I should like to know whether or not the definition of "carcase" in the Principal Act will apply here. In some other Acts, the definition in the parent Act was reinserted. In this case, there is no reinsertion of the definition of "carcase". If the definition in the Principal Act applies, it will be all right, because "carcase" there is not confined simply to the body of the beast— to the whole of the two sides of beef for instance—but includes offal and the parts of the carcase. If the word "carcase" were to be taken to mean the whole of the body, it would not cover the points I should like to have covered.
Diseases of Animals Bill, 1944—Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
In an amending Bill of this kind, wherever the Principal Act is not amended, it still applies and, therefore, the definition of "carcase" in the Principal Act will continue to apply.
Having got that matter cleared, I should like to put it to the Minister that the phraseology used in the sub-sections of this section scarcely meets some of the points with which we were faced during the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The phrase is used "have been seized in any abattoir or market on behalf of the Minister". The words "abattoir" and "market" have, evidently, been put in advisedly by the Department to exclude the items we discussed last day—for instance, calves found dead of the disease. I think it is a pity that these words have been included—that we simply did not let the provision apply to any animals seized on behalf of the Minister. That would include animals found dead—and calves are really the only animals in which that would arise. If found dead of the disease, no matter where, compensation would be payable in respect of them. As the Bill stands, they are excluded. Again, on the occasion of the last outbreak, we found it necessary to seize carcases in a shop. They were seized under the Public Health Act, not under the Diseases of Animals Act. As the Bill stands, they would be excluded from the compensation provisions, because a shop is neither an abattoir nor a market. I ask the Minister to look into sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 3 and see if his Department would not be satisfied to delete these words from the Bill, so that compensation would apply to all animals seized, whether in an abattoir, a market, a shop or on a farm, where they might be dead of the disease. On the last occasion, we had to do things which we had no legal authority at that time to do. I am afraid that, so far as shops are concerned, that will occur again—that we shall not have legal authority to deal with them. Everybody will appreciate that, in a widespread outbreak, affected carcases can get right into a shop. When seized there, the Bill does not provide compensation for them. I ask the Minister to consider those points before Report Stage.
There are two separate points arising out of the speech made by Senator O'Donovan. The first is the power we have to deal with the disease satisfactorily by way of seizing carcases, if that is necessary, and the second is the question of compensation. Conceivably, of course, we could bring in a Bill and ask the Seanad to pass it, which would not provide for any compensation whatever. Therefore, both of these matters must be considered separately—in other words, it is not necessary to provide compensation in order to deal with the disease. So far as the seizing of carcases is concerned, in a shop or anywhere else, I think it is fully covered by Section 22 of the Principal Act. That section gives the Board of Agriculture, as the Principal Act terms it—it is the Minister for Agriculture now—power to make Orders dealing with something like 37 separate classes of cases. But under No. 5 of these cases, it is possible under the Principal Act for the Minister for Agriculture to prescribe and regulate the destruction, burial, disposal, or treatment of carcases, the disposal and treatment of utensils, pens, hurdles, dung and other things, or the removal thereof.
Orders made under that particular sub-section of Section 22 would be quite adequate to deal with carcases found in a shop or elsewhere, apart from the case of abattoirs at all. As far as the penal clause of this Bill is concerned, or the penal clauses of the code in general, I am satisfied we have sufficient power to deal with cases of foot-and-mouth disease without resorting to the Public Health Acts at all. It can be done adequately under this Bill.
Compensation is another matter. The legislation also provides for compensation wherever it is felt that persons concerned would be aggrieved by the seizure and slaughter of animals. In other words, if there is a suspected case on a farm, and it is quickly reported, and if the officers of the Department are satisfied that it is a case of foot-and-mouth disease, and serve the necessary orders, naturally the owner would be rewarded by receiving payment of the value of his animals. We did put it into the Act that the owner must be paid, but we can always pay more than we undertake to pay and, in fact, during the last outbreak, we did pay where we were not legally bound to pay. In other words, we made an ex gratia payment. I think it would be going too far to provide that where animals are found dead that we should pay compensation. If animals have reached that stage before an outbreak is reported to the Department, the feeling is that the owner should not be permitted to escape suffering for his failure to report the disease.
Every case must be investigated, and if we find that an owner was not prompt enough in reporting the outbreak, we want to be able to say that we will not pay. If we find that the owner was not at fault, we can pay, as we have paid in the past in many cases, by way of ex gratia compensation. I feel that we should not put a compulsory provision into an Act of Parliament unless we are sure that there are not faults on the part of the owner. Other cases can be left to the discretion of the Minister, and it does not follow that, if we have not included dead calves here, compensation will not be payable. It will probably be payable, but not in all cases.
I am not quite satisfied with the Minister's explanation, by reason of the fact that the first thing the farmer may know of the disease in his farmstead would be the discovery of a number of dead calves. Calves are the only animals which die suddenly of the disease. This legislation, as I understand it, is aimed at correcting the mistakes and overcoming the difficulties which were experienced in the last outbreak of the disease. Therefore, I would like to see as many as possible of the pitfalls we previously met overcome now, and an extension of the powers of the Bill to cover all these cases would not entail very much expenditure. As a matter of fact, it would work out at a very low average unless in the case of valuable pedigree stock.
The value of the calves would not be very high and I would like to see the present legislation extended to embrace our experience in the last outbreak, so as to avoid having to make these ex gratia payments. It would be very easy in the work of the Department to set down in black and white in legislation what we propose to do instead of telling the owner of the stock that he has to apply to the Minister for ex gratia compensation, in view of the particular circumstances in his case. I urge the Minister to make the legislation all-embracing, and to cover those cases which were raised in a deputation to him in connection with carcases seized in abattoirs. The carcases and animals are covered by the fact that they are in a market, but if the carcase happens to be in a shop, the owner of it may get compensation only by way of ex gratia payment. I think it is unfortunate, in view of the little bit of extra expense it would entail, that our legislation is not extended to secure that nobody would have a grievance. We are providing in this legislation for an eventuality which should not occur at all, that is, to deal with the case of an animal affected with disease and ordered to be slaughtered but which dies before the slaughter takes place. It should never occur that an adult animal would die of the disease so suddenly because the disease is not so fatal an infection. The natural course of the disease would be that all animals would recover, but what makes the disease so serious for the country is that it is so infectious that it spreads so quickly. It is not, as I have said, such a fatal disease, and in the interval between valuation and slaughter no animal should die, unless by accident. If an animal is valued with the intention of slaughtering it and that it happens to be killed by accident before being slaughtered, I assume that that animal is covered. There is no provision, however, in the Bill to cover the case of animals which die suddenly, such as calves which become affected with the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. You are providing for circumstances which really should not occur but you are not providing for circumstances over which nobody could have any control. I think that, having regard to the small amount of money it would entail to have such cases covered, they should be included in the Bill.
I have listened to what Senator O'Donovan has said and also to the Minister's point of view, which is slightly contrary. Perhaps the House will agree with me that hardly any two people here know so much about this problem as the Senator and the Minister. They both have had direct contact with it and they have a full understanding of all the difficulties. What struck me about the Minister's case for not meeting Senator O'Donovan's point was that apparently he is not prepared to commit himself to the payment of compensation for animals where they die from the disease because in committing himself to a payment of that nature he might also commit himself to payment for animals that should have been reported on and would have been reported on were it not for neglect on the farmer's part. It seems to me that the one protection we now have as far as this disease is concerned is slaughter. It is a very terrible protection, indeed, but apparently it is the only remedy so far. If the country is to be saved from the spread of the disease, if there should be an outbreak, the only effective remedy is to slaughter affected animals. Therefore, early intimation of the existence of the disease is imperative. What will prevent a man from reporting that the disease exists amongst his stock? Some farmers may indeed be careless, but others may be doubtful that if they report the existence of the disease they will get the full value of the animals if they are slaughtered. It seems to me, therefore, of the greatest importance that farmers should have the conviction that they will be paid for any animals slaughtered a sum possibly more than the animals are worth. In a situation of that kind you will have the existence of the disease reported early and in time to hold up the spread of it. That would eliminate the possibility that even a very careless man might allow the existence of the disease amongst his stock to go unreported for months, and then perhaps report it when one or two out of a great number succumb. There is nothing so unsatisfactory as to have the feeling rankling in the minds of farmers that they are being unfairly treated, and it is very often unfair treatment in small matters that causes the greatest resentment amongst them. Want of generosity creates heartburning amongst the farmers and on occasions of this kind it develops the feeling that the farmer is not being fairly treated at a time of sore stress for him. I think the Minister, having gone so far, should give the matter further consideration. I believe that, if farmers are convinced that there is to be compensation for all animals that are slaughtered or die from disease, you will get that cooperation from them which will eliminate the possibility of their allowing stock to go so far as to be a menace to the whole nation.
I think if the words "in any abattoir or market" were deleted from the various clauses it would cover my point. Section 3, sub-section (1), deals with rinderpest. I think nobody in this country anticipates that we shall have rinderpest here again, but we still have to provide in legislation for that eventuality. Sub-section (2) deals with pleuro-pneumonia. There again none of us anticipates that we shall have to deal with pleuro-pneumonia again. Sub-section (3) deals with foot-and-mouth disease, and sub-section (4) with swine fever. Of the four diseases, foot-and-mouth disease is that which presents the greatest danger at present. Of course, we may have to face the danger of a recurrence of swine fever, but in the discussions on this Bill we are obsessed with the foot-and-mouth disease mentality. So far as the diseases mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) are concerned, we can exclude them altogether, and we are left simply with foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever. I do not think that we would be doing any hardship to the Exchequer by widening the scope of these clauses, leaving the words "have been seized on behalf of the Minister" and deleting the words "in any abattoir or market". To my mind it would make it better legislation if power were given to compensate for any animals found dead from foot-and-mouth disease anywhere. That does not necessarily mean that the negligent man would be compensated, but the man who does everything he should do should not be victimised if some of his calves are found dead before slaughter. Compensation should be payable for all animals no matter whether found in a market, abattoir or any other place. There is a difference in the compensation payable under a Swine Fever Order from that payable for foot-and-mouth disease. Under a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order, full compensation is payable for every animal whether affected with the disease or not. That does not apply in the case of swine fever so far. I think, on the whole, that the Bill would be far better if the words "in any abattoir or market" were excluded from these four sub-sections.
Foot-and-mouth disease is the one disease of which I have no particular experience, and I hope I never shall. I have, however, heard the matter of compensation for slaughter discussed with various inspectors and valuers, but I really heard no complaint with regard to the compensation given. Of course, as Senator Baxter says, it is very difficult to compensate to the full extent a man whose cattle are affected. It will mean the closing of his premises for a number of months, and perhaps destroying crops, which will have to be burned to wipe out all traces of the infection. The Minister should retain some power by which he could refuse compensation where it could be proved that there was some negligence and evasion in reporting the disease when it occurred. The Bill could be improved, and the Minister would be justified in holding some power to withhold compensation from people who did not do their duty.
There is one question the Minister might elucidate. How soon after a cow becomes infected does the infection pass from the milk to the calf? If infection would only pass through after the cow was actually in an advanced state of the disease, there would be no force in Senator O'Donovan's contention. If it did not do that there would be great force in it.
It is in the period of incubation before any lesions have appeared that the disease would be transmitted from the cow to the calf.
Then I agree with you.
The difficulty they had in England was where animals from the Argentine showed no evidence of the disease when slaughtered and shipped. It is a fact that sometimes there are no clinical symptoms except possibly when there is a rise in temperature.
I can only repeat what I said. I think it is very dangerous to put in an obligation to pay compensation unless the person is entitled to it, and has not been negligent. We have to leave other cases to be dealt with at the discretion of the Minister. During the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease quite a high proportion of the compensation was paid ex gratia. A good deal was paid according to legislation passed before that, but much of it was paid ex gratia, and I am afraid that will have to be the case. I think Senator O'Donovan is not altogether logical. He talked of how quickly calves may be infected and die, and then said that it is not necessary that we should put in the words that we would pay compensation where the man had been ordered to slaughter cattle some days before it took place.
Adult animals.
We do not say adult animals. It is quite possible that a calf was ordered to be slaughtered months before its death, and therefore it could not take place between the time of valuation and the time of slaughter. These words are, in my opinion, necessary. It is not a financial question because I am quite prepared to give an undertaking—and Senators know that the undertaking is of some value—when I tell the House that compensation was payable in the past. The same will happen if we are unfortunate enough to have another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, wherever persons are not negligent in reporting it. Senator Baxter made the point that we should encourage them to notify as far as possible. Does the Senator think we ought to accept Senator O'Donovan's amendment in the spirit as well as in the letter? If we were to go so far as to pay compensation for every dead animal a man might wait until his animal was dead to notify us. I think that threatening a person by intimating that he may get no compensation at all if he did not notify is the best way. I had much to do with the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and on reviewing the matter on several occasions, and going back over the files when preparing this Bill I think any reasonable person would say that there were about three people responsible for that whole outbreak. There were three people negligent, not all at the same time or in the same place. That was the case then, so you see what one negligent person can do, the terrible havoc he can cause by not doing what he ought to do, in the way of notification. Although we must be just to individuals and not victimise anyone unduly, we should have regard for the general community of agriculturists, and not expose them to danger through the negligence of one individual by seeing that a person who is negligent is not going to be compensated
On the whole, do not let us run away too much with our generosity to the owner. Let us at the same time keep in mind that we have to be very strict in case there is an outbreak and take care to have examination before we pay compensation, so that people who cause a lot of trouble and expense do not get compensation. Another point was raised regarding the level of compensation. There again we have to be very careful. It was actually put to me during the last outbreak that we were paying too high compensation. If Senators think it over they will see that there was a terrible danger of paying too high compensation. Four or five farmers are held up by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. One man's cattle get the disease and someone comes along and slaughters them and pays him some money. The other men say: "I wish that would happen to me. I cannot sell my cattle, I cannot move them or do anything with them." There is actual temptation there to a farmer to bring the disease into his cattle.
You do not think they do it?
I do not.
I do not think they do.
I do not think they do. A farmer would be afraid that he would be subjected to some other visitation.
That is the point.
If you have very generous compensation you are making the temptation worse. We should leave the section as it is. We have always paid and we will continue to pay compensation ex gratia.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—
The words "full market value" shall be substituted for the words "market value" in Section 7 of the Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926 (No. 18 of 1926) as the compensation to be paid in respect of animals slaughtered under Section 5 of that Order and in valuing such animals a valuer shall only take into account the value of the animal on its appearance at the time of inspection and the valuation shall be paid in full without any deductions after post-mortem examination.
On the Second Reading of this Bill I asked the Minister to bring in an amendment on the lines suggested here. I thought it would be more appropriate that it should come from the Minister who has expert advisers to say what would be necessary. If the provisions I suggested were carried out I would be satisfied. I do not want any very drastic regulations inserted in this new Order, but I do want to provide that something will be done by which farmers will be sure of receiving compensation which would induce them to report the existence of the disease at an early stage before it has a chance to spread. Of course, the greatest part of the tuberculosis with which our cattle are infected is amongst dairy cattle. According to the latest reports from veterinary inspectors, less than 8 per cent. of our bullocks and heifers are affected with tuberculosis. A number of those are only very slightly affected, and, in all possibility, as they grow older they would get out of the disease.
During the Second Reading debate I gave an instance of a cow, freshly calved, which was giving three gallons of milk per day. That cow was valued by the inspector at £6. As she was very badly affected with tuberculosis the compensation was only 30/-, or less than the value of that cow's milk for a week. The inspector was called there to value her because she was suspected of being a tubercular beast. Consequently, he could not get it out of his head that she was tubercular, and valued her at £6, Furthermore, I have been told on fairly reliable authority that the Department of Agriculture will make a lot of fuss about any beast in the country being valued at more than £6—that there will be a lot of writing to and explanation from a veterinary surgeon who will value a cow at more than £6. Senator O'Donovan told us the last day that he had valued a cow during the previous week at £30. In the township of Dublin that, of course, is quite understandable; Dublin dairymen have very valuable cows. I admit that a big percentage of the cows which are reported to the local authorities as suffering from the disease would not be worth a whole lot more than £6, but my contention is that, if the full value were paid, the owners would report the cattle at an earlier stage, when the cows would be worth a lot more. They would report the existence of the disease at an early stage if they were sure of getting full compensation. That is the point I want to make.
Since the Second Reading debate my arguments for revoking this Bill have been reinforced by no less a person than the President of the Veterinary Association, Mr. Flynn. At the annual meeting of veterinary surgeons he stated that the tuberculosis Order was a complete farce. If that is so, I cannot see that the Minister should have any objection to accepting this amendment, or, if he wants to put in something else on the same lines, I have no objection, provided he guarantees to do what this amendment suggests, that is to pay the full market value of the beast, on its appearance at the time of the inspection. If I am satisfied that that will be done, I do not mind what way the Minister proposes to do it.
I do not think it is appropriate at all that the idea which Senator Counihan has in mind should be dealt with under this Bill. It is a most unusual course for any Deputy or Senator to try to amend an Order under an Act by amending the Act itself. It would have been better, I suggest, to have had some discussion on the Order as such. However, I suppose Senator Counihan is more concerned with the idea he has in mind than with the manner of carrying it into effect. We could not very well do it here in any case, because the Diseases of Animals Act deals with certain stated diseases. I think most of them were mentioned by Senator O'Donovan—rinderpest, pleuro-pneumonia, swine fever, and foot-and-mouth disease. It does provide for dealing with certain other diseases, but not in any very detailed way. The Act of 1894, which is the Principal Act, deals with diseases of animals in general. Bovine tuberculosis is dealt with by an Order made in 1926. That Order is administered by the local authorities, and the compensation for animals slaughtered is laid down there. First of all, the animal is valued at the market value, and the Order lays down how the market value is arrived at— that is, the value which would be put on the beast by a person who did not know that it was suspected of having tuberculosis. It is the value that would be put on the beast by the ordinary buyers who had not been told by the veterinary surgeon or anybody else that there was a suspicion of tuberculosis. Of course, if the animal is thin and wasted, the buyer himself is entitled to suspect tuberculosis, apart from being told by any veterinary surgeon, so he might value the beast rather low. In any event, it is the market value, and I think that is the same as the full market value, although Senator Counihan seems to make some point about that. I think the market value means the full market value. If it were not "the full market value" it would not be the market value; therefore, the word "full" is not necessary.
The valuation having been made, the animal is slaughtered. If it is found that the veterinary surgeon made a mistake, or, in other words, that the beast is not affected at all, then the full market value plus £1 is paid. If it is found that the animal is only slightly affected, then three-quarters of the market value is paid, or 30/-, whichever is the greater. If the animal is seriously affected, then only a quarter of the market value is paid. I think perhaps that procedure is unsatisfactory. I agree with Senator Counihan that it does not induce owners to report their animals if they think they will get only three-quarters or a quarter of the value offered. On the other hand, if the owner is fairly sure, or has a strong suspicion, that the animal is affected, it is better to take three-quarters of the value now than to get nothing later on, and the person who is looking after the finances of the local authority might argue in that way. I think, in all fairness, they should get the market value. The matter is being considered at the moment, and I think I can say that we will make some change anyway in the present procedure with regard to the paying of compensation. As I said, however, that would come as an amendment to the Order of 1926, and not as an amendment to this Bill. I think that covers the point, if Senator Counihan is satisfied with my undertaking to bring consideration of the point raised by him—it is being considered at the moment—to a head, and to do something with regard to this Order of 1926 as soon as possible.
I am entirely in agreement with at least portion of the amendment suggested by Senator Counihan, but I cannot follow the arguments he put up in connection with it. First of all, there may be no difference between the full market value and what we ordinarily call market value, and I cannot understand how we could embody that in any legislation, apart from what operates at present. The full market value, or the market value —because they mean the same thing —is the value put upon a beast that is about to be slaughtered; but once the beast has been slaughtered, I agree entirely with the Senator's suggestion that the full compensation should be paid to the owner.
In that connection, certainly, the Minister has gone only to the extent of saying that the provisions of the tuberculosis Order of 1926 would be reviewed and that they might be altered, but I should like to stress the fact that if compensation, practically amounting to the full value of the animal, is agreed upon between the owner and the veterinary surgeon, or, if necessary, its value assessed by an independent valuer, that compensation should be paid for the destruction of the beast, because otherwise you will have things going on as they are at present, where owners will not report that they have animals that are suspected of the disease, because they are afraid that a state of affairs will arise where the value put on the animal will be only £6, as Senator Counihan has suggested. In that connection, it may be remarked that the valuation is not even £6 at present because there are as good animals down through the country at present as in the City of Dublin.
Some of the Senator's arguments, in my opinion, were not quite to the point and I do not agree with them, but the main point suggested in this amendment is the question of the payment of compensation, and we have experience at present of the definite hardship to which some owners are subjected through this provision with regard to valuation on the basis of the amount of tuberculosis found in the carcase after slaughter. I think that these provisions are ridiculous. I do not want to go into this matter in detail, but one of the provisions has to do with lesions on the pleura, which is the chest cavity, or on the peritoneum, which is the stomach cavity. Now, some of these might not be advanced cases, while others might be advanced. If there are extensive lesions, of course, it would be a serious matter, but grave hardships are imposed because one man's animal is classified as an advanced case while another has to be classified as not advanced, and there is a big difference between a quarter of a lesion and three-quarters of a lesion. I think that the country should bear the responsibility of paying compensation in full in these cases, and I think that if we were to do so, we would be able to make great strides towards lessening the incidence of tuberculosis in our cattle and, possibly, towards finally reaching its ultimate eradication. It would appear that Senator Counihan does not agree that we can accomplish its complete eradication, but I do. Furthermore, I think that at this time, when we are trying as best as we can to lessen the incidence of tuberculosis, so far as human beings are concerned, measures commensurate with those efforts should be taken to try to eradicate the disease in the case of domestic animals.
I suggest that Senator Counihan should withdraw this amendment now, but I agree with what the Minister has said, that Senator Counihan's suggestion would be very seriously considered by him and his Department, and that recommendations from this House, that compensation should be paid in these cases, would be seriously considered. I should like, however, to see agreement on any amendment increasing the compensation to a half, three-quarters, or anything like that. Real success, in my opinion, will be approached, if not secured, by having an agreed valuation paid for the animal, no matter what amount of tuberculous lesions are found on a post-mortem examination. I think that that would be the only satisfactory way of dealing with this scourge, and I believe that, if something like that were carried out, very satisfactory results would be secured so far as the incidence of this disease in our cattle in this country is concerned.
I presume that we shall not have an extended debate on this motion, because it seems to me that the Minister has, in essential points, met Senator Counihan's suggestion, but it occurs to me that this whole question is one on which the House and the country would welcome a statement from the Minister as to his policy in regard to this matter in the future. It is more than two years ago—probably three years — since Senator O'Donovan raised that matter in this House; but quite recently we have seen that a definite challenge was thrown down to us in this country by certain people—evidently very poorly informed people—in England. That challenge, as we know, was entirely at variance with the actual facts over here. Nevertheless, the challenge was thrown down, and I think that the Minister and the country should meet it. The proper answer to the challenge is to produce evidence as to what the actual facts are. I am quite satisfied that the Minister could make a statement, from the information at his disposal, which would entirely confute the statements that have been made against our live stock. Let us take one instance. There is a small factory beside me in which a number of cattle are killed. They are not young cattle, but it has been found that not 2 per cent. of them are suffering from tuberculosis, and I think I can say that no matter what is said by people in England—however it got into their heads to make such a statement—the fact is that, so far as the incidence of tuberculosis in our live stock is concerned, we are very fortunate indeed.
I think, however, that we should make that fact very clear to all the world, and that the Minister should make clear, by evidence in his possession, what we are doing here, and what we hope to do towards the complete eradication of that disease in our live stock. We know that in America, where conditions are different, and where there is a very different climate from ours, they have been able, practically, to eliminate tuberculosis in their cattle, and we must set about dealing with this problem at once. It is a small problem so far as the total numbers of our live stock are concerned, but if we set about it with vigour and purposeful resolution, we can be sure that nobody in this country or outside it will be able to make any allegations against the condition of our live stock. I should like to know from the Minister whether he can give us, either now or in the future, any indication as to what steps he or his Department propose to take to eradicate this disease finally.
I want to support the suggestion made by Senator Baxter. I think it is very appropriate at the moment, as we have been slandered by certain people in another country in regard to the alleged prevalence of this disease in our live stock, that the Minister for Agriculture should repudiate the statements that have been published in the foreign Press, particularly as, not only may we have the question of our live stock raised in the future, but also such questions as inferior butter and bad eggs being sent across to Great Britain. I think, therefore, that it is up to our people here, and to the farmers generally, to see that we are in a position to claim that the agricultural products of this country are unequalled by the produce of any other country in the world. For that reason, I say that Senator Baxter was justified in raising this question, because it is felt all over the country that action should be taken at once to demonstrate to the world that this disease is not so prevalent amongst our live stock as we are told, by the foreign Press, and that we can produce as good agricultural products in this country as in any country in the world.
With regard to the statement made at the English Farmers' Union, which has been referred to by Senator Baxter and Senator McCabe, I do not know that it would be wise to go any further with the business. From what I understand, the majority of the people responsible for that statement never fed an Irish beast in their lives. The national executive of the cattle trade here have repudiated the statement and asked for a withdrawal from the executive of the national union. We do not know what reply we shall get. We have written to them, and the Veterinary College has repudiated the statement. I am very perturbed regarding a statement made by Senator Baxter. Some veterinary surgeons are of the same opinion as Senator Baxter, that we should aim at completely wiping out the disease. I think that that would be an impossible task and there is a danger of our going too far in attempting it. All that those who understand the matter want is that as many precautions as possible be taken to keep the disease in check. According to the statistics, 8 per cent. of our bullocks and heifers are affected, while the number of cows is about 35 per cent. If you wipe out those animals, you will denude the country of cattle. Some of the veterinary surgeons go so far as to say that we should have certain sections of the country closed to all but tubercle-free animals. They tried that in America and I understand that in a few years the disease crept in again. I have been told that the disease spread like wildfire through the cattle and that in a short time there were more tubercular cattle there than before this innovation. I have been told that on reliable authority.
That is all wrong.
I can give an example from my own experience. I keep about six cows to supply milk to my men and butter for the house. When my children were young, there was great fuss about having tuberculin-tested cows. I was not complete master of the house and I had to get in a vet. Of the six cows, two reacted to the test. One of them was an eight-gallon cow and I did not like to sell her. The other was a smaller, thick-set cow and I was very doubtful that she had tuberculosis. I sold her to an Englishman and I told him that she had reacted to the test and was supposed to be affected with tuberculosis. I undertook that, if he found, after a thorough post-mortem examination, she was affected with tuberculosis, I would return him half the price. He had her inspected by a veterinary inspector in England after slaughter. He told me that his own butchers knew as much about tuberculosis as any vet and that they could not find a speck of tuberculosis in the animal. He told me that, although he would have got half the price back if she had been affected.
I went to one of the chief veterinary inspectors here and told him the story. He said: "That could be but, if a vet were lucky, he would find some speck in the joints or somewhere. The tuberculin test is too accurate; it will find a speck no matter where it is." Since then, I am very nervous when I hear people advocating the slaughter of any beast which does not pass the tuberculin test. That would be a very dangerous proceeding and would denude the country of cattle. I read the other day a lecture by an eminent physician at a Red Cross meeting, and he said that very few human beings pass through life without, at some time or other, being affected with tuberculosis. The same thing would, I think, apply to cattle. They might get slightly affected and the affection might pass away. Once they have been affected, they become, more or less, immune to the disease. To advocate the slaughter of every animal that does not pass the tuberculin test is complete nonsense. From the discussion I had with the Minister before I came in, I am sure that compensation will be paid in full without any post-mortem deductions and, therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1) to delete the words "diseased animal" in line 49, page 3, and to substitute instead the words "animal which is diseased or suspected of being diseased."
I do not think that the Seanad will require an elaborate explanation of this amendment. This matter was raised on the Second Stage of the Bill by Senator O'Donovan. It is obvious that, if a veterinary surgeon attending a fair or market suspects that an animal is diseased, he should have power to act rather than having to wait and verify his suspicion.
If this amendment be accepted, it will be necessary to make a few consequential amendments in the sub-section. The sub-section, if amended in this way, would read:—
"Whenever any animal which is diseased or suspected of being diseased is found by a veterinary inspector in a market, fair, sale yard, or other public place, it shall be lawful for the inspector to cause to be seized any animal..."
That word "any" should be replaced by the word "such". In brackets, the following words occur: "whether it is or is not diseased or suspected of being diseased". It will be necessary now to delete the words "or is not", because the phrase should be "whether it is diseased or suspected of being diseased". There are two conditions: the animal is either diseased or suspected of being diseased. Therefore, I suggest that these consequential amendments are required to make the section intelligible if Senator Quirke's amendment be accepted. The Seanad could make the amendments now.
I am afraid the Senator is under a misapprehension. The sub-section as it stands provides that if there is a diseased animal, or an animal suspected of being diseased, then every animal will have to be dealt with.
What has been introduced into the Bill by the amendment is a clause covering any animal which is diseased or suspected of being diseased. There are there, two classes of animals, those diseased and those suspected.
And a third class, contacts.
That is not in the Bill.
That is what we are dealing with next. If an animal is a contact the Bill gives us the necessary power.
In other words, it means that if animal A is diseased or suspected, you are entitled to seize animal B which is neither diseased nor suspected.
Every animal can be seized then.
I take it that the section as it stands means that you can take action wherever any animal is diseased or suspected by a veterinary inspector of being diseased. If you find animal A suspect or diseased you can seize every other animal?
That is the proposal.
That is correct, any animal.
That is what the Minister wants to do.
I did not think that was the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. O'Donovan
I am not making any great point on this now, but on the Second Reading I expressed the fear that injustice might be done to people who were taken to court in connection with diseases other than foot-and-mouth disease. I would not mind if the penalty in respect of foot-and-mouth disease were £500 instead of £100, as provided by the Bill, but in the Principal Act there is provision for the extension of the Orders to other diseases. These other diseases are of much less importance than foot-and-mouth disease. The proposed penalty of £100 is an omnibus penalty for all diseases, and as I pointed out on the Second Reading, different district justices may view prosecutions through different spectacles, and an injustice may be done to some people. I ask the Minister to amend the section so as to provide a lesser penalty for diseases of lesser importance. I do not care how heavy the penalty is where a man deliberately conceals the fact that his stock have foot-and-mouth disease, or who by his negligence, endangers the trade of the country. Tuberculosis is a serious disease, and while we want to see it completely eradicated, it is of much lesser importance than foot-and-mouth disease. Under the section, a person whose stock are infected by tuberculosis is liable to a fine of £100 and some district justices may be inclined to fine him £100 whereas others may think that a nominal sum would meet the case.
On the Second Reading I mentioned sheep scab. I feel that this omnibus penalty of £100 is too high for such a disease, and that the Minister could phrase the section to provide for the maximum penalty for foot-and-mouth disease and to have a lesser penalty for the other disease. I would not like to see a farmer like Senator Counihan fined £100 if I said that he was negligent in reporting a case of tuberculosis. The Senator might not think he was negligent, yet if I brought him to court he would be liable to a fine of £100. I think that figure is far too high and that there would be a grave danger of one district justice regarding a disease as very grave and another taking a lighter view of it. Some people taken to court might be penalised unduly and I feel that the Minister ought to reconsider the point before Report Stage.
What has the Minister to say?
I have nothing to add about this. We dealt with it on the Second Stage. It is a maximum fine and I do not think there is the slightest danger of any district justice fining people unduly for what might be regarded as a lesser disease like sheep scab, swine fever, or tuberculosis. As a matter of fact, it is my experience that our district justices are more inclined to half-crown fines than fines of £100 in those cases. But since I became Minister for Agriculture there have been few severe fines. In a few outstanding cases, where fines were higher than the average, there was invariably a petition. In such a case the Minister dealing with it, if the fine was £30 and the usual fine 30/-, usually mitigated it down to the average fine. It is better to leave the maximum fine for such diseases as it is in the section.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, and Title agreed to.
When will the next Stage be taken?
Now, if the House is agreeable.
Mr. O'Donovan
I wish the Minister would consider a few of the points I have made before we take the next Stage. I do not think there is any necessity to rush this Bill now. There are a few things which the Minister can think over in the meantime.
All right.
Mr. O'Donovan
I would like the Minister to consider the points I raised.
Then, leave it until the next day.
I am agreeable to take it on the next day the Seanad meets.
If it suits the Minister.
That will be in a fortnight's time.