Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Feb 1954

Vol. 144 No. 6

Diseases of Animals Bill, 1954—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Walsh)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The primary purpose of this short Bill is to continue for some time further the operation of the General Cattle Diseases Fund established under the Diseases of Animals Acts for the purpose of effecting a more equitable incidence among local authorities of the cost of performing their functions under the Acts in dealing with certain animal diseases, which may happen to affect some areas— especially the poorer areas—more than others. Moneys are paid into the fund from three sources, (1) local rate assessments, constituting the principal source, (2) contributions from the Exchequer equivalent to one-fourth of the compensation paid by local authorities for animals slaughtered under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926, and (3) fines recovered for certain offences against the Diseases of Animals Acts. The maximum contribution to the fund from local rate assessments was fixed in 1894 at ½d. in the £ at any one time, subject to a maximum total of assessments of 8d. in the £. The maximum total of assessments has since been increased by a number of amending Acts. The last increase in the maximum total of assessments was 2d. under the 1949 Act, bringing the total from 1894 onwards to ? in the £. This total amount has now been assessed and the fund is nearing exhaustion. The amount in the fund on 31st December, 1953, was £9,236; the payments out of the fund during the year 1953 amounted to £34,584. The further increase of the maximum total of assessments by 2d. in the £ is now proposed under Clause I of the Bill. The maximum local rate assessment which may be made at any one time for contribution to the fund remains at ½d. in the £. An assessment of ½d. in the £ realises about £27,500.

The payments out of the fund to local authorities comprise half of each local authority's expenditure under the Diseases of Animals Acts. The main items of such expenditure are (1) the salaries for duties under the Acts of the local authority veterinary inspectors who are mostly part-time; (2) compensation payments under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926, and (3) expenditure in connection with sheep dipping. The main duties of local authority veterinary inspectors under the Acts comprise—

(a) examination of all animals reported under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926 and the slaughtering of the animal where appropriate;

(b) supervision of sheep dipping;

(c) attendance at fairs in connection with the operation of the Sheep Scab Order and other Orders under the Diseases of Animals Acts;

(d) attendance at all cases or suspected cases of scheduled animal diseases.

Veterinary inspectors are, of course, also employed by local authorities for public health duties in relation to meat and milk hygiene but the expenditure in that connection does not come within the scope of the General Cattle Diseases Fund. According as the central veterinary services of my Department have developed through the years, some of the veterinary functions formerly proper to the local authorities have become the responsibility of the central authority. It is obvious that, for example, should diseases of national significance occur here, such as foot and mouth disease, fowl pest, etc.—from which we are of course happily free—they could only be dealt with adequately by the central authority. It would not be appropriate, however, to abolish entirely the local authority veterinary services under the Diseases of Animals Acts although they may be expected to diminish as such—for example as regards bovine tuberculosis in respect of which a comprehensive national scheme is now envisaged. The existing local authority veterinary arrangements need some reorganisation, however, and this has been receiving my Department's attention.

Certain anomalies as regards the extent and grouping of individual districts, the salaries attached to the posts, etc., have accumulated through the years. These anomalies are being remedied as far as circumstances allow but it will be some time before the reorganisation can be completed throughout the entire country, as the existing tenure of posts in many cases makes immediate reorganisation rather difficult. The local authority veterinary inspectors may, of course, engage in private practice and an important effect of reorganisation in some counties should be to bring about a better distribution of veterinary surgeons in the counties concerned. In some areas veterinary surgeons are sparse and farmers frequently have to incur considerable expenditure in obtaining the services of a veterinary surgeon. Where, as in some counties on the west coast, the reorganisation measures will involve an increase in the number of local part-time inspectors the veterinary services available to farmers generally in the counties will be considerably improved. The significant increase in the number of practising veterinary surgeons in recent years is to be welcomed but many more are needed, particularly in the Gaeltacht and congested districts generally. The increase in the number will materially assist the reorganisation of the local authority veterinary services which is now proceeding.

With regard to expenditure by local authorities under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926 the position has been that three-fourths of such expenditure is met from the Exchequer, i.e., one-half direct from the Vote for Agriculture and one-fourth indirectly through the General Cattle Diseases Fund. The number of animals slaughtered under this Order in recent years has been less than 1,000 per annum and it is clear that not much headway could be made under the Order towards the control of bovine tuberculosis.

As already announced, it is proposed to introduce at an early date a comprehensive scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Proposals for obtaining some money from American Aid Grant Counterpart funds in connection with initiation of the scheme were submitted early last year to the American authorities and I hope to be able to start on the scheme this year. I am not yet, however, in a position to give details of it but, in general, the intention is that the scheme will provide for commencing with intensive eradication measures in one area with less intensive measures for a start in the rest of the country. The scheme will commence in each area on a voluntary basis but will have to be made compulsory when the proportion of farmers participating in it warrants such action. The administration of the Bovine Tuberculosis Order which is financed out of the General Cattle Diseases Fund will, of course, be reviewed in connection with the initiation of the comprehensive scheme.

As regards the administration by local authorities of the annual sheepdipping requirements, the number of outbreaks of sheep scab has been declining in recent years and is now very small. The decrease may largely be attributed to the increased use of benzene-hexachloride single-type dips which have proved very effective not only against sheep scab but also against skin parasites which are important means of spreading disease and in addition cause wastage of the animals and damage to the fleeces. With full co-operation by flock-owners, sheep scab could be entirely eradicated in a very short time.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides for extension of the power of making Orders under the Diseases of Animals Acts to enable the export of live pigeons to be prohibited except under licence. Since 1950, because of the position regarding animal disease (including poultry disease) in Britain and in continental countries, the export of live pigeons has been prohibited by an Order made under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Acts, but this control will lapse when the supplies and services legislation will expire next year. There is a possibility that in the course of return flights to this country, racing pigeons may introduce poultry or other animal disease, and it is, accordingly, essential that there should be power to regulate the export of such pigeons. It is not possible, however, to say at present whether or not the export prohibition will need to be continued when the present control Order will lapse next year; this will depend on the disease situation in Britain and elsewhere at the time.

Mr. Dillon

It is a depressing discovery that we are in exactly the same position in regard to this matter in February, 1954, as we were in June, 1949. I introduced an amending Bill in 1949 to permit the local authorities to levy four more several halfpennies for the purposes of these Acts. I then told Dáil Éireann that we had in mind plans for the reorganisation of the veterinary services, and that was true. I want to know what has become of the scheme to reorganise the veterinary services. The veterinary division of the Department of Agriculture has had express instructions now for at least seven years to produce proposals to that end. They never got round to producing them while I was there, and I will be glad to know from the Minister if they have got round to doing it yet.

Now, the second matter I wish to refer to is this, that we are told to-day that the Minister proposes to bring in further proposals for the control of bovine tuberculosis and he would appear to imply that the delay in doing so is in some way associated with the fact that he is waiting approbation from the Congress of the United States for the user of a part of the Marshall Aid Grant Counterpart Fund for the purpose of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme. It is interesting to note that the Minister still has unused £6,000,000 odd of the Marshall Aid Grant Counterpart Fund. What I want to warn the House of is that this is a threadbare and fraudulent alibi. I think the proposal was that one-fifth of that Grant Counterpart Fund—or was it so much; perhaps the Minister will tell us—was appropriated to the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme.

Mr. Walsh

£1,250,000.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, one-fifth. Does the House seriously imagine that any substantial progress can be made in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis in this country with the expenditure of £1,250,000?

In my considered judgment, if and when a scheme designed to achieve the purpose of eradicating bovine tuberculosis from this country is in operation, £1,250,000 will not finance the operations requisite in any given year. It is positively suicidal to "fluther" along, putting this whole matter on the long finger, on the ground that we are awaiting permission from the Congress of the United States of America to get it going. I do not want for a single moment to underestimate the formidable nature of the task which confronts whoever may be Minister for Agriculture in connection with this business but, if we are right in our anticipations that in the foreseeable future the British Government may require all cattle exported to Great Britain to be certified free from tuberculosis, no expenditure requisite to eliminate that disease in this country can be considered excessive, provided it is prudently dispensed and effectively used.

Now I ask the House to remember that I have present to my mind that I inaugurated a scheme in Bansha which was designed, and which I think was effective, to eliminate in that individual parish all uneconomic cows, including those which appeared to be reactors to the tuberculin test. The House might bear in mind, in dealing with this whole problem, that in applying tuberculin reaction test to cattle, you have got to face the fact that 70 per cent. of all reactors may on slaughter show no clinical sign or pathological evidence of tubercular infection. In fact, it is reasonable to believe that up to 50 per cent. of all reacting cattle would, in fact, recover from the disease if allowed to survive. Furthermore, we have got to face the fact that cattle suffering from Johne's disease will react to the tuberculin test. So far as I know, there is no means to distinguish the reaction of Johne's disease from the reaction of tuberculosis to the tuberculin test. Yet the tuberculin test is the best instrument we have for locating incipient tuberculosis in cattle, and it is on that test we may have, in the main, to depend.

It was my intention, when the parish of Bansha was dealt with, to authorise the veterinary officers of my Department, with those of the local authority in Limerick, Cork and Tipperary, to deal with the three adjoining parishes to Bansha, and from that centre, as the Minister will find in his records, to move out to parishes contiguous to those three adjoining parishes, and thus steadily to push into the very heart of the dairy districts, eliminating tubercular reacting cattle as we went along. Nobody in the Department underestimated the formidable nature of the task which confronted us, and it was realised that some very considerable expense might be involved but it was also realised that the sooner we put our hand to it, the more time we would have to get the job done before any emergency was upon us.

An interesting fact is that, by a peculiar concatenation of circumstances, it was possible to eradicate all the uneconomic cattle in the parish of Bansha without any charge to the Exchequer at all, and it is a source of amazement to me that the Minister has not, ad interim at least, pressed forward with that plan until such other plans as he has in mind could be brought into operation. I am wholly at a loss to understand the logic of the procedure which he has envisaged in this House of inaugurating a scheme for the elimination of tuberculosis in cattle in Counties Clare and Donegal. What nexus there is between these centres is a complete mystery to me. Perhaps the Minister will explain that to us.

I do not think the Minister is really fair to the House in saying: "Pass this Bill which authorises us to carry on with the Diseases of Animals Acts for another four years and I will tell you about my proposals for the elimination of tuberculosis in cattle as soon as they are ready." I think he should have told us to-day. It causes me acute concern to learn that he is not in a position to tell us to-day, that his scheme is not formulated and that he does not know what he is going to do. Surely if he does know, now is the time to tell us. Why does he not? Surely if he is asking for funds wherewith to carry on the Diseases of Animals Acts for another four years, he should be in a position to say: "But this is not all we plan to do; over and above what I can do under this Bill an efficient scheme is to be launched for the radical elimination of disease."

I am warning the House that it is suicidal to let this matter drift on. I am warning the House that seven years ago the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture was directed to produce a scheme for the reorganisation of the whole veterinary services of the country and it has not been produced yet. I consider that to be a grave reflection on the veterinary division of the Department of Agriculture, unless the reflection is on the Minister himself.

It may be that the Minister has a scheme and that he is unable to make up his mind about it. I cannot imagine that we are in the position that the Minister has no scheme from his technical advisers for dealing with bovine tuberculosis. I assume that he has and that we are in the deplorable position that he is himself vacillating and cannot make up his mind whether to put it into operation. Surely if he has a scheme which he intends ultimately to operate now is the time to tell us about it. Now is the time to give to the live-stock industry an assurance that we are going ahead with a scheme to eradicate tuberculosis in cattle, whether or not any part of the Marshall Aid Counterpart Fund is made available for that purpose.

Perhaps the Minister may submit to the House that he is waiting to see what progress has been made in connection with the scheme which was operated in Bansha for the elimination of uneconomic cows and whether that scheme has succeeded where it has been extended into an adjoining parish. I think the House should be warned that the methods for the elimination of bovine tuberculosis permitted under the existing Diseases of Animals Act are antediluvian and wholly ineffective because under these Acts you have the position arising, from precedents established under them, that no beast may be compulsorily slaughtered unless and until it shows clinical signs of tuberculosis.

When you venture to inquire into what are the clinical signs of tuberculosis within the meaning of these Acts you discover they include both emaciation and chronic cough but by the time either—never mind both—of those symptoms manifest themselves a cow has already long been a menace to any human creature who consumes her milk and to every other beast with which she comes in contact. The methods appropriate to the elimination of tuberculosis under our modern conditions must be far more radical and must be designed to catch the complaint at a very much earlier stage.

I think it right for the House to advert to the formidable character of the difficulty we have before us. Let me tell the House of my own experience of a herd of which I have some knowledge and in which there were 14 dairy cows. On the semi-annual test being made of that herd five of the best cows were found to be reactors. None of them had any sign whatever of clinical tuberculosis; yet all five had to be disposed of. Such resolute action has, however, its rewards because at the next semi-annual test of that herd there was no reactor in the herd at all. And six months later the same story could be told. I mention that fact for this reason. One of our big difficulties will be to carry conviction into the minds of farmers throughout the country that the vital and essential thing is courageously to accept the drastic measures requisite to get your herd on to a sound foundation, but that you have every prospect if you courageously take those necessary measures in the first case of enjoying a prolonged period of immunity from future infection, especially if it be possible to maintain a closed herd the heifers for which one breeds oneself.

The Minister ought to know that he is assured of the co-operation and help of every section of this House if and when he puts his hand to the task of eliminating bovine tuberculosis in the country. I think he ought equally be assured that he will expose himself to the sternest reprobation of all responsible Deputies in this House if he allows himself to be fluthered, flustered, bullied or bluffed into a long postponement of what is in fact a very urgent consideration. I think it right to tell him now that the alibi about the Marshall Aid Grant Counterpart Fund cuts no ice. I do not believe it. I am quite certain it is being used simply for the purpose of concealing the fact that the Minister for Agriculture is not himself ready to go ahead. In the last analysis it is this Oireachtas which must find the means to deal with the bovine tuberculosis problem. We are not depending on the American Treasury and it would be madness to suggest that in default of assistance from that source it was impossible for us to tackle the problem ourselves. It should be tackled forthwith by ourselves. If there is any subvention forthcoming from the Marshall Aid Grant Counterpart Fund so much the better, and were we not to get a penny piece from that source our own resources must be employed and that without delay to deal with this matter effectively.

In regard to racing pigeons I know that capital might be made by seeking to embarrass the Minister on behalf of the racing pigeon enthusiasts in this country. I do not propose to stoop to that kind of fraud much as I experienced it myself from the present Minister when I was in office. I know perfectly well the Minister for Agriculture desires no more than I do unduly to restrict the pleasures of the racing pigeon fanciers but the fact is that the dangers associated with the importation of Newcastle disease by birds wild or tame are so great that no rational person would withhold from the Minister the right to make the kind of Orders which I myself made when I was Minister for Agriculture restricting the export of homing pigeons lest on release abroad they fly home carrying with them disease which could cost this country dear.

God knows there was a time when Newcastle disease was really thought to be a catastrophe for this country. Those were the halcyon days when the lowest price payable for eggs was 2/6 per dozen. Those were the halcyon days when Deputy Allen used to cry salt tears when he thought of eggs being only 2/6 per dozen. Poor Deputy Carter——

An Ceann Comhairle

Do eggs come into this?

Mr. Dillon

Oh, yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

How?

Mr. Dillon

This proposal to restrict the export of racing pigeons is designed for the protection of the fowl industry. When I made an Order to do that, Deputy Tom Walsh, as he then was— the present Minister for Agriculture— said it was a scandal to ask for such powers with eggs at 2/6 per dozen. People would not be bothered rearing them, he said. Deputy Allen said he thought they ought to be slaughtered and Deputy Carter said——

An Ceann Comhairle

The protection of fowl may be relevant but what about the price of eggs?

Mr. Dillon

Fowl are kept to produce eggs.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, I know that, but the price of eggs does not come in.

Mr. Dillon

If it does not come in it is because they are 1/- per dozen now and there are no lamentations from Deputy Carter and Deputy Allen or the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Allen

Is the Deputy talking about pigeons' eggs?

Mr. Dillon

No, but for the price they are going now you might imagine that the hens are laying nothing but pigeons' eggs. They are laying Fianna Fáil eggs.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us get back to the question of disease.

Mr. Allen

What about the people you were drowning with eggs?

Mr. Dillon

I did not drown them with 1/- per dozen eggs. Drowning them with 3/6 a dozen eggs was a very different cup of tea.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Diseases of Animals Bill is before the House.

Mr. Dillon

It seems incongruous to us that tripe of that sort should be flogged about, but it is good to remind those who spend time flogging tripe of that kind around the country of what they used to do. The Minister is entitled to the power and with the disappearance of the Supplies and Services Act under which I acted he will require express power under this which he had not heretofore had. We make no difficulty for him. We think it right that he should have those powers and use them where he gets reliable technical advice to that effect.

I have one last word to say on that. It is this. I exhort the Minister to bear in mind that ultimately he is the responsible person. I yield to no one in my respect for the value of technical advice. I should like to warn the Minister of this. If the technical officers of his Department for the shortest possible period get his authority to clamp down some restriction in the name of safety, there is a strong tendency, once that restriction goes on, to leave it on for ever and they will always say: "Look, everything is going grand now."

An Ceann Comhairle

It has been an accepted tradition in this House that civil servants are not to be criticised. The Minister is really responsible to this House.

Mr. Dillon

I am not criticising civil servants. If he calls together, as he will do, a group of bacteriologists—I am not referring to the advisers in the Department—to advise him on the incidence of Newcastle disease they will so advise him. The advisory body may consist of bacteriologists, biologists, zoologists and so forth and they will advise the Minister while they are examining this problem to exclude all birds and the Minister will wisely do that. They may then come back and, having examined the whole of the question, find that the dangers are not as evident as they first appeared to be. But they will say: "You have succeeded in persuading the Dáil to accept the proposal and the wise thing to do is to keep it on." The Minister's view should be that he is not asking the advisory body to tell him what to do but that he is asking them for their advice and that he will make up his mind what he ought to do. He should weigh their views and accept what he thinks best.

I recognise that it is a very heavy burden for a layman to say to technical advisers: "I have listened to your advice and up to a certain point I am prepared to give legislative effect to it, but I am not prepared to go to the excessive extremes you think would provide 100 per cent. safety and which, I think, goes far beyond the reasonable limits to effect the purpose we have in mind." It is a mistake to delegate the task of taking the final decision to technical advisers because they are bound to give advice which in their judgment is 110 per cent. safe. It is the Minister who sometimes has to take the risk of saying: "I am prepared to go so far, but I am not prepared to go 110 per cent. because that is oppressive and unnecessarily irritating, whereas we are justified for the common good in taking 10 per cent. of the risk rather than leave the shackles permanent in order that there will be 110 per cent. safety."

Subject to these observations, we have no objection to this Bill. I earnestly press on the Minister that he should avail of the opportunity at some stage of this Bill to give us an outline of what his intentions are and reassure us that he is not going to wait on the Congress of the United States. If he gets a windfall from that source he will be glad to add it to the other funds, but in the meantime he should go full steam ahead as there is no time to be lost.

Mr. Finan

I do not see why the House should delay on this matter. It is one which has met, I think, with universal approval. I should like to support the point of view put forward by Deputy Dillon in regard to the importance of this measure. It is a matter of extreme urgency. If information is to be relied upon, the British are about to insist that any cattle allowed into Britain in the near future must be tuberculin tested. I do not think anyone has to be told the serious situation that would develop if, in a month's time, or to-morrow, Britain said: "We will not allow any Irish cattle in here unless they are tuberculin tested." I know Britain will not say that, but she is quite at liberty to do so.

Since she has indicated in no uncertain terms that she will do that in the not distant future, why should we delay here? If this were a small matter, people might say: "Look at the cost," but what will the cost be in comparison with the amount of money this country would lose if caught on the wrong foot? It is such a serious question that the Minister and his Department cannot possibly have overlooked it. It would be desirable if we were to get financial assistance for this scheme which is going to cost money but at the same time I do not see what is to be gained by postponing a decision on that matter.

I doubt very much if the appointment of a large number of veterinary surgeons throughout the country, if and when the scheme is put into operation, is the most economic way to deal with the matter. Thinking over this matter, I imagine that the most expeditious and most economical way it could be achieved would be by mobile units rather than by planting a very large number of veterinary surgeons throughout the country. I submit to the Minister that that is a point worthy of consideration. I do not think it is going to be solved by a large number of veterinary surgeons in every county nor do I think that that is the most expeditious and economic way.

The matter is one which should claim the urgent attention of the Minister. If he cannot get financial assistance from outside sources, he should face up to the fact that the finances to solve the problem must be found here. There is no advantage to be gained by deferring a decision on it. The British people have left no doubt whatever in my mind, at any rate, that in the not very distant future it is most unlikely that any exports of store cattle will be allowed into Britain unless they are tuberculin tested. Whether that is a good or solid test or not I am not going to argue. The fact that they accept it will do us.

I said before in this House—I do not think anybody will dispute it with me—that the magnitude of our store cattle exports is such that we should spare no effort to prevent anything endangering it. We use them to purchase many of the things we could not have at all. Whatever the future may hold—and there is some uncertainty—for the trade and no matter what happens to the prices, it is one of the most important factors of our economic life. We are justified in spending whatever money is necessary to protect it and I am sure that any measure the Minister may take in that direction will have the support of every member of this House.

Mr. Cogan

Having regard to the importance of our live-stock population generally, I think nobody will hesitate to give the Minister support in seeking additional financial provision for our veterinary service. It is true to say that while a great deal has been done there is still a very substantial measure of loss to the agricultural industry through wasting and deaths on account of various animal diseases. Everything that can be done should be done to speed up all possible improvements in our veterinary service. The House will welcome the Minister's statement that it is proposed to take action on a nation wide scale to deal with bovine tuberculosis. The suggestion which he has outlined, that action will be taken on a very intensive scale in some counties and less intensively in others for a time would appear to be the sound way to approach this problem. Whatever may be done by compulsory action it is desirable to encourage the maximum amount of voluntary action. Every farmer should be encouraged to avail of all the services that can be secured to eliminate this disease from his own particular herd. If there is a large number of farmers throughout the country who have carried out this elimination of the disease on a voluntary basis, it will make it easier to clean up the remainder of the country.

It is quite clear that this problem is urgent and I am sure the Minister realises that. There is no doubt that the British, having taken action to clean up their own herds, will seek to prevent contamination from abroad. I do not go as far, perhaps, as Deputy Finan in saying that they have absolute power, at the moment at any rate, ruthlessly to exclude non-tested cattle; I do not think they are in a position to do that because of the supply position. However, in order to preserve our export trade we must eliminate this disease.

I do not think we should look at it from that point of view alone although that point of view is very important. We should also look at it from the aspect of preserving and maintaining the health of our people. We should seek, as far as possible, not to have a form of infection in our live stock and dairy herds which may extend to the human population. That is an important consideration and one which, I am sure, weighs with the Minister.

On the question of exports I am one of those who believe that in future we will have to lay more emphasis on the export of meat rather than of dairy produce. It is in the expansion, perhaps, of the volume of our meat exports rather than in the expansion, of our dairy produce surplus that we shall be able to develop agriculture. Therefore it is essential that we should be in the top grade not only in regard to the quality of our stock exported but also in regard to the health of our live-stock exports.

While measures for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis may be expensive and may be somewhat inconvenient it is recognised by the farming community in general that they are essential, and the Minister and his Department will have a large measure of goodwill and co-operation from them in regard to this matter.

Deputy Dillon took advantage of the provision for the protection of our poultry industry to refer back to the happy days when he boasted that 2/-per dozen was a damn good price for eggs.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have ruled already that the price of eggs does not arise on this measure.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Dillon had great difficulty in bringing this matter in——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am going to make it equally difficult for Deputy Cogan.

Mr. Cogan

——but he did succeed in referring to it. I am merely reminding him of the fact that he found the price of eggs at 3/-, reduced it to 2/- and boasted of his achievement.

Mr. Hughes

One expected that the Minister in his opening statement on this measure would have outlined a detailed scheme for the eradication of tuberculosis. Britain has been dealing with this problem over the last five or six years and they have quite a large area of the country now clear of tuberculosis. That will have a very serious effect on our live-stock trade, especially in our store trade. It is quite apparent that a number of markets are closed to our cattle at the present time and we have been doing nothing to remedy the position. The attention of the people all over the country has been drawn to the situation and they are very much alarmed. I was sure we would hear a more detailed account of what was intended to be done. It seems that the question of American aid on this scheme is holding it up to some extent.

I remember as far back as five years ago speaking to one of the veterinary people in Britain who told me that if we did not proceed with some scheme of this kind we would be out of the British market altogether, that they were moving along and we seemed to be doing nothing in that direction. Some people here have the idea that the British have nowhere to get their stores except from Ireland but it is quite natural to expect that, if the British Government are spending large sums of money on the eradication of tuberculosis, they are not going to allow in our cattle and will compel us to send our cattle over in the same condition. I appeal to the Minister to push this scheme forward immediately. I believe every Deputy in the House is very anxious that that should be done.

Mr. Walsh

I was very pleased indeed with Deputy Dillon's approach to this Bill. If it were not for the little outburst at the end it was very reasonable. As regards the Bill itself, I think I covered it pretty well in my opening statement and explained what it is designed to do, namely, to make more money available for the purposes of the Diseases of Animals Act.

On the question of diseases generally and the reorganisation of the veterinary services, I think I mentioned some time ago that it was necessary that we should reorganise the veterinary services in the country. We have been doing that. As a matter of fact, arrangements are being made at the present time for permanent appointments in many areas in different counties. For instance permanent appointments have been made in Galway and Donegal and there has been a greater extension of the services there.

We have been carrying out experiments in the matter of the eradication of white scour, parasitic diseases, and so forth. From the general viewpoint, there has been no neglect——

Mr. Dillon

What permanent appointments were made in Galway?

Mr. Walsh

Yes, and in Donegal as well.

Mr. Dillon

Were they in the Connemara area?

Mr. Walsh

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

The Connemara plan.

Mr. Walsh

What is wrong with Connemara, anyway? We have not been neglectful as regards that. We have continued Deputy Dillon's Bansha scheme even though he said to-day that it did not cost the State anything. It cost somebody something: it cost the meat exporters much money. Due to the high profits they were getting on the American market for meat they were enabled to subsidise the scheme in Bansha. Later, these prices dropped. It is not the lucrative market now that it was when Deputy Dillon was sitting on this side of the House. The result is that the fund which was created in that period is now almost exhausted.

Mr. Dillon

I thought it was my obscurantist interpretation of the 1948 agreement that prevented the exportation of meat to America. The Tánaiste said that. I knew he was talking through his hat then and I know he is talking through his hat now.

Mr. Walsh

Do not accuse me of something I have not said. We are continuing that scheme and have continued it this year.

To come now to the general question of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, we have a scheme ready to put into operation as soon as we get the word "Go"——

Mr. Dillon

From whom?

Mr. Hughes

The Minister is the man to say "Go."

Mr. Walsh

——and the word "Go" means making money available from the Grant Counterpart Fund. I gave an outline of the scheme as far back as last October. I do not know whether the Deputy was present on that occasion. I stated that we were starting this scheme in Clare and that in our submission to the American Congress, we stated that we could utilise a certain sum of this money—about a fifth of it—for the purpose of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. We have done that. I do not suppose that we would be paying any tribute to the Americans if we started out without their approval, but we hope to have that approval within a very short space of time and then we will be able to proceed with the work. Do not let any Deputy on the opposite side of the House imagine for one moment that we are not as deeply concerned about the eradication of bovine tuberculosis as he and his Party are.

Mr. Dillon

You should. Agreed.

Mr. Walsh

We are—and we are preparing to do the work as quickly as we can.

Mr. Hughes

Do something about it.

Mr. Walsh

We will, the moment we get the word "Go." We have to wait for that word.

Mr. Dillon

Why not use your National Development Fund to get the scheme going instead of building the Bray Road with it?

Mr. Walsh

That is another matter. We are starting our scheme with the other money. We hope to have American approval within a very short space of time and then we are going ahead. Not merely are we making provision for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis in Clare but we have also a general scheme for the country and that is ready to be put into operation.

Mr. Dillon

Could you show it to us now?

Mr. Walsh

I think it would be premature to show it to you now but we will let you see it in good time.

Mr. Dillon

It was the most old-fashioned premature baby that ever was born.

Mr. Walsh

I am sure that when it is presented it will meet with your approval.

Mr. Dillon

It will be the first premature baby born with wisdom teeth by the time we will get it.

Mr. Walsh

I do not think that any other points were raised on the Second Reading. I can assure the House that we are very concerned indeed about the tuberculosis situation and that we will get on with that work as quickly as we possibly can.

Mention was made of racing pigeons. I do not want to refer to eggs because I would have a lot to say about eggs. Deputies are aware of the seriousness of exporting pigeons from this country to another country where they might contract disease and then be taken back here again. For that reason, it is our intention to include that point in the prohibition in this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

Sections 1, 2 and 3, inclusive, put, and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Dillon

On that, I want to direct the Minister's attention to something which, I think, will cause the country considerable malaise. If the Minister has completed the scheme for the eradication of tuberculosis, I do implore him not to wait to inaugurate that scheme pending approbation by the Congress of the United States. Let me remind him that I had exactly the same difficulty to deal with in connection with the ground limestone subsidy scheme which was to be financed out of the Marshall Aid Grant Counterpart Fund. If I had waited to get the approbation of the Marshall Aid administration to inaugurate that scheme—albeit the funds to finance it were to be derived from that fund—there would be no ground limestone in the country now. But, in exactly the same circumstances, I asked the Government—once we had taken the decision to go ahead with the scheme—to finance it ad interim from the Irish Exchequer and then recoup the Exchequer in so far as it might seem proper so to do if and when the Marshall Aid Grant Counterpart Fund came to hand, but, in the meantime, to get on with the job.

I fully sympathise with the difficulties of the Minister for Agriculture. I know what it is to have to surmount the Treasury when you are trying to get work of this kind done. But if you come to Dáil Éireann and get legislation authorising the Government to borrow and spend £5,000,000 a year, without Supplementary Estimates, surely the Minister could persuade his colleagues to give him, out of that annual grant, a sum sufficient to get the tuberculosis elimination scheme working—and then let the Minister for Finance appropriate to the recoupment of the Exchequer whatever sum the Government think proper if and when the Marshall Aid money comes to hand.

Do not let the people think we are all agreed on every side of the House that the elimination of bovine tuberculosis is urgent, that we are all agreed that we would like to see the scheme and that we are all agreed and willing to help to make it better, if we can, but that, despite those facts, everybody in Oireachtas Éireann is allowing himself to be held up because the Congress of the United States has not had time to get round to the consideration of the draft plan we submitted consequent upon the Government's inability to complete their schemes before the Marshall Aid administration went out of existence. I assure the Minister that he is quite entitled to say to his colleagues that the pressure brought to bear upon him in the Dáil to get on with this job pending an ultimate decision as to the disposition of the Marshall Aid Grant Counterpart Fund was irresistible. If I thought it would help the Minister I would have held up this Bill and generally upset the whole applecart, which I was legitimately entitled to do. If I thought it would have strengthened the hands of the Minister for Agriculture, I would have refused him any accommodation in respect of this Bill here to-day. I assume that what I am saying will carry as much weight as if I had taken the most energetic action along those lines. I do urge on the Minister to say that little short of scandal will be created in the country at large if, when every side of the House is unanimous in saying to the Minister that this is a matter of urgency and prime importance, the Minister for Agriculture should come into the House and say: "My hands are tied unless and until we hear from Washington." That should not be and the Minister has the full authority of the Opposition to say to his colleagues that it makes his position intolerable to ask him to stand over such a proposition in Dáil Eireann.

Mr. Walsh

I agree with Deputy Dillon regarding going ahead with the scheme now, but I would remind him that one of the conditions laid down to avail of the Grant Counterpart Fund is that there cannot be retrospective payments. That is the only reason. If we went ahead now with our scheme for the country generally, we would not be able to get any money from the Grant Counterpart Fund.

Mr. Dillon

Perhaps the Minister would fix a limit date and say: "I will not wait beyond 1st May and if they cannot settle it by then we must go ahead on our own."

Question put and agreed to.