asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is aware of the serious hardships caused to thousands of farmers in the west of Ireland as a result of the prohibition of fairs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
14.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Foot and Mouth Disease.
13.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is prepared to ease foot and mouth disease restrictions on marts and fairs in the west of Ireland, as farmers with young stock now find themselves in straitened circumstances due to lack of money and lack of fodder.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose taking Questions Nos. 13 and 14 together.
These restrictions, as well as all the other regulations affecting various other activities and persons, were imposed in the interests of farmers as an essential precaution against the introduction and spread of foot and mouth disease. As I have already announced, I am keeping the whole position under constant review and I shall consider and announce appropriate modifications as soon as I am satisfied that this is justified in the light of the disease situation in Britain.
Surely the Minister is aware of the grave hardship that is being caused to many small farmers at the present time, due to the fact that they have commitments such as rates, rent and shop bills to meet? In view of the fact that greyhound racing is now being allowed, would the Minister not see his way to allow the sale of cattle at our sales yards?
I am aware of some of the things that Deputy L'Estrange mentions. However, it is all too easy for Deputy L'Estrange and others to start clamouring now for relaxations. Unfortunately I do not consider that we are yet in the position when we can freely relax all of these things, much as I should like to do so.
The Minister must realise that the fact that a cattle dealer can go into a farm in Cork and travel from there to Westmeath, Mayo, Donegal and all around the country, is a source of greater danger than allowing local farmers to bring their cattle into local sales. Surely the dealers travelling from farm to farm could spread the epidemic, if it came here, quicker than anyone else?
I do not agree.
I understood from a statement by the Minister some nine or ten days ago that he was to make an announcement this week regarding relaxation so far as the holding of marts and fairs is concerned. I am sure the Minister is aware that this is a serious problem for farmers who take cattle to the marts and know they must sell, irrespective of whether the price is satisfactory or not. The Minister should be aware that there is a general demand for a relaxation in regard to the holding of fairs, and particularly for flexibility in regard to the return of cattle from marts when satisfactory prices are not obtainable.
The House will appreciate, and I think they certainly did appreciate earlier, that it is no pleasure to me to continue these restrictions. It is not unknown to me that various categories of our people have suffered hardship and that there has been considerable disruption of trade. It is also not unknown to me that there is still danger there, and I am not prepared to leave ourselves open to it any more than I have done up to the moment. We can only relax further as the passage of time and the information of the incidence of the disease in diminishing numbers indicates. As soon as that time comes, it will be a pleasure to me to make these relaxations. The House will appreciate that I have nothing to gain, whatever I may have to lose by these restrictions.
Could the Minister say in what circumstances he would be in a position to give the all clear signal? If there is no fresh outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain for x, y or z days, does it mean there will be an all clear from him within a week, two weeks or three weeks after that?
That is what we said earlier on, that the restrictions would continue until there was a clear three-week period from the last outbreak. However, since then some relaxations have been announced without our having waited for this clear three-week period. The reason for this has been rather forced upon us by a measuring of the existing dangers still there; in other words, the risk we may be incurring and the accumulation, as it were, of hardship growing with the passage of time. We have not been as clearcut as we were earlier because of the way in which the disease is inclined to smoulder, with no case one day, perhaps one case another day, and perhaps four cases another day. This has changed our outlook. We have not insisted on three clear weeks because of the impact this has on many people. We have had to weigh the disadvantages and the hardships against the diminishing risks, and there is still a risk.
It will not have any effect on the referendum?
I think not.
(Interruptions.)
We do not move the writs in these cases.
Question No. 15.
We communicate with the Minister's Department for advice.
The Deputy's Party communicates with my Department?
We can have no discussion now on by-elections. We are on Questions.
It is just as well if the Deputy does not get an answer as it would not help him.
15.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will make a statement on the present position regarding the foot and mouth disease epidemic in Britain and its implications for Ireland; and what is the likelihood of his being able to relax the present restrictions, particularly with regard to cattle sales.
16.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will make a full statement on the foot and mouth disease epidemic in Britain and the regulations in effect to prevent its reaching this country; and if he will give details of the position at present regarding the danger of foot and mouth infection spreading to Ireland.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 together.
While there has been a welcome reduction recently in the incidence of foot and mouth disease in Britain the position is still such that the risk of the disease being introduced to this country remains, and constant vigilance by all concerned is essential. Too hasty a withdrawal of the regulations which were designed to guard against the introduction or spread of the disease in this country would therefore be unwise.
At a press conference on 25th January I was able to announce certain modifications in our regulations which I considered to be justified in present circumstances. The possibility of further easements, including the easement of the regulations relating to the sale of livestock, is being kept under constant review having regard to day-by-day developments in Britain and appropriate action will be taken as soon as it is considered safe to do so.
Would the Minister clarify something for me? Are the regulations relating to fishing still in operation?
They are.
In other words, all fishing is prohibited?
All fishing on lakes, rivers and so forth.
By rod?
By rod or otherwise, except where the owner of land adjoining a river is the holder of the fishing rights.
The Minister is aware that in a number of salmon fishing areas, they start fishing on 12th February and these people depend on this for their livelihood. It is not agricultural land. It is beside the sea. It is not used for agricultural purposes and no animals traverse it. Would the same regulations apply?
At the mouth of the river where it meets the sea, it is rather hard to define which is the river and which is the sea. It is the river at one part and the sea at another. I would suggest that each individual case would have to be looked at rather than there should be any global pronouncement by me or anyone else as to what is the sea and what is the river.
What is the procedure? Should an application be made by the men concerned?
I imagine that anyone in doubt should get in touch with the Department and we will try to help them as much as we possibly can. I am saying for the benefit of these people that they should get in touch with us and we will try to sort it out.
I will have an interesting question for the Minister about that.
I know.
17.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he can give any estimate of the total number of Irish people resident in Great Britain who responded to his appeal not to travel home for Christmas.
A comparison between the numbers travelling in December, 1967 and those who travelled in December of 1966 and 1965 indicates that around 50,000 people responded to the appeal.
18.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is aware that many migratory workers from this country, who were in England and Scotland during the period that the foot and mouth disease regulations were in force, were not aware of the restrictions on travel to this country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I cannot accept the Deputy's contention.
Very extensive publicity for these orders was arranged in Britain, through press advertising, television and many other channels. That this publicity was adequate and effective is best evidenced by the fact that even the drastically reduced travel facilities available in the Christmas holiday period were never fully utilised.
19.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will give details of total expenditure incurred to date in the advertising and promotional campaign for foot and mouth disease prevention undertaken by his Department under the headings of (a) Irish national newspapers, (b) provincial papers, (c) radio, (d) television, (e) English newspapers, and (f) English television.
Total expenditure incurred to date is approximately £54,500 distributed as follows:
|
Irish daily and Sunday newspapers |
£5,100 |
|
Irish provincial newspapers |
£6,600 |
|
British newspapers |
£28,800 |
|
British television |
£14,000 |
Radio and television publicity in this country in connection with foot and mouth disease was provided by Radio Telefís Éireann free of charge.
Could the Minister tell us what amount was paid for advertisements in the paper which is mostly read by the farmers, The Farmers' Journal?
Certainly there was none by me.
The Minister is keeping up the old vendetta for as long as he possibly can.
The Deputy should not let it worry him too much.
This is the paper which is mostly read by the farmers throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Is that so?
The Minister is keeping up the old vendetta.
The Deputy should not cod himself. He knows where the vendetta began and he also knows who fans it along.
The Minister does
Fine Gael fan it.
Some of the people the Minister put on his National Agricultural Council broke the foot and mouth regulations and were brought to court for it.
That is not true and well the Deputy knows it. Let him go outside and name the person concerned. If he makes that statement, he will find himself in court and fined. He should go outside and say it and stop this mud-slinging.
Some of the Minister's own pals.
Stop the mud-slinging.
It is not mud-slinging. It is true.
It is not true and the Deputy knows it.
Deputy L'Estrange should cease interrupting.
He knows it is true.