Diseases of Animals Bill, 1965: Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Haughey)

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

The losses sustained annually by Irish farmers through diseases and pests in their herds and flocks, whether from deaths, reductions in milk yields and condition, poor food conversion rates and so on, are almost certainly not less than £25 million. This is equivalent to £100 a year for every farmer in the country. In addition, the existence of certain animal diseases can be a barrier to international trade in livestock and livestock products.

It was in this context that the campaign for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, which has now reached a successful conclusion, was launched 11 years ago and that last year a comprehensive programme for the eradication and control of such further diseases and conditions as brucellosis in cattle, sheep scab, warble fly infestation, liver fluke, mastitis, etc., was set forth as a major objective of veterinary policy in the Brown Book dealing with Agriculture in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

One of the main purposes of this Bill is to provide a suitable up-to-date statutory basis for this programme. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, which has been the basic enactment governing the control of animal disease in this country was an excellent measure, and by and large, it stood the test of time very well. Amendments of the Act were, however, necessary over the years and many sections have been repealed, altered, become obsolete or are inapplicable to our circumstances here. The Act is also in a number of respects rigid and inflexible and, as can be understood, does not give suitable powers for the control and treatment of diseases that were not of public concern when it became law. The Act applied also to Britain and Northern Ireland, but in both these areas, it has been repealed and replaced by consolidated legislation; in Britain by an Act of 1950 and in Northern Ireland by an Act of 1958.

Including the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, there are at present 15 separate enactments dealing with animal health and disease. Several of these measures amend previous legislation and it is becoming increasingly difficult to ascertain readily the precise legal position when the many animal disease problems confronting my Department and the general public come to be considered. In my view, the time has come for this corpus of legislation to be consolidated in a single Act and this among other things, the Bill at present before the House seeks to do.

In consolidating the existing legislation, many of the excellent provisions of the earlier enactments have been retained as, indeed, they have also been in the consolidating legislation passed in Britain and Northern Ireland. Deputies will note that it is proposed to repeal the Diseases of Animals (Bovine Tuberculosis) Act, 1957, which was the statutory basis for the campaign for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. All the provisions of this Act have been incorporated in the present measure which also includes certain useful provisions of the consolidated legislation in Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Bill proposes, however, to go much further than a mere consolidation of existing legislation. It is designed to provide not only for the specific diseases and conditions I mentioned earlier, whose control or eradication is the immediate objective of veterinary policy, but also, so far as can be foreseen, for future developments in the veterinary field.

The explanatory memorandum circulated to Deputies gives particulars of the new provisions and except for the more important proposals, I do not intend to go into them in very great detail. I should like, in particular, to refer to the list of animals and diseases to which the Bill applies as indicated in the First Schedule.

In the Diseases of Animals Acts applicable to this country up to 1957, specific provision for slaughter and compensation in the case of epizootic diseases was mode for each particular disease and in the 1957 Bovine Tuberculosis Act, the treatment of affected animals and the conditions under which they could be taken up under compensation were spelled out in detail in the statute. The Consolidated Acts of 1950 and 1958 in Britain and Northern Ireland, adopted the same practice. Both of these enactments contain detailed provisions dealing with the different diseases separately.

A simpler and more straightforward method is adopted in the present Bill. Parts 1 and 11 of the First Schedule contain a list of 25 different species of animals and poultry to which the Bill may be applied and Part 111 is divided into two classes, one, Class A, indicating 11 epizootic diseases to which compulsory slaughter and compensation provisions may be applied, and the other, Class B, listing four enzootic diseases, for which this method of treatment would not be suitable. Any other animal or bird or any other diseases may be added to the Schedule by Statutory Order and, indeed, any particular disease scheduled under Class A may, should the need arise, be removed from that class and scheduled under Class B and vice versa. The eradication measures set out in section 19 and the following sections, may, as in the case, for instance, of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, be applied to Class B diseases, but this does not mean that these measures will be automatically applied to all diseases scheduled under this class. The Second Schedule to the Bill contains very wide powers under which Orders may be made applying specific provisions to particular diseases. The eradication provisions relating to Class B diseases will be applied only if, having regard to the characteristics of the particular disease and other relevant considerations, such a course of action would be advisable. The effect of these provisions is that virtually all diseases and adverse conditions that can at present be foreseen, may be expeditiously dealt with by means of an appropriate Statutory Order.

Statutory Orders under the Act are required to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as they are made and they may be annulled if either House so wishes. Deputies will appreciate that outbreaks of animal and poultry disease may occur without prior warning and, notwithstanding the utmost vigilance, freedom from diseases and conditions hitherto unknown cannot be guaranteed. It is, therefore, essential that machinery should be at all times available to provide adequate powers to deal with any such emergency with the least possible delay. This is the main reason why, throughout the Bill, as indeed in the 1894 Act also it is proposed to take power to prescribe by Statutory Order for conditions that members of the House might otherwise consider could more appropriately be covered by legislation.

Because of the necessity to provide for a wide variety of animals and birds and for several diseases, it seems to me advisable that the compensation provisions, both for animals slaughtered and animals taken possession of by the Minister, should be covered by Statutory Order and not, as hitherto, by express provision of the statute. Deputies will note, however, that, whereas under the Acts of 1894 and 1957 the Minister was empowered to withhold compensation either in whole or in part when in his judgment the person concerned was guilty of an offence under the Act, or did not take adequate precautions to prevent the spread of disease, section 58 provides that, while a person may be disentitled to compensation where he is convicted of an offence under the Act and payment of compensation may be deferred if a prosecution is pending, where these circumstances do not obtain the amount of compensation may be settled by agreement between the claimaint and the Minister and, in the event of failure to agree, the dispute may be referred to arbitration.

The Second Schedule to the Bill contains a number of important extensions of the Minister's general powers to make Orders for the prevention or checking of animal or poultry disease. The Schedule repeats the corresponding provisions of section 22 of the 1894 Act and certain powers included in the 1957 Bovine Tuberculosis Act. When this Bill becomes law, these powers may, as appropriate, be extended to all animals and poultry and to all diseases. It is proposed also to take additional powers for several other purposes. It may, for instance, be necessary or advisable in the future to make the use of a particular remedy for a disease compulsory—the treatment of cattle for warbles comes to mind in this context—and power is being sought accordingly; with a view to the possible future introduction of a scheme to control liver fluke, it is proposed that the treatment of land, ponds, streams and watercourses may be compulsorily regulated and, with brucellosis in mind, it is proposed to seek power to control the taking of samples, the making of tests and the application of any treatment and the use of sera and vaccines. I think I should make it clear at this stage that with the exception of the measures necessary for the operation of a scheme to eradicate brucellosis, no concrete proposals of the kind I have just mentioned have as yet been formulated. The powers in question are included in the Bill to meet possible future contingencies.

The revised controls on the importation of animals and birds appearing in section 30 simplify the procedures laid down in the 1894 Act and the legal position regarding importation under licence is being clarified. Provision is made in section 33 for the appropriate treatment of animals, birds and other things illegally imported and in sections 29 and 30 the provisions of the 1894 Act in relation to ships and ports are extended to aircraft and aerodromes.

An important recent development is the establishment of our own quarantine station at Spike Island which enables us to import high class breeding stock in pursuance of our programme of live stock improvement. Provision for the exercise of control over the quarantine arrangements is contained in section 31.

I have thought it advisable to make a relatively minor alteration in the provisions relating to penalties for offences. The present penalty of a fine not exceeding £100 is being retained, but for the more serious offences set out in section 49, it is proposed that the court may at its discretion impose as an alternative a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding two months. The offences set out in section 48 will also be punishable by fine not exceeding £100, unless the offence is repeated within 12 months, when a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month may be imposed in lieu of the fine. The 1894 Act also provided for a prison sentence as an alternative to a fine in certain cases, but this was repealed in an amending Act of 1945.

The powers and functions of local authorities as indicated in sections 36 to 41 correspond with the existing provisions of the 1894 Act, except that the powers and functions of these bodies and their officers may be curtailed to such extent as may be specified in the disease control order concerned.

Included in Part IV of the Bill are two items which I regard as being of special importance. The first of these, section 54, deals with the dehorning of cattle and will enable us to bring in controls at the same time as similar controls are imposed in Northern Ireland. Agreement in principle has already been reached with the Northern authorities in this matter. Adequate notice of the introduction of these controls will be given to producers. The second item to which I refer, section 55, is intended to enable a distinctive colouring agent to be incorporated in sheep dips. This should be read in the context of the current campaign for the eradication of sheep scab. The certification of sheep dippings has always been somewhat of a problem and the incorporation of a suitable dye, which is at present being developed by the staff of my Department's Veterinary Research Laboratory, would enable dipped sheep to be easily distinguished from undipped animals. To proceed with this proposal, it is necessary to remove from the Clean Wool Act, 1947, a provision which prohibits the incorporation of colouring matter in sheep dips. The experiments being carried out on the development of a dye for incorporation in sheep dips have reached a promising stage, but I can assure Deputies that its inclusion in dips will not be permitted if there is any danger that the quality or market price of wool might thereby be adversely affected.

I am satisfied, a Cheann Comhairle, that the measure before the House is essential to the successful implementation of the important veterinary programme at present under way in my Department. It will contribute substantially towards our objective of achieving the highest possible standards in the health and wellbeing of our livestock, with all the immense benefits that will undoubtedly ensue not only to our farmers but also to the economy as a whole.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Sweetman

All of us will agree with the Minister when he says that we must tackle agricultural production not only from the point of view of the price for production but also from the point of view of eliminating and reducing so far as we possibly can the incidence of loss from disease. The manner in which that has been tackled in the past deserves commendation. It is time, indeed, that the old Acts relative to diseases of animals were consolidated and brought up to date. This might be described as the first function of this Bill.

When one accepts that it is time to bring any body of Acts up to date in a consolidating measure, the first thing to be decided then is whether to retain the existing scheme under which the matter was dealt with or to launch out into a new scheme. In the ordinary way, all my instincts would be against the substitution of Ministerial or Government orders for a definition in the statute itself. In this case, however, we must look at the reality of the situation. One of the things which we must bear in mind all the time is that veterinary medicine is changing and improving year by year, and almost month by month. The knowledge that is being acquired in that way and that is available to us in 1965 may quite well be out of date by 1966 or 1967. In addition, the advantages of research both in the field of veterinary medicine and preventive medicine are such that we would be foolish if we were to put ourselves in a straitjacket and prevent ourselves from taking the fullest advantage of progress in that respect. I agree with the Minister that the only way in which one can take the fullest advantage of that progress on both sides is by dealing with the matter by Statutory Order as provided in this Bill.

As the Minister said, the orders are required to be laid before the House. There is a convention which existed no matter what Party were in Government that when anyone puts down a motion for the annulment of a Statutory Order, that motion takes precedence in Government time over virtually any other business. So long as that convention is adhered to, I think we need have no doubt there will not be in this case any usurpation of what might otherwise be the rights of individuals. Therefore, we are satisfied with what might be described as the scheme or the method of the Bill in that respect.

If circumstances were otherwise, I might have taken advantage of this opportunity to deal with certain matters that could arise on the Second Reading of this Bill, but we will have an opportunity of dealing with them on Committee Stage. The reference made by the Minister to the quarantine station at Spike Island might perhaps have given me that opportunity. However, I do not propose to do so on this occasion. There will be plenty of other occasions.

When we accept that the scheme is to be dealt with by order, and when we accept that segregation in certain cases is desirable, I think we would all be of the opinion that the Bill is more a matter for consideration on Committee Stage than on Second Reading. However, I want to make this observation in a general way. The Minister referred to his warble fly order and scheme and, of course, this is referred to both in the Bill itself and in the explanatory memorandum. I do not think the approach the Minister has adopted to the elimination of the warble fly will be successful. I do not think it is the right approach. It seems to me that next year the percentage of cattle—be it ten, 15 or 20—which have not been brought out for sale will still be there as a problem, and we will be in the position of having to ensure compulsorily that the beasts which complied will be brought in again as part of a compulsory scheme next year. Otherwise, I fear we will not be able to get complete eradication in such a way that it will not arise again. However, that is a matter we will have an opportunity of discussing later.

I should like to confirm that the provisions in relation to section 50 of an appeal at hearing going on mean that points of law arising under the orders or in relation to the administration of the orders can, as is normal in other cases, be carried further to the circuit court. It would be desirable, also, if the Minister would ensure that there is some easy identification of the inspector for the purpose of administration of section 42. The position in relation to the powers of members of the Garda Síochána is clear by reason of the fact that the member of the Garda will be in uniform or, if not in uniform, there is certain defined procedure by which he is bound to identify himself. I am not clear that this section provides sufficient safeguard by which a person on whose land the inspector goes can demand to see the certificate of such inspector. I am aware that there is provision in subsection (5) by virtue of which he must set out his reasons but I do not think there is anything here, that I can find at any rate, to require that there should be a similar identification card which a member of the Garda Síochána in plain clothes carries and produces on demand, and is bound so to produce. I refer both to the inspector of the local authority and to the inspector for the Minister in respect of which powers are given under subsection (7) of section 42.

It is, of course, the function and duty of a Minister when introducing a Bill in this House to ensure, either by means of its explanatory memorandum or by means of his speech, that it is fully, completely and adequately understood by all Members. I would like to assert categorically that of the Members in this House at the moment, very few, if any, could say what all the provisions in the First Schedule apply to. We might have had from the Minister a dissertation on some of the animals listed there and I am sure he would have liked the opportunity of explaining what an agoutis, or a capybara is, and even mustelidae. It should not be left to the individual Deputies to get at the niceties in relation to the class of animal there. Particularly by investigation in gazetteers, and otherwise, it is sometimes impossible to discover some of them. Before I could discover what a jerboa was, I had to look up three different dictionaries. The gazetteers do not often mention either lories or lorikeets. I do not know what is the correct pronounciation. I would have liked to hear from the Minister some explanation in relation to Part II of the First Schedule of the birds with which the Minister was dealing on this occasion.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome this Bill as a measure which tends towards advancing agricultural interests by eliminating, or more correctly, reducing, the incidence of disease in animals. I feel agriculturists generally will be very much interested in a measure such as this. It is indeed a peculiar defect in our legislation that we cannot draft such a measure in more readable language. It takes 29 pages to set down the terms of this Bill. There are some 58 sections and some Schedules in it and it would be very difficult indeed for any farmer, if he were to get this Bill at all, to make sense out of it. Even the fact that an explanatory memorandum is made available does not, to any great extent, lessen that difficulty. I hope the time will come when legislation such as this will be set out in more sensible terms so that the ordinary man in the street can understand it.

The previous speaker, one of our most experienced members in the House, had to consult dictionaries to deal with some of the terms in this Bill. If it is beyond Deputy Sweetman's capacity to deal with it, without reference to dictionaries, you can imagine the position of the small farmer around the country, and indeed some of the big ones, who have not had the education or advantages of Deputy Sweetman, when they try to interpret this measure.

This measure is introduced in 1965 when the eradication of bovine tuberculosis has reached a successful conclusion, after 11 years. This scheme has successfully concluded and great credit is due to the people who initiated it in 1954, the members of the inter-Party Government at that time. They showed great foresight in putting forward legislation at that time which has resulted, 11 years afterwards, in the complete eradication of bovine tuberculosis.

The first paragraph of the Minister's statement is indeed startling. I had some idea it would contain a special reference to losses from disease, having listened to previous statements by the Minister some few weeks back, but I was startled to learn that, despite the fact that the disease of tuberculosis has now been eradicated, our losses, as a result of disease in animals, amount to £25 million annually, or an average of £100 per farm. That is a huge sum and, in my opinion, it is an indictment of previous Ministers for Agriculture in this State, an indictment of the Department of Agriculture itself and, to an extent, of this House that we should have been losing back through the years this colossal amount of money annually by reason of disease in animals. Having regard to our national economy, £25 million annually is a sizeable sum and everybody could appreciate what the Minister for Finance could have done with such a sum if he had had it at his disposal each year in the years gone by. I do not think it was generally known that such a sum was involved. If it had been known generally that the figure was so high, I am sure more active measures would have been taken by bodies such as the committees of agriculture and other farming organisations to bring pressure to bear on the Government and on the Department to introduce legislation which would have obviated these losses.

Whilst welcoming this measure, I must also say, having regard to the Minister's statement, that it is a Bill that should have been promoted years ago so that this huge loss, which must have been known to Ministers for Agriculture, to the Department of Agriculture and their advisers, would not have been allowed to continue with little or no publicity. I do not agree with Deputy Sweetman's statement commending the authorities for the manner in which they were dealing with the eradication of animal diseases. In view of the facts placed before us by the Minister, I could not agree with that commendation. The Minister's speech definitely indicts the Department of Agriculture for allowing this position to continue. It is completely out of place that we now have this situation, a situation which the Minister feels could have been dealt with over the years. However, it is better late than never.

We are pleased that we have this measure before us because undoubtedly such a measure could ensure for the farming community a big increase in their incomes if it brings about, as we hope it will, a complete eradication of animal diseases. That will at least help towards substantially reducing their losses, and there is plenty of room for that, having regard to the figures. Now that bovine tuberculosis has been eradicated, the next greatest problem is brucellosis, or contagious abortion. This is a source of grave worry to many farmers because of its infectious nature, and when one farm is stricken with this disease, it is not unlikely that the adjoining farms will also be stricken to some degree. Unfortunately, while this was a matter of concern to many farmers, veterinary advice was not able adequately to arrest it or to wipe it out. We hope that with the advances which the Minister and Deputy Sweetman mentioned, some effective cure will be found for this disease. Now that the Department, the Minister, and the House have got down to this matter in a serious manner, we hope that some effective remedies will be available to the farming community which will provide the same effects as did the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.

I agree entirely with the terms of this Bill in regard to the dehorning of cattle. It is something which every farmer would like to do but many felt that it was a painful operation. Now we are assured that this operation can be carried out without causing any pain to the cattle, that it is completely painless. That being the case, and because there are no ill effects from it, I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestion that we should have a national campaign for the dehorning of cattle. I note that the Minister has set a period of three years for carrying out this work and that after the three years, it will not be permissible to expose cattle for sale unless they have been dehorned. This is a part of the Bill which will meet with general approval because even though it is natural for cattle to have horns, as there are no ill effects from dehorning, according to the experts, then it should be done.

Another part of this measure which is very important is that dealing with sheep dipping. The position regarding sheep dipping is not at all satisfactory in many parts of the country. It is amazing the number of people, people one would regard as intelligent and progressive, who neglect to have their sheep dipped, especially when one realises the loss which can be caused to the nation and to the farmer. It is also heartening to read about the dye mentioned in the Minister's statement. Once the dye is available, then a person cannot expose for sale sheep which have not been dipped. I understand that at present some people who tend to treat the law with disrespect can overcome the regulations easily. A man may have 200 sheep and may get about 40 of them dipped and once that person has the certificate, it will enable him to sell so many sheep at different times without fear of detection. That system unfortunately obtained in some places and court penalties, in a few cases which were brought before the courts, were extremely light. Fines of only a few shillings were imposed, which, to my mind, were not adequate.

We in Cork, in common with other counties, have now special sheep dipping committees and these committees, in conjunction with the officers of the committees of argiculture and of the Department of Agriculture, take a firm stand in regard to developing means and systems of eradicating sheep scab. I am not quite positive about the facts but I think the annual loss from sheep scab could be as high as £2 million a year. In Cork we have joined with Kerry County Council, as we have an extensive boundary between the two counties and in those parts of the counties which adjoin, there are big sheep-producing areas. Instead of making separate efforts in Cork, we felt we should join with Kerry and deal with the two counties as a unit. Kerry County Council agreed and a meeting has been held between representatives of both counties with very good results and a further meeting is to be held in the not too distant future. We hope that as a result of our joint efforts, we shall be able to carry out our part of the scheme and bring forward suggestions which we hope will help the Department.

As regards sheep dipping, a big question with which the Department must concern itself arises from the different types of dips. We have much advice tendered as regards the best type of dip. Some dips that are supposed to be good are harmful to birds or other wild fowl. The Department should provide advice for the different counties to enable people on county committees of agriculture and others concerned to know the most suitable types of dip.

We also have protracted discussions on suitable times for dipping sheep. Some people feel it is wrong to have the second dipping held over until October as sheep are supposed to be in lamb at that time. That matter will be the subject of recommendations to the Department from Cork and Kerry later on. We should have a standard agreement on these two matters, the most suitable type of dip and the most appropriate time for dipping.

The warble fly scheme has, I hope, got off to a good start but it is too early to assess its achievements at present. Let us hope it will be successful. Some doubt has arisen as to whether this particular dressing causes ill effects in cattle. Unless the effects are notified within 24 hours of the dressing, the Department does not hold itself responsible. If the case should arise—I hope it will not—the Department should, if they are satisfied that the ill effects arose from warble fly dressing, accept liability for paying compensation even though the 24-hour period has elapsed.

Turkey numbers are very much down. Turkeys have been subject to a number of ailments in the past and it was a great blow to housewives to find after rearing them for four, five, or six months, in some cases up to market stage, that they began to die off. That is not infrequent. As a result of this measure and the thought and work put into it by the veterinary people, I hope that some effective cures will be found for turkey ailments. The same applies to poultry, but seeing the Minister is very conversant with poultry ailments, I am sure, as far as hens are concerned, there is no need to mention the subject, that he will ensure, having regard to the profits he is making from that section of his activities——

Mr. Sweetman

We have not heard any recent figures.

Mr. Haughey

I am afraid of the income tax man.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

——that whatever ailments fowl have suffered from in the past, such as fowl pest, these ailments will be eradicated, even though most people have little faith in hens as a means of making a living nowadays.

I agree that the Bill should be approved. Its contents can be dealt with more minutely on the Committee Stage. I do not blame the Minister in this connection but it would be a great step forward if, when these Bills are introduced in the national Parliament, they could be set down in such a way that people could readily understand them. I suggest that future measures dealing with agricultural matters should, if at all possible, be presented in a more concise form. It is peculiar that even though these Bills are now set down in great detail, one often finds great controversy arising on different sections and the fact that the measures go into such great detail does not seem to make them any clearer. Some of them have had to be left to the interpretation of the courts. I have known a number of people who bought copies of Bills from the Government Publications Sales Office thinking they would be able to absorb the contents by scanning them but they found they were just as wise after reading them as they had been beforehand.

Mr. Crinion

This Bill is very welcome. It shows how much the Department is thinking about the future and about keeping up the good name we have had over the years of being one of the few countries, if not the only country in Europe, free of some of the major diseases of farm animals.

An experience I had shows how thorough we are. There was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease fairly widespread on the Continent and I was in Denmark at the time. We were in constant touch with the Department here and the Danish Department of Agriculture had to notify the Irish Department where we were, whenever we were in an area in which there was foot and mouth disease. One of the veterinary surgeons with whom we became very friendly remarked that he could not understand why we in Ireland were so worried about foot and mouth disease. He said they were quite accustomed to it and he did not understand why we should be making so much fuss about it. We have all seen the disastrous results of foot and mouth disease and what a plague it can be. The policy followed here and on the continent has been complete slaughter, keeping imported cattle in isolation and keeping a check on movements of people. That has paid handsome dividends. In my own memory, we have had only one outbreak of the disease and we all remember how disastrous that was.

The Bill carries on the good work done by the Department over the years. It is planning for the future. In including contagious abortion, we are merely keeping step with Northern Ireland and England. A rising standard of living will bring a rising standard of hygiene and we will have to keep abreast of the times. Brucellosis can give humans undulant fever, which is a very distressing disease. There is a fair amount of contagious abortion in most of the large dairy herds at present. Therefore, the present step is a most welcome one and is not taken a moment too soon.

Both the Department and the farmers are to be congratulated on the success of the bovine TB eradication scheme. It is one sphere in which both farmers and Department worked hand in hand. If the same approach is made to the farmers in the years ahead, we will be able to eradicate all these other diseases in an extremely short time. Most countries who faced the problem had a good deal of trouble with the stock owners in bringing them around to the idea. But the approach of the Department here was most commendable. The farmers responded to it and helped in no uncertain manner. It is hard to estimate the loss to the economy caused by contagious abortion in regard to milk yields and calves, but it is only a matter of time before we can eliminate it completely.

The compulsory sheep dipping is also very welcome. I should not use the word "compulsory" because the Department have left it open, but you cannot sell sheep unless you dip them. That is a good approach. It is very welcome also that sheep have to be dipped both for fly and scab. Most people ignored dipping for scab but dipped for fly in the summer. Everybody was busy in the summer and did not want to have to round up the sheep every night or morning and take the maggots out of them. It was to save themselves trouble that they dipped in June or July, but they forgot about the scab afterwards. Therefore, I felt all along that we were wide open to an outbreak of the disease, which can be a very distressing one. I would suggest that next year the winter dip might be moved back to September and October instead of October and November. A group of farmers in my own area had intended dipping yesterday, which would have been an exceptionally cold day to dip sheep. You are always likely to have cold spells during November. If it complies with the veterinary regulations, September and October would be a better period.

The warble fly is an old problem. We tried unsuccessfully to combat it in the 1930s. Any manufacturer will tell you the great amount of loss it entails to hides. The most valuable part of the hide is lost. Anybody in the dairying business will notice that the cows go back a bit in milk during July if it is particularly warm. I have seen myself that cattle put on practically no weight during July if it is warm at all, because so much is lost by their gadding around. I understand it is quite easy to eliminate the warble fly and it could be eliminated with a joint effort over a few years. The fact that farmers joined together on a voluntary basis last year was, I am sure, an incentive to bring in a national scheme this year. Any of us who made the effort last year know how few warbles there were around the cattle this year. I know it was not a summer you could expect to see a lot of gadding but, even so, if you ran your hand along a beast's back, you found very few warbles after the dressing of last winter.

There was some trouble regarding cattle dying or some slipping calves within 24 hours. I feel that with more research a good deal of this would be eliminated. There was some improvement even from last year. Last year, immediately after you dressed them, they went off gadding around the fields. This year, whatever improvement there was in the dressing, there were no such distressing effects. I feel sure that with more research, we will be able to eliminate such matters as some cattle getting sick and a few even dying. Since this is a national scheme, the Department will take responsibility for it.

I wholeheartedly support the warble fly scheme. There was, of course, power already there to cope with this pest but the new provision is certainly very welcome.

It is also heartening to learn that the control of liver fluke will be brought in on a national scale. This year farmers would be well advised to fluke their sheep because of the wet summer through which we have passed. The adverse weather is bound to affect our sheep and cattle quite seriously. I should mention that I have been told by butchers that the livers of both cattle and sheep have improved considerably over the past ten years since the Department encouraged farmers to dose both cattle and sheep.

A great deal has been done through the organisations throughout the country. Agricultural instructors are always welcome speakers at meetings. They never fail to underline the advantages of dosing for fluke and worms. They have also tactfully suggested to individual farmers that sheep and cattle should be dosed during October and November for fluke and worms because this dosing will pay a subsequent dividend.

I suppose we shall always have some of these diseases but I am glad that this Bill will make provision for coping with so many of them. It is good to know that, if the Department think there is need for a national effort to control certain diseases in animals, that effort can be made. The older farmers can tell one all about the disastrous losses before dosing for fluke was introduced. In this regard there is a wide variety of preparations and people have equipped themselves with one or other of these. Nearly every farmer now has a shoot into which cattle can be run. This is infinitely better than the old fashioned method of trying to examine a beast in an open stable. There was always danger of bruising.

With regard to sheep, the extra grants have made sheep handling facilities available to a greater number of farmers. The Department set a headline there. I have seen some of the sheep handling facilities on some of the Department's farms. They are excellent.

There is provision here for dealing with mastitis. A good deal of research needs to be done, I think, before this disease can be effectively controlled. It is one of the worst plagues that can hit the dairy farmer. Yesterday the Minister told us that losses due to mastitis can be in the region of £6 or £7 million a year. That is the equivalent of 2d a gallon on all the milk produced. That is a sizeable sum. If a valuable cow contracts the disease, her value as a milk producer is gone. In some cases that cow must be disposed of at the end of the lactation period. The disease has serious repercussions in the intensive dairying areas in which farmers are engaged in producing milk for human consumption.

The incidence of the disease is highest during the summer months. Generally cows are dry during June, July, August and September and it is then that they are particularly prone to infection. Even if penicillin is used, it is not always 100 per cent effective. Dairy farmers and farmers producing milk for creameries are the biggest sufferers. The disease knocks a cow right back in her milk. Even though she may recover eventually, the supply in the three-quarters left is not anything like the initial supply when she was a fit cow. The percentage number of effective cures is, in my opinion, under ten. An antibiotic which would successfully cure this disease would be invaluable to the farmer and ultimately to the nation. It is difficult to calculate the amount of money it would put into the farmers' pockets and into the country as a whole.

It is good to know that all these provisions are included in this measure and that the provisions can be implemented at the appropriate time. There is provision, for example, for the control of swine fever. We all know what happened between 1956 and 1958. Possibly it may be easier to control this disease because for the most part swine are kept indoors but there are times when they must be moved from one place to another. Birds, too, carry the disease. We do not want to see a recurrence of our earlier experience. Swine fever can be very serious. Indeed, any disease that upsets the agricultural industry ultimately affects the agricultural economy as a whole. Anything that upsets the agricultural economy upsets the national economy. The individual farmer who has a clean herd is affected because the market for his product is affected.

I am glad that we will use Spike Island as a quarantine station. Such a station was badly needed. There was one in Dublin on one of the Department's farms. Even with the best fencing available and the utmost precautions, there was always the danger of quarantine being broken. I am glad that Spike Island has been selected as a quarantine station. We are fortunate in having so many islands that can be used for this purpose. The Danes also had the problem of mastitis in cows. As the disease is not transferable from cow to calf, the best strains of cows were brought to an island station and the calves were removed immediately after birth. The selection of Spike Island as a quarantine station is particularly welcome in regard to the experiments with imported breeds of cattle such as the French Charollais and other English and continental breeds. It is important to keep abreast of modern developments so that we may produce the best breeds of cattle for our purposes.

We are leading the field in the production of beef. There is no beef produced anywhere in the world comparable with Irish beef, particularly as to flavour. In order to maintain our position, experiments must be carried out and research undertaken so as to secure the type of cattle most suited to our climatic conditions.

The Bill provides that the Minister may make orders providing, inter alia, for the giving of such information by persons entering the State concerning their occupation and previous movements as the Minister may reasonably require. That is a very important provision in view of the development of air traffic. Nobody objects to giving information properly required to be given. It is customary for persons entering other countries to be given a card while in the plane on which they are required to enter particulars as to destination, occupation and other relevant matters. It is a most important provision in the context of prevention of diseases in animals. The fact that the country is so free of animal diseases is due to the great work carried out by the Department of Agriculture.

I welcome the provision in relation to the dehorning of cattle. Dehorning is a practice that has come in gradually over the past 20 years. Immediately after the war, the cattle market reports used to give prices for cattle and the price for polly cattle was always £2 higher than the price for horned cattle. That provided an incentive to dehorn cattle. We have not been 100 per cent successful in introducing naturally polled cattle. With modern methods, dehorning is a simple matter and there are no ill effects if carried out soon after birth. It is a painless operation. If dehorning is deferred to a later time, it can be very distressing and the results may be unsightly. This provision could have been made a number of years ago but dehorning has been done by farmers on a voluntary basis. The provision in the Bill will eliminate the last remnants of horned cattle.

The Bill also provides for an amendment of the Clean Wool Act, 1947. I welcome the idea of introducing a dye as a test of sheep dipping. As a result of the propaganda and the work carried out by the Department over a number of years, one very rarely sees tar marks on sheep at the present time. At one time it was the practice to stamp ewes on the back with paint or some oil mixture, which injured the wool.

The Bill is very welcome and will have the desired effect of keeping our livestock free of disease and of helping us to maintain our unique position of being an island on the western coast of Europe which is completely free of the major animal diseases.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I do not think the Minister was very fair to this country in his opening statement in saying that the cost of the loss of animals and so on amounts to £25 million a year. It is generally accepted, and I have always found it to be the case at any conferences I have attended abroad in relation to agricultural and animal diseases, that we have suffered less from disease and have the position better controlled than practically any other country in Europe. It is fair to say that every country has foot and mouth disease and that, as has been mentioned by other speakers, we have had only one outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which was stamped out after a few months, in this country. It gives a false impression for the Minister to say that that is the cost to the country annually. I very much doubt that the cost is as high as that. Of course if you include in the calculation the slaughter carried out during the campaign for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis it might well produce that average over a number of years.

Be that as it may, we all accept the fact that legislation is necessary to eradicate disease as far as possible and a great deal of this legislation is already in existence. In effect, what the Minister is doing is producing a long Bill in which he has embodied all the originial provisions and is seeking wider powers to control the farming community. In certain circumstances, that may be all right.

There are one or two things I should like to refer to in the Bill. First of all, it says that when an order is made for the slaughter of an animal and where there is failure to agree between the Minister and the owner of the beast concerned, there will be independent arbitration. I should like the Minister to give the House some sort of indication as to whom he has in mind as an independent arbitrator. In practically everything in this country where an arbitrator is sought, we get a judge of the High Court or Circuit Court. I do not think that type of individual knows the first thing about livestock. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister, if he is getting an arbitrator, that he get somebody who has some knowledge of agriculture, so that a fair decision may be taken. I am sure Deputy Allen would be a very good arbitrator—he knows so much about everything.

The other matters to which I should like to refer—and which I think are the main causes of loss in this country —are mastitis, brucellosis and fluke. The Minister is introducing a scheme for the eradication of warble fly here. I have some criticism to make on that scheme which I will deal with presently. It seems to me that the Minister will also introduce a scheme for brucellosis. I do not know whether or not he intends introducing anything in respect of fluke. If he is, I do not see how he could do it other than advising the farmers to dose, as far as possible. The Minister also mentioned the fact that mastitis caused considerable losses. First of all, does he intend introducing a compulsory inoculation scheme for brucellosis and, if so, will he place the charge directly on the farmers themselves, or will the State assist the farmers?

As far as I know, the only treatment for mastitis is penicillin, in so far as it is effective. Penicillin is unwholesome in milk used for the manufacture of cheese. Has the Minister or his advisers any up to date information as to whether or not there is any modern scientific advancement with regard to mastitis, other than the treatment by penicillin? If he or his advisers has such information it would be to the benefit of the Deputies concerned and of the farming community as a whole if he would indicate this to the House.

To my mind the greatest loss is due to fluke, because of our climate. There is a very high rate of mortality amongst sheep and quite a considerable rate of mortality amongst cattle, which very often is not recognised. Does the Minister propose introducing any scheme to deal with fluke or does he propose to rely on the education of the farming community as a whole? I do not think we have enough information on disease in relation to animals. I suggest that fluke is one of the diseases that committees of agriculture should employ experts to lecture on so that farmers may be conversant with fluke in its early stages. In the majority of cases when the disease is diagnosed the animal is in such a condition already that treatment has no effect whatever. What I am trying to indicate to the Minister is the prevention of fluke rather than the endeavour to cure it when it exists.

I should like to deal with the question of the Minister's recent order for the eradication of warble fly. First of all, I think the notice is too short to make it compulsory. It is absolutely unfair to compel owners of cattle herds to have this treatment carried out, in its entirety, by the 1st December and, failing that, they are not free to sell. Secondly, it is imposing on the farming community very heavy extra clerical work in that they will have to have a separate identity card for animals treated for warble fly, as against having it simply stamped on the existing card. The Parliamentary Secretary is listening to me. I do not know whether or not he is a farmer but we must realise that farmers have not got secretaries and filing cabinets like the ordinary individuals who devise these schemes. To carry out a test you have got to bring the animal in. You have got to read the number on his ear and, generally, there are two or three numbers there. At least that is what I find on most of the animals I buy. Then you have got to search for the blue card. If, on top of that, you have to have a card for warble fly, and another card for brucellosis, I think the Minister and his Department should take another look at the situation. It is not fair to ask the farming community to do that and, perhaps, the Minister would consider that point.

It has been represented to me that the charge of 3/- per beast which the herdowner pays, in its entirety, is too much. Why should you have to pay 3/- for a full sized bullock and pay 3/- for a calf as well? Also, as far as I know, this treatment is being carried out by unskilled people. What guarantee have we, when we are paying 3/- per beast, that the correct stuff is being used and is effective for the purpose for which it is used? I should like to put that to the Minister. It is only fair to the House that these matters should be clarified and explained. Deputy Allen, who is an expert on all things, is, I am sure, an expert on this and I am sure his constituents have approached him and asked him these questions.

Mr. Allen

In connection with what?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Had the Deputy been listening he would know. However, he can read the Official Report afterwards.

The next question I should like to raise is that of the guarantee. The guarantee in the form I received does not make sense to me on the findings of the experts, and these are the findings—I might add—published by the British Department for Agriculture and Fisheries who are the pioneers of this scheme. I believe they have sold this scheme—to a large extent—to the Department here and to the Minister and his officials generally. They maintain that the stuff—which is a chlorophosphate—used at present is excreted from the animal's system in six to eight hours. I am not inclined to agree with that from what little technical knowledge I have. I think the danger in this case is that it is a phosphate poison and a phosphate poison, even if it is excreted from the animal's system in six to eight hours, leaves behind it deleterious effects. Therefore, I shall read for the benefit of the Minister paragraph 3 of the circular dated August, 1965, on the warble fly eradication scheme, 1965 which I received:

The charge to the herdowner is 3/-per animal treated. This charge includes the cost of treatment and certification. It also provides insurance cover for the treated animal against loss directly attributable to the treatment provided that the herdowner has consulted a veterinary surgeon within 24 hours of the treatment and has followed his advice.

If, as the Department says, it is excreted from the animal's system in six to eight hours it seems to me that if a claim is made in 24 hours the Department could very well say: "Oh, that was execreted in six to eight hours and, therefore, we are not further liable." Further than that it does not make sense to me. It appears to me that you have got to consult a veterinary surgeon within 24 hours of the treatment.

I should like to put a question to the Minister in relation to something which has happened already in my constituency in the south. In fact, it has happened in two or three cases. If it happens that an animal is being treated in calf, that the calf has been born about two or three days afterwards and the animal itself has subsequently died of chlorophosphate poisoning, can the Minister say, if a claim is made, will compensation be paid in full or will the Minister, or whatever expert comes down to inspect, say it was not reported within 24 hours and, therefore, no claim can be entertained? I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that he cannot have it both ways. He must clarify the position for the farmers so that they will know where they stand. I might say there are a considerable number of farmers who have carried out warble treatment under the old condition known as derris treatment which I gather is the treatment which was utilised in Sweden and by which Sweden eradicated the disease altogether.

This year it will be hard to judge whether the lessening of the disease is due to the weather or to the treatment by derris but I know there are people who have written to the Department of Agriculture requesting the Department to allow them to continue the derris treatment because they are conscientious objectors, if I may put it that way, to the treatment the Minister is imposing on the Irish farmers. I would suggest that anyone who can show—and he can do that through a local agricultural adviser—that he has consistently carried out warble fly treatment is entitled to escape this imposition which the Minister is placing on the farmers. It would be quite easy for the Minister to administer this and he should give it his favourable consideration.

Mr. Allen

In connection with the warble fly scheme, I wish to point out that the cards given out in respect of treatment are most inconvenient to farmers for the simple reason, as Deputy Esmonde has already said, that the farmer has to have a blue card and then another card in connection with warble fly. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether it would be possible for the Department to issue blue cards which would incorporate the warble fly scheme. Farmers have a great deal of trouble when it comes to selling their animals at marts. They have the blue card but they have no warble fly card. If the inspector could stamp one card which would also cover the warble fly scheme, it would be much handier for the farmer.

The Minister mentioned here last week in regard to the warble fly scheme the length of time within which the farmer had to claim for compensation when an animal died after treatment. The animal could have died a month or three months after being treated but he stated that the Department had to be notified within 24 hours of the animal's death.

Mr. James Tully

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not make a comment on that?

Mr. Allen

The Minister said that where an animal died, the Department must be notified within 24 hours, but he did not mention how long the period should be after the animal had been treated. The animal could have died a month after being treated.

Mr. Lalor

It has to be within 24 hours of treatment.

Mr. Allen

He did not say how many days after the animal is treated.

Mr. James Tully

He said 24 hours after the dressing.

Mr. Lalor

Yes.

Mr. Allen

No; he did not. Maybe I am wrong. In connection with compulsory sheep-dipping, farmers in my constituency are very annoyed at having to dip sheep who are heavy in lamb at this time of the year and they are wondering about the consequences of dipping at a time when they have never dipped sheep before. The Department are now sending out inspectors to look for sheep-dipping dockets from farmers at sheep sales. The farmers do not have these dockets on them and their names and addresses are taken. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is proposed to take proceedings against these farmers, or if it is only a warning to them, and if it will become compulsory for the farmers to produce sheep-dipping papers at sales, et cetera. Furthermore, I would inquire whether it would be possible to have the time for sheep-dipping changed to an earlier date.

I should like to know how inspectors compile the list of names from which they send out notices to farmers to dip their sheep on a certain date. There are many farmers in my constituency who have never got such a notice from the local inspector. The Parliamentary Secretary may be able to tell us how this list is compiled. Another provision I welcome in the Bill is that in connection with dehorning cattle. That is long overdue. I should like also to welcome the provision dealing with mastitis. All in all, I believe this Bill will go a long way towards clearing diseases.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Lalor)

It can be said that, in general, this Bill has met with full support. While there have been comments about various measures being taken by the Department, it appears that the Bill in itself is acceptable to the House. I welcome the constructive approach to the Bill by Deputies on all sides. Deputy Sweetman did say it was a Bill that lent itself more to discussion on Committee Stage than on Second Reading. Because it is a pretty long and detailed Bill, because of the various technicalities in it, that must hold. The reference Deputy M.P. Murphy made to the question of its being too detailed and exhaustive——

Mr. James Tully

Too unreadable, he said.

Mr. Lalor

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary, replying.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Esmonde criticised the approach of the Minister when he outlined the difficulties the Department faced in this respect. He stressed that we were exaggerating the amount of harm done by the various diseases and mentioned and, rightly so, that we were looked at internationally as a disease-free State. However, it must be pointed out that we have diseases which affect our cattle, and our economy from the point of view of porductivity, and they are the diseases we are trying to combat at this stage. This Bill is aimed at maintaining our disease-free position.

Quite a number of the points raised can be dealt with on Committee Stage when a more detailed investigation of some of the sections may be warranted. Deputy Sweetman wants to have further discussion on sections 42 and 50 with regard to the identification of inspectors. As I have already said, the Bill is one that lends itself to discussion in Committee. I was pleased to hear Deputy M.P. Murphy referring to the awareness they have of the necessity for further sheep-dipping in Cork and Kerry. I was glad also to know that the county committees of agriculture in these two counties have come together with a view to doing all they can to assist the Department in carrying out sheep-dipping operations.

I can see some sense in Deputy Sweetman's suggestion that we are not getting a satisfactory application of warble fly dressing through the inducement system as against compulsion but I suggest that our figures so far show we have had a big step up on last year and that, apart from a few isolated pockets being dealt with now, the figures by 1st December will show that the warble fly campaign has been an outstanding success on this occasion.

Deputy Allen mentioned the desirability of having another look at the fixing of dipping periods. In that respect I should like to point out that consultations are going on between the farmers' organisations and the Department with a view to determining whether more suitable periods for dipping could not be arranged. We do not share the view that the periods at present are entirely unsuitable but we are most anxious to obtain the comprehensive views of farming interests so that we shall arrive at a time that will suit all concerned. I do not think there is anything further that needs to be said at this particular stage.

Mr. James Tully

I am sorry; I misquoted the Minister. He did, in fact, say 24 hours after a death, according to the Official Report.

Mr. Lalor

He is usually accurate.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee stage ordered for Tuesday, 30th November, 1965.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 17 Nov 1965

Diseases of Animals Bill, 1965: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1965