Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Apr 1935

Vol. 19 No. 22

Milk and Dairies Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

The Cathaoirleach gave permission to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to attend and be heard during the different stages of the Bill.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)

The object of this legislation is to improve the methods of production and distribution of the milk supply intended for sale for human consumption in the form of milk and to safeguard it from infection and contamination. As members of the Seanad are all aware, milk derived from healthy cows and handled in a hygienic manner is a most valuable food for aiding the physical development of the human body. It contains a great assortment of nutritive substances, is readily assimilated and, therefore, constitutes a foundation upon which an adequate diet can most safely and most easily be constructed. It is very valuable as a food for infants and young children, who derive from its protein the necessary material for the healthy growth of their bodies. It is also beneficial to adults because of the supply of ash constituents and vitamins which it contains. The investigations of research workers in recent years have clearly demonstrated the benefits to be derived from the consumption of a daily ration of milk. It has furthermore, the advantage of being a cheap form of food and a native product.

Having regard to the extent and importance of our dairying industry, it is a matter for surprise to find that in spite of its excellence as a food the consumption of milk in this country in its liquid form is substantially below the proportion consumed in other lands, and only 15.1 per cent. of the total milk production in the Saorstát is used for human consumption in the form of milk.

It is, therefore, clear from my foregoing remarks that there is a strong argument in favour of the increased consumption of milk as food in this country and that the quantity of milk available is sufficient to meet any probable increase in the demand. The question accordingly arises, why have the medical profession not urged the organisation of a campaign for the increased consumption of milk as a food. The reason is that of all foods milk is probably the one which is most easily contaminated by pathogenic organisms, seeing that it forms a most suitable medium for the propagation of bacteria. It may be infected from being derived from a cow suffering from tuberculosis or other disease, or it may be contaminated by uncleanly methods of milking or storage in dirty vessels. What would otherwise be an excellent food may, therefore, become a source of infection, and the use of contaminated milk as a beverage may give rise to a widespread outbreak of serious illness, especially in infants and young children, in whose dietary milk plays so large a part. It is, unfortunately, true that in many parts of this country milk producers have not yet learned the importance of ensuring that only cows which are proved to be free from tuberculosis should be utilised for the production of milk, and that the most scrupulous precautions in regard to cleanliness of the cows, of the milkers, and of the milk vessels are necessary if the milk is to be protected from contamination.

It is obvious that it would be unwise to advocate a general increase in the consumption of milk as a beverage until every effort is made to ensure that milk producers and the public at large are educated as regards the absolute necessity for cleanliness in connection with the production and handling of milk. It is also necessary that suitable penalties should be prescribed by law for offences in respect of the sale for human consumption of milk which is infected, contaminated or dirty.

In framing this Bill for the purpose of improving the standards of purity and wholesomeness of milk intended for sale for human consumption, it has been deemed advisable to incorporate therein previous measures conferring powers for the same purpose so as to ensure that this enactment when passed may contain in suitable form all the powers dealing with the protection of the purity of milk intended for sale for human consumption in the form of milk.

Part I of the Bill contains preliminary and general provisions and definitions. It authorises the fixing of appointed days for the coming into operation of various provisions of the Bill. It provides that, except in Part IV of the Bill, the word "milk" is to cover whole-milk, cream, buttermilk and separated or skimmed milk, and is to apply only to milk intended for sale for human consumption in the form of milk. The Bill does not, therefore, purport to affect the sale of milk intended for manufacture into butter, cheese, etc., powers in regard to which have already been obtained by the Minister for Agriculture under the Dairy Produce Acts. Having regard to the scope of the expressions "dairy" and "dairyman" as contained in the Bill, it has been deemed desirable to exclude from these definitions farmers who during the period when milk is abundant occasionally sell portion of the surplus milk produced on their farms to their labourers or their poor neighbours, provided that the selling of such milk does not form part of the ordinary business of such farmers. Exemption is also provided in regard to a farmer who supplies milk to an employee as part of the remuneration of such employee under his contract of service. The duty of enforcing the provisions of the Bill is imposed on sanitary authorities who are authorised to appoint officers for the purpose. Such officers are granted right of entry on premises for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Bill. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Justice are empowered to make regulations prescribing certain matters in connection with the provisions of the Bill, such regulations to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas in the usual way. Enactments at present in force in regard to matters incorporated in this Bill are to be repealed.

Part II of the Bill prescribes that each sanitary authority shall keep registers of dairymen and dairies, and that no dairyman shall sell milk unless registered, nor on unregistered premises. The sanitary authority are empowered to refuse registration on sufficient grounds but the dairyman in case of such refusal has right of appeal to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who may either confirm such refusal or direct the sanitary authority to register the dairyman. In certain cases the sanitary authority may cancel registration of a dairyman or of any dairy but provision is made for appeal by the dairyman to the Minister, who may either confirm the cancellation with such modifications as he may deem fit or revoke the cancellation. Where a dairyman has been repeatedly convicted of an offence under the Bill or under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts in relation to the sale of milk, the sanitary authority are required to cancel his registration and cannot without the consent of the Minister re-register such dairyman within a period of one year from the date of his last conviction. Certain other provisions are included in regard to keeping the registers of dairymen and dairies up to date, submitting evidence in legal proceedings as to the contents of such registers and allowing for an interim period for the carrying on of business without fresh registration after the death of a registered dairyman. It has been deemed desirable to exclude from the provisions of this Part of the Bill suppliers to creameries which sell milk of special designation for human consumption, provided such suppliers do not sell milk to other persons. The reason for this exemption is that suppliers to creameries have for the past ten years been subject to the provisions of the Dairy Produce Acts, which prohibit the supply of dirty or contaminated milk to creameries. The standard of production of these suppliers is therefore higher than the general standard of milk production in most parts of the country. The exemption is purely temporary and will be withdrawn in due course on the improvement of the general standard of milk production. Arrangements are also made for excluding from this Part of the Bill persons who sell milk only for consumption on the premises, such as restaurant-keepers, etc. This will obviate needless registration work.

Part III of the Bill empowers the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, with the concurrence of the Minister for Agriculture, to make regulations in regard to various matters dealing with the construction and cleanliness of dairies and dairy equipment, precautions for protection of milk against contamination or infection, and the inspection of dairies, dairy equipment and dairy employees. Such regulations may be either special or general and may apply to the whole of Saorstát Eireann or to any specified district. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health may also make regulations in regard to the inspection of animals in dairies by veterinary officers and may authorise such officers to take samples of milk from any such animal for examination. The exemption of certain creamery suppliers from this Part of the Bill is also prescribed.

Part IV of the Bill provides for the sale of milk under special designations. At present, as members of the Seanad know, milk is being offered for sale under different descriptions implying certain superior qualities in the milk, but under the existing law there is no redress for a purchaser if the milk sold to him is not up to the standard of purity for which he has paid. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health is empowered under this Part of the Bill to make regulations prescribing special designations which may be used in connection with milk sold or offered for sale and providing for the granting of licences for the sale of milk of any such special designation on payment of the prescribed fee. It is intended to follow the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the milk supply and to classify the superior qualities of milk under three special designations, including pasteurised milk. It is contemplated that at first the Minister will keep control to a large extent of the issue of such licences until the standards of purity and cleanliness become fairly established, and local authorities are educated to realise the importance of maintaining these standards. It may be possible, however, at an early date to devolve such duties on the municipal authorities of the county boroughs who appreciate the necessity for strict enforcement of the necessary precautions in the matter. When these provisions of the Act come into force, the sale of milk under special designations by unlicensed persons will be prohibited. Power is also granted to the Minister to make regulations prescribing the general designations which may be used by dairymen in regard to milk offered for sale without obtaining a special designation licence. General designations may be in the nature of "fresh milk" or "new milk" or such other title as will not imply any special degree of purity or cleanliness, in such milk. For instance, the terms "pure milk" or "best milk" would not be permitted to be used as a general designation. It will not be lawful for any person to use in connection with milk offered for sale, any words or signs which are neither a special designation nor a general designation and which are intended to indicate that the milk is of a particular quality or prepared in a particular manner or suitable for a particular purpose. Sanitary authorities may be required by the Minister to ascertain whether holders of special designation licences in their districts are conforming to the conditions on which these licences have been granted.

Part V of the Bill deals with the prevention of disease likely to be caused by milk infected by persons suffering from, or carriers of, certain forms of disease likely to be readily conveyed by milk. Power is granted to medical officers to carry out investigations in regard to the origin of outbreaks of diseases suspected to be milk-borne and to prohibit the sale of milk suspected to carry such infection. Every prohibition order for that purpose made by a medical officer shall come into force immediately on being served on the dairyman concerned, who may, however, appeal against the order to the district court. Provision is made for compensation of the dairyman for any loss or damage sustained by reason of such prohibition order, unless the order resulted from his own default or neglect. Penalties are included for the sale of milk infected with any disease to which this Part of the Bill applies, and for neglect of a dairy employee to inform his employer that milk has, within the knowledge of such employee, become infected with a disease to which the Bill applies. Persons infected with such diseases or exposed to infection from such diseases are prohibited from having access to milk in dairies, and the sale of milk to which such persons have had access is prohibited under penalty.

Part VI of the Bill is designed to prevent the sale of milk derived from animals suffering from certain diseases likely to render their milk unsuitable or dangerous for human consumption.

Part VII of the Bill provides for the bacteriological examination of samples of milk and empowers the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to appoint duly qualified persons as bacteriological examiners, to fix fees to be paid for bacteriological examination and testing of samples of milk, and to prescribe the methods to be used in the examination and testing of such samples.

Part VIII of the Bill deals with the appointment of milk-sampling officers and the procedure to be observed in sampling milk supplies. It is to be noted that the milk-sampling officers will be persons whose professional or special training enables them to appreciate the necessity for the observance of suitable precautions to avoid the risk of introduction of any external contamination in the course of taking the samples. The procedure for taking and dealing with samples of milk is also set out and differentiation is made as between the sampling of loose milk contained in churns, cans or other vessels, and milk which is intended for sale in closed receptacles such as bottles.

Part IX of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions. It provides for the submission as evidence in legal proceedings of certificates from bacteriological examiners on the results of the examination of samples of milk. Moreover, it is to be noted that, under the existing law, it is possible to sell with impunity milk which is contaminated or dirty, and the Bill contains a provision making the sale of such milk an offence punishable in the case of a first conviction by a fine not exceeding £5 and in the case of any subsequent conviction by a fine not exceeding £50, or imprisonment. This portion of the Bill also requires vehicles, cans or other receptacles from which milk is being delivered to a purchaser in any highway or public place to be conspicuously inscribed with the words "Bainne ar díol, "Uachtar ar díol," or "Blathach ar díol." For the benefit of members of the Seanad who are not familiar with these terms, I may explain that they represent in Irish the English inscriptions "Milk for sale,""Cream for sale" and "Buttermilk for sale," respectively. These inscriptions are mainly intended for the information of sampling officers and there is no doubt that they will present little difficulty to these officers on account of being in the Irish language. Power is also given to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, to make regulations dealing with the labelling of tins or other receptacles in which separated or skimmed milk is being offered for sale. Sanitary authorities are authorised, with the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, to establish depots for the sale of milk which has been specially prepared for the nourishment of infants. Medical officers are authorised to obtain from dairymen particulars of the sources from which such dairymen have derived their milk supplies. Procedure is set out for the service on dairymen of notices or other documents required by this Bill. Finally, a penalty is prescribed for obstruction of officers exercising their powers under the Bill.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that the production of clean milk does not involve any very elaborate equipment or necessarily entail any considerable expense on building elaborate cow-byres or dairies. It demands closer attention to the conditions under which dairy cattle are kept, to the grooming of the cattle before milking, and calls for greater care and cleanliness on the part of the milkers and distributors, together with the provision of suitable facilities for cleansing and sterilising milk vessels and utensils.

I am glad to say that the experience gained in connection with the schemes for the provision of free milk for necessitous children at the cost of the State which have now been in operation for the last two years has demonstrated that there are many milk producers in this country ready and willing to adopt progressive methods by submitting their cattle to the tuberculin test, and improving the conditions of milk production if they are given some encouragement by receiving reasonable preference for milk so produced over the milk handled in the ordinary way. Such preference was given for milk from tuberculin-tested herds in connection with contracts under the free milk supply schemes, and in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford County Boroughs and in a considerable number of urban districts and portions of rural areas tuberculin-tested milk has been supplied under these schemes. The testing of the dairy herd in each case was certified by a veterinary surgeon.

It is hoped that, as a result of this legislation, the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the general milk supply will be improved to such an extent that the medical profession will be enabled without reserve to encourage the more general use of milk as a valuable food. It would then be possible to undertake an intensive campaign to educate public opinion in regard to the wonderful food properties of pure milk and it may be practicable, in due course, to make this native product the popular beverage in this country instead of imported tea the excessive use of which has been detrimental to the physical development of many of our people.

Mr. Wilson

I may say I welcome this Bill because it is now nearly nine years since the Inter-Departmental Committee made recommendations on which this Bill is based, and nine years is a long time to have to wait for legislation to carry on what was considered necessary so long ago. Everyone agrees with the object of the Bill and the objects are to be carried out by the method of closer inspection at the source of production. That is what the Bill aims to do, to have closer inspection at the source of production and by that means to have clean milk. Certain exemptions are given and with two of these I do not disagree. The first of these mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary was where a farmer may sell surplus milk at special times locally but who is not engaged in supplying milk regularly—a man who does not make a business of selling milk. Secondly, there is exemption for milk given by a man to his servants. I do not disagree with these but I see there is exemption given to farmers supplying creameries under Sections 20 and 30 to which I take great exception. The creamery purports to make butter from milk supplied to it. At present milk is sold to the creamery for 3½d. a gallon but these creameries seem to have entered the raw milk trade and that milk is sent into the cities in competition with the milk supplied by people who are producing it according to the regulations of the Ministry. They are producing a standard product and yet they are up against the unfair competition of the creameries. I have no objection to the creameries sending milk to Dublin or Cork but I say it is a wrong thing to admit milk in a kind of back-door way—to a city like Dublin, for example—milk which is not inspected at the source of production and the only test to ensure that it is suitable for use is that it is to be pasteurised. I am not going to enter into a discussion on the merits or demerits of pasteurisation, but there is this about it: milk should not be allowed to come into Dublin by rail in a back-door way and be allowed enter into competition with producers working under the extremes of cleanliness which the Minister is insisting upon in the County and City of Dublin. If that particular type of production is sufficient for the milk coming in on the railways there is no reason why these very serious regulations should be insisted upon for local dairymen.

The Parliamentary Secretary says it is not very expensive to produce clean milk. Of course I do not think he is a dairyman himself, but if he understood the production of clean milk he would know that there is a difference of 4d. or 5d. a gallon in the production of clean milk as against ordinary production. The sanitary authority or the Ministry of Health insist upon the sterilisation of the utensils by steam, the cleaning out of the dairies and the byre two feet under the cow bed, two water supplies, one for the men to wash their hands after each cow and one for the man to wash the cow before it is milked. All this is not for the high grade milk, but for the ordinary standard milk; and how is milk produced under standards like these to compete with milk sold to the creameries at 3½d. a gallon? It is a wrong provision to have in a Bill where the whole principle is inspection at the source to admit milk by a back door method and to have it entering in unfair competition with the local producer. There is another provision also in the Bill, forcing pasteurised milk to be sold as pasteurised milk. For example, there is the sale of milk under special designations. I suppose that is all right, but there is no provision which says that milk must be sold as pasteurised milk when it comes into Dublin as fresh milk. Pasteurised milk is often four days old when it comes into Dublin by rail. That milk is supplied in competition with milk produced under the regulations of the Department, although it may be four days old when it is sold in Dublin. That milk may be contracted for to the hospitals, for the poor and for the children—milk sold as low as 8¼d. a gallon. A good deal will depend upon the method in which the officials will carry out this Act. They can make it very difficult for a farmer to carry on at all. I would like to draw attention to paragraph (b) of clause 26 regarding the cancellation of registration of dairymen. The Minister says that the licence will be cancelled where a man is repeatedly fined for offences under the Act, but what this Bill says is:—

Where a sanitary authority are satisfied that any premises in respect of which any person is registered in the register of dairymen kept by them are no longer suitable for use as a dairy such sanitary authority may by order (in this section also referred to as a cancellation order), in case such person is registered in such register in respect of other premises cancel the entry of such first-mentioned premises in such register or, in any other case, cancel the registration of such person in such register.

It is not so long ago since we had the Sale of Food and Drugs Act and there was objection to some of its drastic provisions. There was no alternative to a fine, in the case of a milkman selling milk below the standard prescribed by the Minister for Agriculture. That Bill is now an Act and it provides penalties if milk falls short of butter-fat content, and in addition to that this Bill will make it another crime—the dairyman's licence can be cancelled for the same offence. I think that is too drastic. No sanitary authority should have such powers. There is no question here of repeated offences. If the dairyman is convicted he is liable to lose his registration. You heard all the arguments there were about the Liquor Act, but under the Liquor Act there were three chances. In this case the dairyman gets only one chance and he has no appeal. Of course he has an appeal to the Minister but that would be like an appeal from —I will not say—but I think if he did appeal, it would find very little favour. There is no doubt that the administration of this Act will mean cleaner milk but it should be administered in a reasonable manner and should not be too drastic, and I hope that on the Committee Stage the Parliamentary Secretary will eliminate that particular paragraph of the clause. It was introduced originally by the Deputy representing Trinity College and the Parliamentary Secretary seized upon the representations of a Trinity man to make the Bill even more drastic than it was. I do not think he got it in the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee. There are other things I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with: will the giving of that special designation licence entail that the milk vendor must sell the milk under that particular designation? For example, suppose I get a Grade A licence, I would be entitled to sell that milk as milk. But I would object to a man selling pasteurised milk being allowed to sell his milk as milk. He would have to sell it as pasteurised milk. Let the people understand the nature of what they are buying. That is a very serious matter and it should be provided for in the Bill or somewhere in the regulations. There are many diseases of animals mentioned here which the Minister for Agriculture says should be enough reason to revoke a licence. I do not believe that a cow suffering from chronic mastitis gives injurious milk but there are differences of opinion in regard to what affects milk from cows with is wrong to sell milk from cows with chronic mastitis but here it is a crime to sell it. However, it is here and I am not going to object to it. There are many differences of opinion about pasteurised milk; some medical authorities hold that the pasteurisation of milk does not impair its food qualities at all. Others say it is unsuitable for children. My own opinion generally is that the people should know what they are buying, whether the milk is pasteurised or not let the public know it. That was the object of the Inter-Departmental Committee's report. These are the main objections I have to this Bill.

Sir E. Coey Bigger

This milk and Dairies Bill is one of the most important public health Bills that has come before this House for a long time. When it becomes an Act, and provided it is suitably amended, it will have very far-reaching effects both on the health and lives of a very large section of the people, especially of the residents in the urban districts. I hope it will increase enormously the consumption of milk, but it will not do that unless the public are assured that the milk sold is not a carrier of illness or disease in any form. I fear that the Bill, without amendment, would not give this complete satisfaction. This is one of the best milk-producing countries in the world. We produce more milk than any other commodity, but we do not consume anything like the quantity of milk that we should. Milk is almost a complete food, and it is a fairly cheap food. It will support human life for months and, possibly, for years without any other food. It is commonly thought that milk is only a food for children and infants. That is not so. Everyone, from infancy to old age, can consume milk with great benefit to their health.

This Bill is rather long-delayed. A Bill carrying out the same purpose was introduced in the British Houses of Commons 12 or 13 years ago, and in the Northern Parliament eight years ago. We have this Bill now. The question of a clean, and free from disease, milk supply has been pressed on the Government for the last eight or nine years and, as Senator Wilson has already mentioned, while the Government have done nothing the dairymen have done a great deal. I think they deserve great credit for what they have done. Eight years ago you had, perhaps, one or two dairymen who produced clean milk, free from disease. Now, you have something like 30. Some of those dairymen are very large producers. They have very large herds, some as many as 150 or 160 cows. Naturally, they thought that they should be protected, but instead they were left to compete against men in the same trade who were using the designations "tuberculin free" and "Grade A." milk on their carts. There was no notice taken of that. If any of these dairymen had added a little clean water to their milk they would have been prosecuted, but because others used a dishonest designation there was no notice taken of them. We see on hoardings all over the city and elsewhere slogans such as "Guinness is Good for You,""Eat More Bread,""Eat More Fruit," but we never see anything such as "Use More Milk" although it is one of the things of which we produce most. I hope that we shall soon see such a placard and that we can say definitely that the milk that is sold is perfectly free from any risk of communicating disease. I hope, too, that amendments will be introduced on the Committee Stage to improve the Bill so that the public can be assured that they are getting pure and safe milk.

Miss Browne

I join with those who have welcomed this Bill. Everyone will be pleased if conditions are brought about so that the milk sold in this country, especially in the large towns and urban districts, can be guaranteed to be absolutely free from disease. I think, however, that some of its provisions are too drastic so far as the rural area are concerned. In the ordinary country village and the district around it those who sell milk have a very small number of customers. Very often the people who keep cows in such an area are small farmers. It would be impossible for them to undertake all the expense which this Bill visualises. I am not now referring to the methods of clean milking, the cleaning out of byres and that kind of thing. If such people were required to carry out big alterations to buildings they simply would not be able to bear the expense. The exemptions given under Section 7 will also affect them. Take the case of the man with ten cows. He has, perhaps, 20 customers. He has to employ a man to take the milk around to his customers in the village. They are mostly poor people who cannot afford to pay a very big price for milk, certainly not anything like what is paid in the City of Dublin. Large suppliers like Senator Wilson can scarcely be taken as speaking for the rural supplier who, under this Bill, will be put in this position: that a great number of farmers around him, who will be able to get exemptions, will be enabled to compete against him especially in the summer months when milk is plentiful. That is not fair to him. Having been granted an exemption, they will not be required to register. They will be under no obligation to comply with the regulations made under the Bill. They can get exemption on the score that the selling of milk is not their ordinary business, but when they have plenty of it in the summer months they will sell it. Therefore, they will be in competition with the man in the rural areas who has had to incur a great deal of expense in order to become qualified to sell milk.

I contend that some of the provisions in the Bill are altogether too drastic. Take my own county. It is not a dairy county. What I have said will apply there. We have very few creameries, only two or three, I think, in the whole county. With the permission of the Cathaoirleach I would like to read a few extracts from a discussion that took place at a meeting of the County Wexford Board of Health with regard to the free milk scheme. These extracts will illustrate better than any words of mine what is likely to happen under this Bill. I may say in passing that all the persons who took part in the discussion are all very strong supporters of the present Government, so that it cannot be argued that anything they said was said in opposition to the Government. In any event, of course this is not a political matter and could not be considered as such by anybody. Before the discussion took place, a letter was read from the Department of Local Government and Public Health acknowledging the list of suppliers under the free milk scheme. The report reads:

"The general circular in regard to the scheme dated February, 1923, stated that the scheme in respect of year ended 31st March was only to apply to necessitous children under five years of age.

"The Secretary stated that the conditions set out by the Department would make the scheme unworkable next year. The Department did not seem to realise that in some rural areas there might be only two or three people entitled to free milk, and that there was a farmer living near them who had milk, but he would not be prepared to tender for a supply to two or three people. In regard to the tuberculin test, it will be a fairly costly thing in the case of a farmer who had ten or twelve cows."

I may mention that in Scotland the cost of this test is borne by the Government. Therefore I hold that the carrying out of the test here should be free of all charge to the owners of cows. The report goes on to say:

"The Chairman said that you could not apply those conditions in the rural areas."

That is to say, the conditions that are to be insisted on by the Minister under this Bill. Another member said: "If owners of cows were to be involved in considerable bother they would not be prepared to supply milk." The report goes on:

"Secretary: The farmers who are not in the habit of selling milk will not supply it now.

Mr. D. Allen, Chairman of the County Council, said that the Board would be up against great difficulties when the Clean Milk Bill went through, as anyone supplying milk would be obliged to have his cows tuberculin-tested or bacteriologically tested. The scheme would be all right in towns where a farmer would be supplying milk to large numbers.

Another member said: When we brought on the scheme they objected to the scale we have."

That is to say, the Department objected. The Secretary said: "They are agreeing to it for this year but will not agree to it for next year." A member said: "Then they are going to kill the scheme." The report continues:

"Mr. Allen remarked that provision of that kind should have been made in the Clean Milk Bill."

Another member remarked that "the tuberculin test should be free to the owners of cows."

"Mr. Allen suggested that the difficulty might be got over by requesting the Department to put the veterinary inspectors on an adequate salary."

The remainder of the discussion is not relevant to this Bill.

These extracts show that the free milk scheme will be very seriously affected in the rural areas by this Bill, and that the free milk will not be available for poor children. There ought to be some line drawn with regard to the people who are to be exempted. Anyone, almost, can claim exemption and sell milk under the Bill when it becomes an Act without being subject to the obligation of registration or inspection. I am not objecting to the Bill. Everybody knows that the condition to which producers have been reduced is such that they will be unable to incur the expense necessary to enable them to sell milk under the Bill. Many of them have already been reduced to a state of poverty. Some Senators smile, but I suggest smiles are not suitable to the occasion at all. Very often we see sarcastic smiles here when no other argument is available. What I have said about the condition of many of those people is true. Many people will be deprived of milk if insistence is made on the carrying out of the drastic provisions in this Bill.

Mr. Johnson

I take it that Senator Miss Browne is against the application of this Bill to anybody. Presumably, if it is so drastic that it will deprive people in the small towns of milk of a clean and wholesome quality, then it will be equally drastic as regards people in the larger towns. I have the opinion that the Bill, if it is properly administered by the sanitary authority, will be more beneficial to the health of the small towns than even to the larger cities. My own experience has been that dirty milk is more frequently bought, sold and consumed in the small towns than in the larger cities. Whatever may be the case now, my experience a few years ago was that the byres and methods of production of milk in and around small towns were very bad indeed, and one hopes that one of the immediate effects of the administration of this Bill would be to improve the processes of production there. Senator Miss Browne spoke of the stringency of some of the provisions of the Bill, especially when she referred to the competition which she said would follow from non-registered suppliers of creameries, who, in the summer time, when there is perhaps a surplus, sell milk in towns in competition with registered dairy people. It seems to me the point the Senator made was that the provision regarding non-registered suppliers of creameries was too lax rather than that the other portions of the Bill were too stringent.

It was pointed out in the Dáil that experience of the Dairy Produce Act had undoubtedly raised the standards of clean production amongst dairymen in areas that supply creameries with milk. I am inclined to think that Senator Wilson gave support to that proposition when he said that milk four days old, when it is pasteurised, could be sent to hospitals and public institutions and could pass as sweet milk. If it is possible for that to be done, it indicates that there is a great improvement in the methods of production in milk of areas that supply creameries. I take it that it is intended that procedure under the Bill shall be gradual towards a really first-class milk supply throughout the country. I do not think the Bill is drastic at all. In the main it aims at raising the standard of milk sent to towns for whole milk consumption to the level which has been reached by dairies supplying creameries, and I think it will be a step ahead of that standard when this Bill has had full effect.

One or two points raised by Senator Wilson rather surprised me, particularly when he referred to milk from diseased animals. I happened to compare a report of a Committee of which he was chairman and I can see no difference in the recommendation of the Committee and the recommendations in the Bill.

Mr. Wilson

I only pointed to the opinion of the Minister for Agriculture, who is a doctor, on the point. He said that milk from a chronic mastitis cow was not injurious to health and he produced the Bill.

Mr. Johnson

I do not know that it is the Minister for Agriculture is producing the Bill. The recommendations which the Bill follows come from a higher authority than even the Minister for Agriculture. There were at least three doctors on the Committee, one or two veterinary surgeons, and three or four farmers who were milk producers and had experience of the handling of cattle. I do not think there is any just ground for Senator Wilson's criticism of that section, seeing that it is really embodying in legislation the recommendations of his own committee. Perhaps the Minister would give some assurance regarding designated milk. I take it that it is intended to designate certified milk and tuberculin tested milk into two or three standards according to report. Senator Wilson suggested that it should be possible for a milk supplier, who has a licence to sell, shall I say, a Grade A milk, to supply any other milk. That seems to me to be very dangerous. If a man advertises that he is licensed to sell certified milk and sells 25 per cent. of that milk certified, and the rest is not certified I imagine the other 75 per cent. would be sold at the Grade A price. It is a dangerous proposition that a man working under a certificate should be free to sell another kind of milk, which is not certified. I remember a certain well advertised dairy, the proprietor of which made great advertising value of the fact that he gained prizes in every show for his Jersey cattle, and I happen to know that he had about 20 per cent. of Jersey cattic in his herd and sold Jersey milk to a few people, but to all the rest non-Jersey milk. That may happen here. It is desirable if a person is working under a licence to supply a particular kind of milk that he should not be allowed to sell any other kind of milk.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us the position under Section 39. When a dairyman loses his licence he may appeal to the District Court, if he thinks it desirable to do so, but I am not sure from the reading whether in the interim, between the suspension of the licence and the hearing of the appeal, he will be able to carry on, or whether the licence will be in abeyance pending appeal. Perhaps the Minister could give some assurance also upon a more important point. In the same section the medical officer, say for Dublin, is suspicious that milk from a certain herd, say in Wicklow, which is outside the sanitary district, is infected, that fever is being conveyed, according to his view, by milk which comes from a certain dairy. The procedure prescribed here is that the medical officer in the Wicklow area, or in any other area from which the milk comes, shall be served with notice by post, and that certain other requirements of a formal nature are to be followed, all of which seem to indicate a delay of perhaps two or three days. These are important days, between the fact coming to the notice of the medical officer in the city and compliance with the notice by the medical officer in the country area. It seems to me that that is dangerous. Where there is a clear case, in the mind of the medical officer of the city, or in the consuming district, that the infected dairy is in a country district, the machinery should be such as to ensure that a stoppage should take place forthwith. There should not be any possibility of a delay of two or three days, the serving of notice by post, and the medical officer in the country having to be satisfied that the disease came from that farm. The consuming area should have some kind of veto on the sale of milk from a particular place, when there is anything like good ground for the suspicion that the disease had its origin in a particular place. I realise that there are certain administrative difficulties, but it seems to me that the machinery prescribed in the section makes it possible for too great a gap to occur between the infection being observed by the medical officer in the consuming area and action taken by the medical officer in the producing area.

There is only one other point that strikes me and that is in connection with Section 58. I take it that this is a Public Health Bill. I am not able to understand the significance of Section 58 in a Public Health Bill. It strikes me as being very desirable that the largest possible number of people should be made aware of the regulations in regard to the sale of milk, but making conditions that the vehicles, cans and receptacles from which milk is being sold would have terms in Irish and not in English seems to me to aim not at public health but rather at propaganda. I am not adverse to the propaganda, but public health purposes should, at least, be as important. If it is to be made obligatory that Irish terms are painted on the vehicles and the vessels marked, there should also be in English terms. I am thinking of the matter from the public health point of view. It is undesirable that mere propagandist motives should have a part in the Bill. A point worth noting is the very great increase in recent years in the sale of iced cream. Subject to correction by medical authorities, it seems to me that, whatever may be dangerous in the sale of whole milk, there is perhaps a greater danger in respect of iced cream. As far as I can see, there is no provision in the Bill that ensures that the sale of iced cream should be under proper supervision. It may be in other Acts, but I am inclined to think that the provision is not effective and that there should be something inserted in this Bill with that object.

I would like to have heard the Minister relate this Bill to what I think he indicated as the general purpose of this and other measures, I mean the wider consumption of milk as a food and beverage. I am not clear yet as to what steps the Government is taking with regard to the wider use of milk as a food and beverage, but I am hoping to see published in a very short time whatever steps of that nature they intend to take. This Bill undoubtedly, or some such Bill, is necessary to run concurrently with it. I disagree with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that until this Bill has become thoroughly effective it is undesirable to promote the much wider use of milk as a food and beverage. I think it is not too soon to commence with whatever efforts or propaganda it is intended to make with a view to extending the use of milk. I think it is almost universally recognised in the medical profession that amongst children at least a pint of milk per day is desirable and, some people think, necessary. I am told that in the United States they are even talking about a quart of milk per day as being the necessary minimum. If either of those figures were taken, if a pint of milk were prescribed for children, and not less than a pint for adults, it would mean about 50,000 gallons of milk a day for consumption in Dublin City and the surrounding townships. I do not know what the present consumption is, but I do not imagine it is half that. Certainly it is not much more than half. A wide extension of whole-milk consumption would undoubtedly be beneficial from the public health point of view and from the point of view of the agricultural community. I think it is very desirable that the Ministry of Public Health, in association with the Ministry of Agriculture, should, if possible, acting together, contrive some method of advertising and making popular the use of milk as a food and beverage. I hope that this is merely one of a series of Bills with that object in view.

Miss Browne

On a point of explanation, I wish to say that I think Senator Johnson misunderstood my remarks. They were applied to the rural areas and not to the towns and places where there are no creameries.

Mr. Dowdall

I am very glad that this very admirable Bill has received the reception it has. As a beginning it is a very admirable Bill, but it does not go far enough. I want to say only a word or two with regard to the remarks made by Senator Wilson as to milk got from the creameries. Really the fact is that the milk from the creameries is very much rather above the average of milk sold for human consumption than below it. If we were to get for the city supply such quality of milk as is now delivered at the creameries the average would be above what we are getting. Even the Senator knows that the exemption with regard to the creameries is temporary. In the creamery with which was associated a great many years ago before we used the milk for making butter there was such a straining of the milk that it almost amounted to filtering.

Mr. Wilson

And that dirty milk made cream.

Mr. Dowdall

It was not dirty milk.

Mr. Wilson

Then why did you strain it?

Mr. Dowdall

To make assurance doubly sure we strained it. This legislation would not be before us now if all the milk delivered to the consumers in this State was like that milk. Everybody who has had to do with milk knows that while a considerable improvement has taken place, the milk supplied in the cities was of a very filthy character, and I am sorry to say that a good deal of its distribution is of a very filthy character. The creameries have machinery for dealing with milk. The milk is sometimes partly sterilised in the creameries. They have cooling machinery of a such kind as to reduce the temperature to such a degree that it can stand a long railway journey without any multiplication of microorganisms and it is kept sweet and wholesome. The point that Senator Wilson made with regard to the creameries was very much exaggerated. I agree with the Senator in one way. I think the Minister should look into Section 26 with regard to the matter of the cancellation of registration on the grounds of unsuitability. While I quite agree that a man's licence may be cancelled for any deliberate offence such as that under Section 39 of the Bill I think it is rather drastic to have a provision whereby the licence may be taken away for an offence under the Food and Drugs Act. I would like if the Minister would look into that matter. There is no doubt that amendments will be drafted for the Committee Stage and I will be prepared to support an amendment with regard to the provision under which a man may have his licence cancelled even for one offence under this section. Senator Johnson called attention to what seems to me to be a very important point under Section 39 which deals with the stoppage of supplies of milk likely to cause disease. The prohibition order is immediately effected under Section 26. But later on in the section it is provided that Dairymen may appeal in the prescribed manner through the District Court. It is not clear if the section permits the dairymen to sell milk during the intervening period, that is from the time of the prohibition order until the appeal is heard. I think it would be very wrong if it did not. I would like the Minister in reply to give some information on that point.

Mr. Jameson

I am not like the Senators to whom we have just been listening—a real expert in the matter of milk—but I have a daughter who was one of the original agitators for clean milk and clean milk supplies in the Free State. Years ago, in the time of the late Government, she with others tried to get a Bill of this sort put through. For years she has been working at this matter of a clean milk supply. I thought that the wisest thing I could do was to write down to that lady who is now carrying on the business of a very extensive dairy farmer. She and her husband have 30 or 40 cows and they sell milk, cream, butter and cheeses. They have, undoubtedly, got the latest ideas that can be got about these industries. I wrote down and asked what her opinion about this Bill was. I could make up more or less a speech on this subject but, if the Seanad will excuse me, I think it will be better if I read for the House what she says. Here it is:—

"The Bill has been so improved that I have not many suggestions to offer ... The new version of the Bill is much clearer and better defined than the first. Part II is tremendously important and will give real control of milk sales, premises and dairymen. In Part III I imagine that the words ‘vessels and vehicles' will cover the carts, etc. which sell loose milk and the bicycle delivery. Not that one has anything against the bicycles but against the fearful milk containers often hung thereon. Part IX contains an excellent definition of contaminated milk which had previously been left undefined."

She gives that line of criticism and suggests that it should come very much in its place on the Second Reading discussion and then she goes on to speak of the powers as to sampling milk and says:

"Here the dairyman might be very badly and unfairly hit unless the words in Section 15 ‘taken in the prescribed manner' have a very definite meaning. No sample of milk from counties outside Dublin could reach a bacteriologist under 24 hours from the time of milking. If samples are sent this distance in iced containers, all is well. If sent in an ordinary parcel by postal delivery, the bacteria will have multiplied enormously by the time the sample reaches the bacteriologist.

One can quite easily see that the samples are going through a process of deterioration much more so than the milk which the dairyman is selling. That milk has not to go through such a process. He is selling his milk quickly whereas the sample which is put into a small bottle. sent through the post can quite easily deteriorate. Then she continues:—

"I consider this would be most unfair on the dairyman. It is all right for the licensed dairies ‘under the actual control of the seller,' because at least their sample of milk will be cooled before transport. What ‘sampling officer' will take the trouble to cool his sample before sending it off? One could ruin a man's trade again and again unless the taking of the samples is above suspicion. Summer is the worst time for dairying, and treble the number of samples should be taken in summer than in winter if dairymen are to be helped out of their difficulties."

She speaks there of proper safeguards in the taking of samples and she uses the word "icing," but in the ordinary taking of samples icing is not possible. I am sure the Minister will take care if the suggestion is followed up at all to see that prescribed conditions will be laid down, conditions which can be applied and which will ensure that the samples are what they ought to be when studied by a bacteriologist. And she adds:—

"No such details could be inserted in the Bill, but I suppose the words ‘prescribed manner" should be clearly understood to mean technically correct methods of conveyance of samples from dairyman to bacteriologist."

That is not a bad remark for a woman to make, but that is the gist of the whole thing. That is her criticism of the Bill. There is not the slightest doubt that she is one of the persons who for the last eight or ten years has followed up this business, trying to get good milk for the people in the Free State. There is no one who will welcome this Bill more than she. Evidently from the extracts I have read from her letters she considers that this is a thoroughly good Bill. Whether we will make the Bill any better by the time we are done with it I do not know.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.

Mr. Honan

I have listened to this discussion with great interest, but, I must confess, without much enthusiasm. My lack of enthusiasm is not because of the Government's sins of commission in this case, but their sins of omission. I am of opinion that this Bill does not go far enough to eradicate the trouble of infectious milk supplies to town consumers. Until the trouble is killed at its source, it will continue even after this Bill is passed, and if I had anything to do with the Bill-and I have had considerable experience on public boards in my town and outside it of milk supplies—I would make it compulsory on every dairyman applying for registration as a milk supplier to produce a veterinary inspector's certificate that his herd is free from tuberculosis and other kindred infectious diseases, and, further, to produce a medical certificate that the staff who help to produce and handle the milk was also free from all infectious diseases.

It is absolutely useless to compile a lot of sections dealing with the penalties that will be imposed on people found guilty of marketing infectious milk. They may have thousands of people infected before the inspector comes along and finds that they are supplying such milk. If you kill the trouble at its source and see that, from the outset, the herd is free from disease, and that the human beings attending on the herd are free from disease, you will have very little trouble afterwards in the way of prosecutions, which are very undesirable. For the dairyman, the taking of these precautions would, in the long run, be cheaper.

There is the other point that, as the law stands at present, if a dairyman wants to get a certificate that his herd is free from tuberculosis and from kindred infectious diseases, he must employ and pay a veterinary inspector to produce such a certificate. As long as human nature is as it is at present, it is only reasonable to assume that, in regard to the people who employ him and pay him a good salary, he will not be averse from acting as they wish him to act. Such certificates should be under the control of the local authority and that inspector should be paid by the local authority and he should be sent out to a dairy with an independent air, knowing that he is to receive nothing and has nothing to expect for the fair discharge of his duty. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take note of that fact because it is very important.

There are other points which have not been touched upon. One of them is that in provincial towns—I do not know what the position is in the cities —on fair days and market days, when there are much cows for sale, the poor women go to the railway station and to the fair green, milk these cattle and retail the milk to the poor people in the town, without even putting it through a strainer to remove grit or dirt. This is most dangerous and a matter which should be brought under control. There is also the matter that, outside the ordinary registered dairyman, there are certain small dealers who buy milk from all sorts of people and retail it without being under any control whatever. The one great point, however, is that the danger should be killed at its source before it comes into the towns. The only way to kill it at the source is to have dairy herds inspected and dairy staffs inspected by a veterinary inspector to ensure that the herd and those who are attending to it are free from all diseases, infectious and otherwise.

Dr. Ward

Senator Wilson, in the course of his remarks, conveyed the impression that the object of the Bill was to secure closer inspection at the source of production and that we were relying, in the main, for any good results that might flow from this legislation on that closer inspection at the source of production. To an extent, I agree with the Senator, but I suggest to him that the real safeguard is in the registration. That will, of course, carry with it a closer inspection at the source of production, but if the sanitary authorities in this particular instance discharge their duties under this Bill conscientiously and well, I think there cannot be any possible room for doubt that the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the milk supply will be improved, and improved out of all measure.

The Senator took rather strong exception to the exemption of creameries under Section 21. Many of the Senators who have taken part in this debate have dealt with the position of the creameries and the reasons for this special exemption as clearly, I think, as I can deal with it. As a result of the clarity with which the position has been explained by other speakers, my remarks on this particular aspect of the legislation may be brief. I would again point out that the exemption is temporary; that the creameries are only exempted in respect of the production and sale of designated milk; and that if any creamery puts on the market milk other than designated milk all the suppliers to that creamery will be subject to the full restrictions of the Bill. Deputy Wilson may not possibly have adverted to the Minister's powers in the matter of regulations attaching to licences for the production of special designated milk, but such regulations in regard to pasteurised milk will, undoubtedly, prescribe the method of pasteurising, the particular pasteurising plant which must be installed and the particular process that must be observed by any creamery, individual or group of individuals undertaking to put on the market pasteurised milk.

In addition to that, the creamery will be liable to inspection under the regulations made within the terms of this Bill and the milk which will subsequently be pasteurised and sold as pasteurised milk will have to reach a certain standard of cleanliness and wholesomeness and a certain bacterial content that will be laid down in the regulations before it is pasteurised. I mention that for the reason that it would be altogether wrong that the impression should go out in relation to this particular matter that a creamery could heat up any kind of dirty milk and put it on the market as pasteurised milk. That is not so and that will not be allowed. Even if it were possible, and we did not intend to deal with that matter under the regulations to be made, I do not believe it would be likely to occur, because there is not any doubt— and we might as well be fair to the creameries as well as to anybody else—that the standard of cleanliness of milk sold to the creameries is considerably higher than the standard of cleanliness of milk sold for human consumption by ordinary milk retailers. Senator Wilson smiles. I grant at once that the conditions under which milk is produced in County Dublin are good and that the standard is high, but I doubt if Senator Wilson is aware of the appalling conditions under which milk is produced for human consumption and exposed for sale throughout the provinces. If we have the production of milk in the rest of the Free State area brought up to the same standard as obtains in Senator Wilson's area, there would not be so much need for this legislation at all. The suppliers to a creamery are subject to certain restrictions. They cannot bring in any kind of dirty milk and sell it to the creamery. Under the Dairy Produce Act, as, I am sure, Senator Wilson knows, people who supply dirty or contaminated milk to a creamery are liable to prosecution and from day to day—I would be safe in saying every week—you will see prosecutions by creamery inspectors for selling dirty milk to the creameries.

Mr. Baxter

To a much lesser extent now.

Mr. Dowdall

A creamery is registered under the Dairy Produce Act.

Dr. Ward

It must be registered if it is going to get a special designation licence, and if a local authority is not satisfied that that special designation milk is being produced by the creamery it is up to the local authority to refuse registration. Senator Wilson may say: "Oh, yes, but the creamery is away down in Limerick and they are selling the milk here in Dublin," but under this Bill, not only must they be registered in the area in which the milk is produced but they must also be registered in the area in which it is sold by them as purveyors of milk and Senator Wilson's local authority can get after them in the area in which they are selling the milk, if he has any reason to suspect that it is not being produced under proper conditions.

I am devoting most of my attention to Senator Wilson because, I frankly confess, he was the most critical of the Bill. Most of the other Senators who took part in the discussion had very little fault to find with it. Senator Wilson was disturbed about the possible reactions of Section 26 which sets out that where a sanitary authority are satisfied that (b) any person registered in such register has been convicted of an offence under this Act or of an offence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, they may cancel the registration. Approaching this matter from a common-sense point of view and from our knowledge of the relationship existing between members of local authorities and their neighbours, is it likely that a sanitary authority will cancel the registration unless they are fully satisfied that they are bound in conscience to do so in defence of the people who are consuming the milk? They are given the power to cancel the registration but there is no doubt that a sanitary authority will be slow— unfortunately I believe that these authorities will be too slow—to cancel registration. It is because of the danger of sluggishness in this particular respect that we have made it mandatory on local authorities, where there have been three convictions in court, to cancel the licence. In that regard, we have left them no option. I do not think that dairymen or purveyors of milk will suffer undue hardship by the rigid manner in which sanitary authorities are likely to enforce Section 26. If a sanitary authority should, for any narrow reason, attempt to victimise a dairyman by cancelling his licence without sufficient reason, the dairyman has a right of appeal to the Minister. Regardless altogether of who may be the occupant of the seat of authority from time to time, a Minister can generally be trusted to see, in such circumstances, that there is fair-play and that a man is not victimised.

Senator Johnson raised a point about the special designation licence. I am not quite sure that I got his point clearly. However, it will not be lawful for anybody to sell milk under a special designation other than the class of milk set out in that special designation licence. I do not think that that is exactly the point that Senator Johnson had in mind. What the Senator had in mind, I think, was the possibility of selling pasteurised or semi-pasteurised milk as ordinary milk.

Mr. Johnson

Perhaps I might explain my point. A man has a Grade A certificate. He advertises that fact. He sells, quite legitimately, a portion of his product under that designation, but a large number of his customers do not want that particular quality of milk. To these customers, he sells a second-grade milk. In these circumstances, it will be very difficult for the customer to make sure that he is getting the milk that he is supposed to get. If a dairyman is allowed to sell Grade A milk and milk of some other quality, he will advertise his Grade A certificate and he will not tell the people that some of his milk is not a Grade A product.

Dr. Ward

He would be liable to have his licence cancelled if he sold any milk as designated milk which did not reach the standard of purity and wholesomeness laid down in the conditions attaching to the licence. I shall look into this matter further, but I do not think that it would be possible or, perhaps, fair to prohibit a dairyman who had a special designation licence from selling ordinary milk just because he had that licence.

Mr. Wilson

He could not get a special designation licence if he was producing this ordinary milk on the same premises. The licence will cover all the production on the same premises. Sometimes, however, there is a surplus and he will have to sell that against the creamery milk. He will, therefore, have to sell high grade milk as ordinary milk. You cannot stop him from doing that.

Dr. Ward

I shall see if there is any means of improving the Bill in that respect. I doubt if we can make it any better in that respect than it is. Senator Johnson raised a point regarding a medical officer in a consuming district having to notify by post a medical officer from a neighbouring district that he has reason to believe that an outbreak of disease in his area is attributable to milk from that neighbouring district. That is a point which could be usefully examined further. Notification by post is undoubtedly slow, and if we can find a more expeditious method of notifying a neighbouring officer of health, it would be desirable to adopt it. As to the possibility of contaminated ice-cream being exposed for sale, there is no doubt as to that, but this Bill cannot deal with that problem. We are considering the question of introducing special legislation to deal with ice-cream. As to the question when a prohibition order becomes effective, it becomes effective when it issues. Should the person affected appeal to the court and should it be shown to the satisfaction of the justice that the dairyman did not knowingly commit the offence attributed to him, he will have power to recover damages from the sanitary authority for the period during which his premises were closed.

Mr. Dowdall

Let us assume that a prohibition order is issued in respect of the sale or distribution of milk likely to cause disease. That order becomes immediately effective, but the dairyman may appeal to the District Court. Is he at liberty to sell or distribute that milk between the issue of the order and the hearing of the appeal?

Dr. Ward

No.

Mr. Foran

The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that provision is made for compensating the dairyman in certain circumstances. Will the Parliamentary Secretary favourably consider an amendment to compensate the dairyman's employees who may be thrown out of employment during that period?

Dr. Ward

That is a point which would have to be discussed in Committee. On the question of sampling, I was very interested in the letter read by Senator Jameson. The lady who wrote that letter appears to have made a very close study of the Bill. The manner of taking samples will be prescribed in detail and, of course, it will be absolutely essential that such samples should be packed in ice-boxes to safeguard the producer. All that will be dealt with by regulation. These details are not incorporated in the Bill. Senator Honan would not be in favour of registering anybody as a dairyman except the owner of a tubercle-free herd. It would be very desirable if we had reached the stage when milk from cows that might be suffering from tuberculosis would not be exposed for sale for human consumption. However, we have not yet reached the position in which we can insist on the milk of every cow in the Twenty-Six County area being certified as being tubercle-free. It would be very desirable if we could do that, but we have to go much more slowly for the present. I am sure that Senator Honan is aware that a large number of positive reactors to the tuberculin test do not give infected milk. It does not follow that because cows react positively to the tuberculin test their milk is dangerous for human consumption. The whole question of the elimination of tuberculosis from cattle is one for the Minister for Agriculture. We are dealing here with the production of milk for human consumption. This Bill is a public health measure. The other matter is being examined by the Minister for Agriculture. We in the Public Health Department are, of course, deeply interested in that matter and I understand from the Minister for Agriculture that legislation is being considered in his Department and will, within a reasonable time, be introduced, to deal with this question of the elimination of tuberculosis from cattle. If the Minister is able to eliminate tuberculosis from cattle, our job, from the public health point of view, will be considerably simplified.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 1st May.