited. Of course, that would be influenced largely by the amount of money likely to be paid to the owner. No man will report when he suspects his cow or cows or some other animal is suffering from one of these diseases if he thinks the amount of compensation will be small. Probably he might say: "It is not worth my while making a report for the protection of the community; I will take a chance and the animal might live. Therefore, I will exercise discretion." It is because of that sort of approach on the part of owners that we do not find good results flowing from this.

The reorganisation of the veterinary services is a very vital thing, but, even if you have that reorganisation to-morrow, I do not think you would expect it to devise some means of detecting cases where animals are suffering from tuberculosis and are likely to spread the disease among human beings. Some other method would have to be employed. The most important is the amount you are prepared to pay to a farmer who would notify his suspicion to a veterinary officer that his stock was suffering from disease and in so notifying them he would know he was likely to get worthwhile compensation.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

It must be eight or ten years ago since it was represented to me that the amount payable for the slaughter of diseased animals was anything but adequate. That was largely the reason why, as Deputy Smith pointed out, the number of animals slaughtered is not what it should be. I do not know what is the basis of compensation. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House how they compute it and the House would like an assurance that the rates of compensation will be of such a nature that farmers will be quite ready to allow their animals to be slaughtered, if that course is considered necessary.

Mr. O'Grady

I wonder is the Minister in a position to inform us what is the incidence of tuberculosis among our cattle herds? It may be difficult to get that information, but if the Minister looks up the Departmental files regarding the numbers of cattle that were sent to the Continent for slaughter some years ago he will get accurate returns there which will give it to him. What was the number of cattle slaughtered each year under these Acts and what was the amount of compensation paid? If my memory serves me rightly, I think it was 25 per cent. of the value of the animal. That used to be the position many years ago when I was a member of the committee— 25 per cent. of the value of the animal —but perhaps later legislation has increased that. It is, of course, a deterrent which prevents the ordinary farmer from reporting a suspected case if he finds that the compensation paid to him is inadequate. On the other hand, if the compensation were to be increased to any large amount, there would be a danger of a racket starting. That has occurred in the past. I do not want to go back over it now, but I have knowledge of where that happened in days gone by.

Mr. Dillon

I would be very much, obliged to the Deputy if he would tell me about that, because I cannot conceive how there could be a racket and, therefore, it would be just as well if I knew how such a racket could be worked.

Mr. O'Grady

I do not want to go into the matter here.

Mr. Dillon

I shall apply to the Deputy if I hear of anything queer.

Mr. O'Grady

I know where it did happen and drastic steps had to be taken by the local committee of agriculture to wipe it out immediately and a number of people who were concerned in it were dismissed. There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. Presupposing an error of judgment on the part of a veterinary surgeon, the subsequent slaughter of a particular animal and it is then found that the animal has not tuberculosis, or any other contagious disease, I think a special case could be made for compensation in such circumstances. After all, if a farmer reports an animal which he suspects is suffering from tuberculosis and it is found subsequently that the veterinary surgeon is wrong in his diagnosis, I think that the farmer should be entitled to full compensation.

Mr. Allen

The Minister in his opening remarks informed the House that he had advised veterinary officers to be more liberal in their interpretation than they were in the past. That is desirable, but unfortunately it may not work out on a uniform basis as between veterinary officer and veterinary officer. Each will interpret it in his own way. The Minister will find that. There was urgent need of more liberty to veterinary officers. In the past there was no compensation if there was no tuberculosis. Is that not so?

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Allen

I think it was to a great extent. I understood that up to a specific time that was so. There was little or no compensation if there was no tuberculosis.

Mr. Dillon

That is not so. Perhaps I could assist Deputies in this matter. If the beast is suffering from emaciation the farmer is entitled to 25 per cent. of its market value if it is slaughtered. If the beast shows no exterior sign by way of emaciation the farmer is entitled to 75 per cent. of its market value. If the beast is mistakenly slaughtered and found on post-mortem not to be suffering from tuberculosis the farmer is entitled to 100 per cent. of its market value, plus £1.

Mr. Allen

The whole thing is a problem, no matter what way one faces it. I can see abuse of any liberty that is given and I can see damage done by a too rigid adherence to regulations. Under all the circumstances, it is a difficult scheme to operate in the way one would wish to operate it. There is no doubt about that. I wonder has veterinary science reached a stage where X-ray could be availed of where animal diseases are concerned. I take it they have reached that stage in some countries. It should not be necessary to slaughter an animal in this enlightened age in order to determine whether it is or is not tubercular. I put it to the Minister that he might set his veterinary department working in that direction.

With regard to poultry diseases, the Minister has told us that a very serious disease has become prevalent in England. I think it has been found that where there is intensive production of poultry there is added danger, or grave danger——

Mr. Dillon

Please.

Mr. Allen

I shall not pursue it any further.

Mr. Dillon

There is no truth whatsoever in that allegation. Newcastle disease was brought in by a consignment of fowl. It was identified and it is reckless to say a thing like that.

Mr. Allen

Has the Minister anything to tell the House about the new pig disease that has shown itself? It was very prevalent in the country a few months ago.

Mr. Dillon

Of course I have.

Mr. Allen

Has it been got under control?

Mr. Dillon

Completely.

Mr. Allen

And has it been wiped out altogether?

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Allen

It is still spreading. Is that not so?

Mr. Dillon

No, it is not spreading. Really, this is insane malice.

Mr. Allen

I am glad to hear it. I am asking for information. I am entitled to speak.

Mr. Lemass

Apparently the Minister for Agriculture will never allow Deputy Allen to speak. Let the Deputy make his own speech.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not reckless to say that poultry and pig diseases are increasing?

Mr. Allen

If I cannot speak without the Minister interrupting every second——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will speak.

Mr. Allen

Every single sentence I utter that the Minister does not like, he objects. He is chawing the fat from morning to night like the small, petulant child that he is. His golden silence would be an advantage in the Dáil very often. It is no harm to make inquiries. I merely inquire. Go in to any fair in County Wexford and the farmers will tell you of their losses through pig diseases. That is true of other counties as well. The Press carried it very fully. The more people know about the danger and the steps they should take to prevent it from spreading the better it will be. Whatever knowledge the Minister and his Department have should be disseminated. There is no use in cloaking it. It is better that the farmers who breed pigs should know what they should do. It is a well-known fact that many of them cover it up. They never report it. Because the disease is kept hidden it spreads much more rapidly.

I do not see anything in this Bill to which we can object, but I do hope the Minister will provide, as he told us he would in his Estimate, increased veterinary services in the very near future.

Mr. Dillon

If I misjudged Deputy Allen, I am sorry.

Mr. O'Grady

The Minister did.

Mr. Dillon

Perhaps I did. If I did, I regret it. Possibly Deputy Allen did not realise the implication that might be drawn from his words. It could easily be read in the country that Deputy Allen, who is a member of a county committee of agriculture, expressed the opinion that the multiplication of the number of fowl in the county was in itself calculated to provoke the appearance of new diseases, such as Newcastle disease.

Mr. Allen

I did not say any such thing.

Mr. Dillon

And that, therefore, country women should be circumspect not unduly to increase their flocks. Of course, there is not a scintilla of ground for any such apprehension.

Diseases like Newcastle disease or Fowl Pest, as it is called, are carried by specific infection. The source of its arrival in Great Britain was definitely and explicitly traced to a consignment of turkeys which came from Hungary. There was never any mystery of how it came to Great Britain and it never would have come, had not this infected material entered the country. The reason why we have been so providentially saved from these kinds of infections is that Great Britain, being an island and this country being an island, we have collaborated since the days when hydrophobia was brought under control, to operate general regulations to prevent the possibility of infection at our ports. We want to prevent any infection arriving in our country from a foreign country and they want to prevent any infection arriving from such countries in their country. Nothing but the stress of difficulty would have permitted the admission of this infected material but it had nothing to do with the multiplication of the number of birds affected. It was just a misfortune that infected material from an infected source had to be admitted which, in the ordinary course, would never have been admitted.

I think if Deputy Allen had reflected it would have occurred to him that for him to say at this stage that there was a mysterious pig disease raging in the country, would be calculated to alarm persons who contemplated keeping pigs, would deter them from doing so and would create the impression that there was some mystery about it. I think if the Deputy had reflected for a moment he would have remembered that, when the Estimate for the Department was before the House, I told the House that ædema disease in pigs had manifested itself here.

The Leader of the Opposition was sitting in his place when I said that to those who were interested in foreign politics, it is significant that it appears to have had its origin in Teschen, the area of Czechoslovakia that Poland sought to annex at the time of Munich or the opening of the war. It is not clear that the ædema disease which we had in pigs is identical with Teschen disease. Teschen disease, which was first discovered about 1930, spread to every country in Europe except, strangely enough, Denmark. It was first detected here in Antrim and County Down. It appears to have crossed the border into Donegal. Then it manifested itself in Cavan and Monaghan, and then travelled down the west coast to Cork. Frankly, 12 months ago, it was a source of grave anxiety to me, so grave an anxiety that I permitted the suspension of all other research activities at the veterinary research station at Thorndale, Dublin. The entire resources of that station were turned to the problem of isolating the organism responsible for this condition and determining its nature.

I believe our research station is the first research station in the world to establish that it is communicable. It was by no means clear that that condition was not an allergy which was inherited. It is established very probably now that it is a communicable disease but, fortunately, as our research work proceeded, we were relieved to learn the disease had lost its virulent character. This time last year when it appeared in any sty of pigs, out of the pigs attacked 80 to 90 per cent. of the pigs would die. It is not infrequently the case that where a new imported condition appears amongst live stock, at first it assumes a very virulent character because it is new, but then it turns milder and, though it occurs here and there, it is not as lethal as when it first appeared. That is apparently the trend which this disease has followed. Nevertheless, lest it might recrudesce in a serious form, the research project has been promoted, will continue to be financed and is in correspondence with Washington, Norway, Great Britain and, I think, an institute in Paris. The work of all is being co-ordinated to determine what is the nature of the condition and what steps should be taken to control it.

It is now thought to be due to a virus. I venture the belief myself that it will transpire ultimately to have at least an allergy element in it, but it is satisfactory to know that the disease can now be discounted as one of minor significance, no longer lethal in its effect and, apparently while it may delay by a month or three weeks the finish of a pig which is fattening, it is the exception to lose a pig or to have it so reduced in condition as to make it incapable of being finished. On that score I am happy to reassure the Deputy that there is no need for apprehension whatever.

Deputy O'Grady's inquiry about the incidence of tuberculosis amongst our herds is not so easy. I think, of accurate estimation as he would appear to think, because I seem to recall that the quality of cattle used for canning were very largely cattle—that is, during the war years—of the cow quality. It was frequently a dried-off cow that came to be known as a canner's cow. In such a class of cattle it was natural to expect that we would find an unduly high proportion of tubercular animals, because we insisted that although the quality of beef going into the cans might not be as high as prime beef, the veterinary inspection enforced in the canneries, should be every bit as strict as the veterinary inspection enforced in the abattoir or in the slaughter or preparation of meat for consumption by our own people. Any beast showing a trace of disease, even though we believed that could be suppressed by the cooking process which canning involves, was rejected. The quality of the cattle going into the canneries was notoriously second-grade, but the veterinary test was as strict as anything that was operated when prime cattle were being handled. It was because of that that is transpired that the incidence of tuberculosis amongst these cattle was high, but I do not accept it as a criterion of the existence of tuberculosis in our cattle generally.

Our second method of inquiry is based on the tuberculin test. If we were to assume that all the reactors to the tuberculin test are to be deemed tubercular, the annual figures would be very alarming indeed. But there is no sound basis for any such conclusion, because it has been repeatedly demonstrated that cattle which have been found to react and have, therefore, been withdrawn from a milking herd and slaughtered for veterinary examination revealed no trace of tuberculosis in any accessible organ despite the most careful search of the lymphatic system. It is now pretty generally admitted that the tuberculin test is one of such delicacy that if there is a tubercular focus so small as to give rise to no reasonable apprehension of clinical disease, none the less the beast will react.

It is common knowledge, I think, to most Deputies that few, if any, individuals in this House have not had at some time a tubercular lesion in some parts of their body. Ninety-nine per cent. of persons who had that experience never contract tuberculosis. So I believe it to be in the case of cattle—that although the vast majority of cattle at one time or another have some tubercular lesion, however microscopic, 99 per cent. never develop the disease. If, however, they are submitted to the tuberculin test, so long as that lesion is there they will react. A scrupulous dairyman will exclude from his dairy herd any reacting beast, but it is no reflection on his probity if he directs that beast to the abattoir for slaughter, because the meat of such a beast, having been submitted to veterinary inspection, may be perfectly healthy and fit for human consumption.

The cattle scheme operating under the Cattle Diseases of Animals Acts is the real practical step that is at present being taken, and will continue to be taken, for the suppression of tuberculosis in cattle. If a beast is suspected to be suffering from tuberculosis, the farmer should invariably notify the county veterinary surgeon. If the county veterinary surgeon examines the beast and mistakenly believes it is in the early stages of tuberculosis and slaughters the beast, the farmer is entitled to get from the local authority the same price as he would have got, in the judgment of a fair assessor, if he had brought the beast out to a fair and sold it and, in addition, £1 over and above. Now what I have said to the county vets, is this: "Do not be in the least apprehensive if, in the course of the next 12 months, a local authority complains to me that the county vet, operating under them has slaughtered seven cattle and that in every case they have had to pay 100 per cent. of the value of the beast, plus £1, that I think any less of the vet. so reported. If he has done it in good faith, in special solicitude to ensure that no child will get tubercular milk, so far as I am concerned I will congratulate the vet. as being an invaluable public servant."

Although I am grateful to Deputy O'Grady for directing my attention to some occurrences which have taken place in the past, I am at a loss to see how that could give rise to any abuse. Farmers have an instinctive reluctance to proclaim to neighbours that there is disease in their byre. If they overcome that reluctance, what advantage will they get by having the beast slaughtered? They will have to bury it. Is it not much easier to take it out and sell it at a fair? How then can there be any conspiracy or collaboration which would be fostered by allowing the vet. to pay the full value for the beast that was mistakenly diagnosed? Of course we have got to assume that the local authority will retain the services of a veterinary surgeon worthy of the profession to which he belongs. I can proceed on no other basis than that a person who is a veterinary surgeon and is recognised as such by his colleagues in the profession would not be a gangster. I have no reason to believe that there is any history anywhere in the country of the veterinary profession falling below the standards which one would ordinarily expect of such a profession. I want the veterinary surgeons, if they conscientiously suspect tuberculosis, to use their beast persuasive powers to get the consent of the farmer for the slaughter of the beast. If it transpires that they made a mistake, they need not be one bit apprehensive that there will be any complaint against them. On the contrary, such vigilance and solicitude for the prevention of tuberculosis commends them to me and they may blame their error upon me if blame can be attributed to them.

If there is an extreme case where a cow is emaciated and is coughing, and if the farmer sends it to the vet. he will get 25 per cent. of the value. If a farmer allows a beast to stand in his byre which is emaciated and coughing with tuberculosis, even if he is so reckless a fool in his own material interests, in the interests of his children's health and in the interests of his neighbours that he is deserving of nothing but censure, nevertheless, the approach to this question is not the approach of a court of morals. It is one to get tuberculosis eliminated, and even the man who acts with the utter irresponsibility which such conduct would suggest as to allow a beast to reach such a state of emaciation and coughing will get 25 per cent. of the value if he sends for the veterinary surgeon before the cow dies.

One of the great flaws in this whole scheme is this. If a cow is coughing, the veterinary surgeon may slaughter it, but the veterinary surgeon under the existing regulations must discern a chronic cough or advanced emaciation. A cow suffering from tuberculosis which has reached the stage of having a chronic cough and emaciation has already wrought havoc. But a person who summons a veterinary surgeon and whose cow has a chronic cough and is in the early stages of emaciation will get 75 per cent. of the value of the cow. I have tried to amend the regulation, but it is not possible in all the circumstances to discharge the vet. from the obligation of discerning a chronic cough if he wants to slaughter the beast under the Tuberculosis Order.

I go so far as to say that if he conscientiously believes the beast to be suffering from tuberculosis and constituting a danger to the farmer or the farmer's family, if he punches the cow and makes her cough—and let him punch her as often as is necessary to make her cough—slaughter her and we will be glad and happy to see the farmer paid 100 per cent. of her commercial value rather than see her standing in the byre with chronic tuberculosis, when she will infect all the other cows in the byre and may very well infect the farmer's children and his neighbour's children to boot. I make that declaration in the well-founded belief that the members of the veterinary profession in this country are honourable men and feel about this, as most members of the House do, that they want to get rid of the tubercular cattle and do not want any jiggery-pokery of any kind. They are required, however, to certify they heard a chronic cough even though they believe tuberculosis is present. My advice to them is, if they conscientiously believe tuberculosis to be present, let them take such steps as may be necessary to produce the cough, even if it involves giving the cow a pinch of snuff. I say that with very full consideration, even though some of my more conservative colleagues may describe it hereafter as flamboyant.

Deputy Smith, I think, inquired as to the number of beasts slaughtered. In 1948, the number was 742; in 1947, it was 814. This grievous fact is true that in 1947 the average compensation paid was £4 5s. 0d. and in 1948 the average compensation was £5. The meaning of that is that practically all those cattle slaughtered were allowed to go on until they were suffering from extreme emaciation and chronic cough and were, therefore, compensated for at the rate of 25 per cent. of their then market value. If those farmers had only taken the conservative line and sent for the veterinary surgeon earlier, they could have got £40 apiece for those cows and we would have been proud to pay them.

Mr. Smith

How would they know? You have just told us that the tuberculin test is not really an accurate way of discovering when a beast is suffering from tuberculosis. If that is not an accurate method of determining that question, how would the farmers know when this £40 beast was actually attacked by this disease?

Mr. Dillon

I am sure the Deputy shares my solicitude in this matter. We should make it known, as far as we can, that if a farmer discerns a cow to cough more than might reasonably be expected from a grain of food going against its breath; if when he is milking the cattle he hears one cow cough two or three times, that is quite sufficient ground on which to ask the county veterinary surgeon to come. There is no danger if the cow is a valuable one, say, worth £40 or £50. He puts her in no danger by calling the veterinary surgeon, because if he does so at that time when she is looking the picture of health, this is what will happen. If the veterinary surgeon says: "I suspect tuberculosis and I think you ought to let me slaughter her," the farmer consents. If his suspicions and the veterinary surgeon's suspicious prove on post-mortem to be unfounded, he will get the full market value of the cow whether it is £40, £50, £60 or £80. We are talking of commercial cows.

There are separate considerations for dealing with pedigree stock. If, however, when the cow is slaughtered the suspicions of the veterinary surgeon and of the farmer are proved to be well-founded and the cow is in the early stages of tuberculosis, the farmer will get three-quarters of the value. If the cow is worth £40, he will get £30. Remember the alternative is that if he does not send for the veterinary surgeon, some day he may get £4 for it and, in the meantime, he will have infected every other cow in the byre. So that there is never the slightest danger to the farmer in being vigilant. The worst that can happen is that the cow will be slaughtered in mistake, whereupon he is entitled to 100 per cent. of the market value, plus £1, and there is no limit.

Mr. Allen

Can the veterinary surgeon slaughter after a tuberculin test?

Mr. Dillon

No. When considering the very difficulty that Deputy Smith and other Deputies see in this matter, that occurred to me. When the veterinary surgeons said to me: "We are bound under our duty to have discerned chronic cough or emaciation before me may slaughter", I said to them: "But it is notorious that many cows are known to have tuberculosis before any such symptom appears". They said: "Yes, but the regulations require us to discern that symptom". I said: "Why not apply the tuberculin test and slaughter them on that"? The veterinary surgeons replied: "That is the one test that you could not found a slaughter policy upon, because it is notorious that 75 per cent. would never develop the disease at all. But if we had the power to slaughter at the farmer's request where we conscientiously believed tuberculosis to be certain, then we would feel safe.

But we are constrained to wait for a chronic cough or emaciation". To that reservation I have made my reply in public. The county veterinary surgeon may conscientiously believe the beast to be suffering from clinical tuberculosis but it has not yet deteriorated to the point of showing the chronic cough or emaciation. If the vet. gives the cow two or three punches behind the ribs or a pinch of snuff to bring on the cough, slaughters the beast and pays compensation, I am quite prepared in any case to stand with him in his assertion that, whenceever the cough came that before it left the byre the cow was coughing chronically, that he slew her and found her suffering from tuberculosis and paid the farmer 75 per cent. of her full market value. If, on occasion, he is obliged to say that "I believed she suffered from tuberculosis and I slew her when she proved to have no tuberculosis and I gave the farmer 100 per cent. of her value plus a £1 bonus" my reaction to that report will be that this veterinary officer is a conscientious and dutiful man in whom we all may have full confidence, that he is not afraid to do his duty whatever the danger of misrepresentation may be.

I would be very glad to go into the extensions we hope for in regard to the veterinary services. I think it would be more appropriate if, instead of expressing pious hopes, I postponed giving the details of that until I am in a position to come to the House, not with pious hopes but with a request for specific authority to do specific things. I hope to be able to come before the House next year with a complete comprehensive scheme.

Mr. Smith

Why next year?

Mr. Dillon

I am simply working as hard as I blooming well can. I cannot get around it any sooner, and if that is not £1,525 worth per annum it is the best that I can give. I think I am giving blooming good value for the money that I get. I am able to report this, and I think Deputy O'Grady will confirm it, that where in a circumscribed area a special problem presents itself, we are not reluctant to deploy our resources as best we may. I think I do not exaggerate when I say that, in one area in County Clare where they had lost cattle to the value of £12,000 in the winter of 1947-48, by a concentrated drive of diagnosis and treatment last winter they lost only 19 beasts altogether. We have been able in other defined areas to attempt the supply of similar services.

Mr. Smith

Would you attribute that entirely to the assistance of veterinary advice and treatment?

Mr. Dillon

We conducted a veterinary survey in the peninsula of Loop Head. We discovered that 60 per cent. of the cattle were suffering from parasitic stomach worm, fluke and hoose. In regard to the two former, appropriate treatment was provided in each case by the veterinary staff of my Department. In regard to hoose, the appropriate dietary procedure was recommended and supplies of bonemeal were made available. To a certain degree, aphosphorosis was apparent and supplies of phosphatic manures were made available for farmers' lands, and lectures were given at suitable centres. These were attended by nearly 100 per cent. of the farmers. When we returned to make a survey in February we got splendid co-operation from the people. There were only two people in the whole peninsula who refused to accept the services which we had to offer. We discovered, as I have said, that where they had lost £12,000 worth of cattle in the previous winter, only nineteen beasts died last winter. We had a rather dramatic experience on the holding of one man who did not wish us to enter. Of course, we withdrew at once, and said that we only offered our services and did not wish to enter against his wishes. Two days later he brought us a beast that was bad with fluke. We dosed the beast. We sent a message to him to bring up the beast again and we gave a second dose. When we returned in February we found that he had sold that beast and got a good price for it. The other eight cattle on the holding were dying of fluke. I do not tell the story in any spirit of triumph. We tried to cure the remaining eight beasts, but they were more advanced than the one that recovered. You will find old-fashioned people like him in every county making a mistake of that sort.

In a couple of other areas we have concentrated on a survey for the purpose of giving intensive treatment. That is always accompanied by a course of lectures designed to enable farmers to recognise the symptoms themselves and apply proprietary curse which are specific. We now have a specific remedy for fluke and for parasitic stomach worm. With regard to hoose, the treatment is to feed the calf. If it is not in the last stages of the disease, bring it in and keep it in, give it milk and oats and it will throw off the parasite itself. The calf should not be allowed in and out when it has the disease. If it is housed and kept housed, and fed with milk and oats in suitable forms it will throw off the disease.

We now have Strain 19, and we are prepared to inoculate every heifer in Ireland if the farmers will let us. If we can get the farmers to co-operate with us we can inoculate every heifer in Ireland, and that confers complete immunity from contagious abortion. The members of the veterinary profession have agreed with us that they will do inoculation at 2/6 an injection where there are a number of beasts gathered in, and 3/- per injection where the inoculation involves a special trip. We can make available for the first period appropriate vaccine free of charge, so as to induce people everywhere to get it done, and so encourage their neighbours by giving good example to overcome the natural reluctance that people have to undertake a new form of treatment.

After the first three or six months' period—we have not yet determined that—we will have to ask the farmers to pay for the vaccine and that may add a shilling per beast to the cost. In the interim, if we eliminate contagious abortion, stomach worm, fluke and hoose it is not too bad a record for 15 months. If, in another 12 months, we can put a complete veterinary service at the service of the farmers, it may compare unsatisfactorily with perfection, but in this imperfect world in which we live, and with the least perfect Deputy in the House in the role of Minister for Agriculture, it is not too bad.

Mr. Smith

The Minister is not too modest.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot say more than that he is the least worthy Deputy in the House.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

I should like to put one question to the Minister since he did not deal with the point I raised earlier. Granted that an occasional farmer will be so foolish as to allow a beast to get into an advanced stage of tuberculosis, is it not reasonable to assume that the same farmer will also be so foolish as to bring a beast suffering from the disease to the market and endeavour to get the full price for it rather than report the case to the vet. when he knows he will get only 50 per cent. of its value? Will the Minister not take steps to ensure that, in order to defeat the racket to which Deputy O'Grady has referred, 100 per cent. of the value of every beast slaughtered will be paid in all cases?

Mr. Dillon

No, I certainly will not. There is such a thing in this world as a moral law. It is not the function of this House to make blackguards into honest men. A farmer who brings a tubercular cow, knowing it to be tubercular, and sells it in a fair, is lower and more contemptible than the man who commits murder. I would like that to be recorded. The farmer who sells a tubercular cow in the fair to his neighbour is a low, crawling thing, compared with a man who would go into his neighbour's kitchen and murder his neighbour's child in that kitchen.

I am not now talking of the man who makes a mistake. Deputy Byrne was talking of the man who, well knowing his cow to be a tubercular cow, rather than suffer the loss of a fraction of its value will bring it to the fair and sell it to his neighbour, hoping his neighbour will not discern what he has perceived. I want to say that the man who does that is a lower creature than the man who goes in and murders his neighbour's child. That man will at least face a jury of his peers and take the consequences of his act, but the man who murders his neighbour's child by passing into his possession a tubercular cow, well knowing it to be tubercular, is a murderer and will answer to the God who made him some day for what he does.

I would like every farmer in the country who desires me to be Minister for Agriculture to be fixed clearly with notice that, so long as I am Minister for Agriculture, that is my view and I would do nothing to help or relieve so contemptible a criminal as the man who will sell a tubercular cow to his neighbour for the purpose of lining his own pockets at the expense of killing his neighbour's children. If there is any farmer in this country across whose mind a doubt passes as to whether his cow is tubercular, if there is any farmer who for a moment would hesitate to give the milk of a particular cow to his own child, I beg of him to send for the vet. now in the knowledge that if that animal is slaughtered he will be given the full market value and £1 in addition or, if the cow is infected, instead of murdering his neighbour's child to get the price at the fair he can get three-quarters of her full market value and the knowledge that no one has suffered as a result of his avarice.

Mr. Smith

Will the Minister say when the Department of Agriculture, first, through one activity or another, proceeded to draw the attention of farmers to the treatment available for parasitic worm, fluke, hoose and the prevention of contagious abortion?

Mr. Dillon

I do not know, Deputy. Does the Deputy wish to imply that I have sought to detract from his zeal throughout the course of his administration? If I have erred in that respect I offer the Deputy my regrets. In these matters I am perfectly certain he did quite a lot. I have no doubt his zeal, solicitude and energy in the prosecution of any such matters, in so far as it was available for him to prosecute, was done with all the earnestness that a model Minister would show. If these schemes were operating before I entered the Department I should have made it clear that I did not recollect it. Possibly more was done before I went into the Department than I have done since I went there. I assure the Deputy he is entitled to the fullest possible credit for all that the Department has done and is now doing. Doubtless it took its origin in the inspiration given by the Deputy.

Mr. Smith

The Minister is too generous. The worst of it is that the Minister is either too hot or too cold.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Dillon

As there is nothing contentious in this measure, perhaps the Opposition will be kind enough to take the remaining stages to-day?

Mr. Smith

Yes, you can have all the stages to-day.

Bill put through Committee without amendment and reported, received for final consideration and passed.