Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 1947

Vol. 34 No. 13

Live Stock (Artificial Insemination) Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

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

In this short Bill, I am seeking powers to enable me to control this new—if I may call it new—method of breeding by artificial insemination. It is not a matter of announcing any policy on this new method. We have not had any demands from any section of farmers for its introduction, but, as we have already one station in County Cork and as there are some prospects that we may have an application for the establishment of another such centre, I thought it necessary to seek the powers I am asking for in this Bill.

These powers briefly are (1) the licensing of all artificial insemination centres, excepting certain herds where the bulls and cows used are in the same private ownership; (2) the right of entry for authorised officers to any premises where there is reason to believe that artificial insemination is carried on; (3) power to prohibit the import or export of semen, except under licence; (4) power to revoke licences, if necessary; (5) power to make regulations the object of which will be to ensure the proper conduct of centres, and requiring that the technical qualifications of the staff, the premises, the equipment, the bulls used and the breeding methods, the records to be kept and the distribution of semen shall be subject to official approval. These powers are the powers contained in similar measures introduced by other Governments.

If any Senator should ask me to make a statement of my own attitude or the attitude of my Department towards this method of breeding, I am afraid I have little to say on the subject. It is only natural that our farmers should not be inclined to raise any fuss about the introduction of this practice because all of us would be more or less inclined to be prejudiced. I must say that I felt somewhat prejudiced on my first visit to the only centre we have here, but, when I went to the place, I changed my mind, and, although I might not be very enthusiastic yet about it, I came away with a view somewhat different from the view I held when going there. We can at any time we think it advisable—we have sufficient information from other countries—devise a scheme, if there is any public demand for it, to encourage these breeding methods, but, as I have already announced, I am not seeking power to devise, and I do not think I should be asked to outline, any such scheme in putting this Bill forward. The Bill merely gives me the right to see to it that, should any one make an application for the establishment of any further centres here, I, as Minister, will have the right to stipulate certain conditions before the applicant is allowed to start.

In any remarks I make on this Bill, I am speaking for myself and not on behalf of the national executive of the live stock trade. I oppose the Bill, and I do so because I believe it is against the natural law. I oppose it because I regard artificial insemination as a demoralising process, which can be described as nothing less than animal masturbation. We will be told that this practice of animal and other insemination is carried on very extensively in Russia and in many other countries, but that is no reason why we should have it here. In many of these countries, it is not only artificially inseminated cows, mares, or sows, they have, but artificially inseminated humans. I understand that in England, without going to Russia at all, there are two or three hospitals or clinics established for the artificial insemination of humans.

If we are considering the Live Stock Bill, could not we keep human beings out of it? If all this has to be answered it will be very awkward. This Bill has nothing to do with human beings at all.

I have seen in this country photographs appearing in English papers of babies produced by artificial insemination in hospitals and clinics in the North of England.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would come to the Bill, which deals only with live stock.

I do not intend to develop the subject but I hope that the farmers will not approve of the practice of artificial insemination. We have got on very well during all the centuries without adopting this process. Individual farmers may carry it on and the Ballyclough centre may be continued but I think it is not right that that action should have the sanction of law.

I leave the Minister to deal with Senator Counihan. As far as I am concerned, I suppose this action is forced upon the Minister. Ministers like to have power when they see new developments that are outside their control. The fact that a co-operative creamery society in the south, the members of which were somewhat better informed than even some well-informed farmers in this country, came to a decision to establish such a centre as this in that district. Whatever Senator Counihan may think, in the animal world the application of science is more important to-day in raising levels than it has ever been. Science is making a very considerable contribution in other countries in every field of animal husbandry. We are more backward and more conservative than they are elsewhere and the fact remains that some of the finest stock in the world have been produced in this way. I have met some of the world's most famous breeders and the information they have on this is very interesting.

As we know, not very much has been done in this respect in this country as yet, and I am afraid that we must admit having very little knowledge of it. As far as the Minister and his Department are concerned, the Minister is taking very wide powers in this Bill. He says in a cautious kind of way that he is only taking power to issue licences but he is also taking power to revoke licences and, of course, he is taking power to make regulations. I agree that the regulations are going to be laid before the House but, in all these Bills, the most forceful part of them is embodied in regulations, so that we will have to watch what these regulations may contain. I do not mean to suggest that the Minister's Department are going to do something that is not sensible, so to speak. Whatever we may say about other powers which the Minister may desire to take or has already taken in other fields, I do say that in regard to the administration of a measure such as this, some provision should be made for the establishment of a consultative body that would help in framing regulations and advise the Minister generally.

The Minister, I am sure, will admit that his Department has very little information on this and very little practical experience. Those of us who have been interesting ourselves in this development for a considerable period realise that that is the truth. Whatever Senator Counihan may think about it, this practice obtains in other countries. It is developing. Considerable developments have taken place in Britain and in Canada. I am not going to travel with Senator Counihan to Russia. We hear quite fantastic stories of what the Russians are doing but we hear that about them in every field. It is true that a considerable amount of knowledge has been gained by what has been done in Britain. There have been successes and there have been failures. Some of these centres have done wonderful things. Some have been failures. That does not come under consideration in this Bill but it is important that if centres are established we should be able to make a success of them and, in so far as the administration of the Act may play any part, I suggest to the Minister that it is very important that in administering it there should be consultation between his Department and the people who are interested in this in a practical way.

I do not think there will be any dissent, except, I suppose, from Senator Counihan, with regard to the passage of the Bill. I believe the Minister is more or less a passenger as far as this Bill is concerned. It has had to come because these people were moving in this particular way and probably others would move. The fact that the private breeder can act on his own, as the Minister has indicated, will I think, relieve certain people of some anxiety they may have with regard to the powers the Minister is seeking in the Bill.

I dislike Government interference where groups of farmers show initiative. On the other hand, I realise that it is possible that if this matter were tackled in an indiscriminate fashion by some farmers it might have rather unsatisfactory results and, therefore, in so far as legislation is necessary in order to have order, I will support it.

Frankly, my approach to this subject is purely materialistic. It seems far-fetched to be in any way concerned in this matter with questions of Christian morality as applied to human beings. I regard it purely as a question of how we can improve our live stock in quality and in reproductive capacity. If by these means we can spread the stock of our selected bulls or sires better than we can by the natural methods of insemination, it is our duty to do so. The world is crying out for more and better goods of every kind. The demand all the time is for more and more agricultural produce and quantity is affected by quality. If by this method you can make better use of your selected herds I think it is your duty to do so and to be in no way concerned with notions and analogies of Christian behaviour. I am disappointed with the Minister's attitude towards this measure. He frankly says he has no information to give the house. Surely the Minister has access to what is being done in other countries. He could have told us that. I understand a great deal has been done in Russia and while the ordinary person may not be able to get the literature the Minister should be able to get it. We are trying to approach this matter in a realistic manner and the Minister should tell us what is being done so that when these regulations come along we may have certain guidance.

Similarly a good deal has been done in England, but the Minister says: "I can give you no help at all in this matter and I want you to give me carte blanche to make regulations as I see fit.” To my mind that is a very dangerous way of legislating in a democratic state. I know I will be told that these regulations are subject to review by Parliament and that in certain conditions they can be annulled, but may I reply that under our present method this precaution is of little worth. What will happen under this system is that a type-script document will be what is called “tabled”: that means it will be put in the library and also recorded in the Order Paper of the House. Possibly at a later stage an Order of this kind may attract the attention of some diligent Senator who may go and root out the one copy that is in the library. But when are we going to get a printed copy of it? It may be months before the printed copy is in our hands and during those months the 21 sitting days within which the Order can be annulled may have elapsed. Does the House know that printed copies of Orders have been received as long as six months after they have been tabled? I received on August 25th an Order that was tabled in January. It is really ridiculous to say that you have officially received notice of the Order when one copy has been put in the library. We really do not get any knowledge of these Orders until we get them in our hands in print. How can you adequately table an amendment when only one copy exists? It may be more appropriate to raise this general principle on the statutory Bill. I only make the point to show the utter inadequacy of this machinery for annulling Government regulations. On this Bill we are told nothing. The Minister is to be given carte blanche without giving us any suggestion whatever as to the lines on which he is going to proceed. He says that its purpose is to avoid dangers. At least we might be told what dangers he foresees. I see one danger, the danger of giving to the veterinary profession a vested interest in this matter. Personally, I fail to see why there should be only highly qualified persons dealing with this business. Is a farmer not allowed to castrate his own stock? So far as I can see this is a quite simple matter and the dangers much less. I hope the Minister is going to resist making it the preserve of the veterinary profession or, if he is going to make it a preserve that he will come along and say so and say that educated people may not deal with their own property as they choose. There again the Minister should have told us what the objections are to any herd owner using this method within his own herd or within the herd of his neighbour. It is simply an extension of the natural method of the ordinary breeding. We are told of dangers of abuse but I fail to see what the dangers are, or what the abuses are likely to be. It is in the interests of the ordinary owner to safeguard against the abuses of his own property. Unless it is such a skilled operation that an ordinary layman cannot perform it, it is wrong to put any profession in a vested position. It may be said that it is against the vested interests of owners of pedigree herds but I think it would be wrong if science has given us this method to restrict its use. I think there should be no obstacle placed in the way of the fullest use of science in this respect. It is an abuse of legislation to come here and simply say: “I am going to wait and see.” At least I hope we will get this assurance that when he has gained a certain amount of experience he will give us an amended Act so that we will know exactly the lines on which we are working.

I will not delay the House for very long. I would like to support Senator Counihan's arguments. I really do not think that the position of the live stock is so perilous in this country that we have to look to Russia or even to England for salvation. During the term of office of another Government I do not think that the late Mr. Patrick Hogan, when he was in charge, advocated this particular way of improving the quality of live stock. I think the State would be much better employed if it helped private producers along lines that the people understand without introducing new fangled methods. It is all very well to talk about the progress of science. Science travels very fast, but there are limits that we should be very careful of reaching. There are scruples that we are not prepared to sacrifice in the interests of science. Until it is definitely established that the improvement of live stock has fallen down along natural lines I would not favour the introduction of the new system.

Senators Counihan and S.T. Ruane must be absolutely enthusiastic about this proposal. Why do they speak against what they mean to favour, seeing that they support a system of control?

The Senator should not be making my speech.

I intervened owing to the remarks of Senator Sir John Keane. It is not the first time in this House that I heard Senator Sir John Keane speaking in absolute ignorance on subjects like this. I think he spoke here in a similar manner when he suggested that everybody should be allowed to intervene in the treatment of live stock. The Senator does not appreciate that outbreaks of disease could be spread by such operations. He went on to express the opinion that it was all moonshine to talk of the effects tuberculous milk could have on the human subject. The Senator seemed to imply that this is a very simple operation, and that it should not be in the hands of skilled people. He says he does not want it to be a closed borough for the veterinary profession.

I do not want anything to be a closed borough for any profession. What are professions for but to study and to be capable of doing things in the interests of the community that people cannot do efficiently themselves. I do not see why anybody should object in such an ignorant manner as Senator Sir John Keane objected to-night. Actually, the application of this method could only apply in order to raise the milk production of our herds. There must be some official control, let it be local or some other authority. Senator Sir John Keane is such a democrat now that he wants things done entirely through local authority. Certainly this cannot be done indiscriminately and ignorantly.

The application of a science like this should not be left promiscuously in the hands of people who do not know anything about it. The line I take is that this is what should have been done by the State and by the Department for the farming population. Co-operative societies have been doing it for their clients in Cork and Limerick. Ballyclough Co-operative Society employs a veterinary surgeon to attend the live stock belonging to its members. That is what the veterinary profession wanted the Department of Agriculture to do for all sections of the farming community, whether they were members of co-operative societies or not. That co-operative society undertook to do what the Department of Agriculture has so far failed to do. Other co-operative societies have veterinary surgeons to look after the animals that their members possess. There are some diseases that no farmer can control. There are diseases which they can help to eradicate, an outstanding one being tuberculosis, of which Senator Sir John Keane on a previous occasion spoke so lightly.

I challenge that I ever did so. I think the Senator accusing me should have the record. I do not think he will find such a wild statement on record.

I did not think the Senator would take the line he has taken. If I thought he was going to adopt such an attitude I would have brought the record.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator says he has not made such a statement.

I do not want to stand on punctilio but I think the statement should be withdrawn. If the Senator accuses me of saying things he ought to have the document to produce in the House.

Withdraw.

I do not want any withdrawal.

I would immediately proceed to withdraw if the Senator had given me a chance. This Bill concerns research. We know enough about this subject to say that it should be controlled. We know as much about it in this country as they do in England or in Russia. There is no need for this House to recommend that the system should not be controlled by the State. There is no need to have it classified as totalitarian. As representatives of the people, we must see that they have control, and that a system that concerns our live stock is not practised by everybody. Co-operative societies have adopted certain methods for the purpose of improving the fertility and productivity of milking stock. It is along such lines the system can be developed in the future, when we have sires of proved parentage, I mean when we have bulls of a certain classification, and not only that, but high quality progeny, in order to raise milk production. As far as sires are concerned, there will be little widespread application of this system. We had talk of interference by Government. The Government consists of heads of the household, elected to look after our affairs. We should be unanimous about that here.

Reverting to Senator Sir John Keane's remarks that there should be no interference, and that this should not be made a closed borough for the veterinary profession, naturally those who are trained in the disease problems of live stock are the people who should be operating the system. It is useless to think that anybody could start fidgeting in a matter of this kind. It must be controlled by people who know what they are doing and who know the danger of spreading disease through ineffective supervision of the operation. The urgent need of the country at the present time is to eliminate disease and that cannot be done by the farmers' own initiative or enthusiasm. It must be tackled cooperatively. The Minister should try to implement quickly the recommendations which were made by the PostWar Planning Committee—and it is well post-war now to do this. It will mean increased expenditure and more veterinary surgeons, but it is in the interests of the agricultural community that that want be supplied.

I welcome the Bill. The only body that can deal with this matter properly and is capable of doing so is the Department of Agriculture. They have all the experts and from years of experience they can see what is badly needed for our live stock. Senators would be astonished to learn the number of our live stock that died within the last 20 or 30 years because of neglect or because of treatment by home doctors. They were not in a position to give the proper treatment, and in many cases the small farmer could not pay the fee for the veterinary surgeon to attend to his herd, with the result that by the end of the year he lost far more than he would if he had a veterinary surgeon near at hand to treat his cattle.

There is no necessity to set up a body to consult with the Minister. If the Minister's veterinary inspectors are not capable of understanding what the people want, there is no necessity to take in a body of farmers, who have not the slightest experience of the work and certainly would not carry it out to the satisfaction of a great many of those concerned. I welcome the Bill for two reasons. One reason which I had in mind some years ago, and certainly a number of co-operative societies have had in mind in the south, is that if we were in a position to have this inspection we would, through time, have also an insurance on the life of the cattle. If they were examined and passed by veterinary surgeons, we could have a comprehensive scheme of insurance so that, in the event of losses being incurred, the unfortunate farmer would have something to get back instead of having nothing to recoup him. Listening to Senator Sir John Keane making an attack, you would not believe that the man knew what he was talking about. I have no hesitation in saying that he did not. He tried to ridicule the Bill and wanted the people to have a better understanding of it before it would be imposed on them. He wanted from the Minister a more elaborate way of explaining to the people how this Bill should work in the future. The Minister has quietly said that he has introduced the Bill and that there will be ample time for discussing it; and I am sure that all owners of live stock will welcome the Bill and give it every support possible, as it is badly needed and is in their own interest.

So far as I know, this is a comparatively modern science. It is in operation in a considerable number of countries in the world, where they may have much better stock than we have. Will there be an international arrangement whereby the semen may be exchanged? Will that be part and parcel of the regulations?

It could not happen without my permission.

Take it that there is a prize bull in some foreign country which is an outstanding figure. If we can get the semen from there, it is likely to help our people and would be valuable in this country. To that extent, I think the Minister must have control. We know that up to a short time ago, inexperienced people who have no knowledge or care in breeding, produced very poor animals. If this will enable us to improve our stock, at what I consider a very simple and certainly not a very costly arrangement, the entire matter should be in the hands of the Minister. I take it that this applies to horses as well as cattle and stock generally. If we are satisfied that there are tubercular-free herds in certain countries and can get the semen from them, is there any international channel to effect the exchange?

I am not interested in whether we are making jobs for veterinary surgeons or anyone else. If they are necessary, by all means have them, but if they can be done without effectively, without injury to the objects we have in mind, then we need not employ them. Senator O'Donovan might have enlightened us a bit more. The Minister certainly did not give us a whole lot of information on this matter. As an ordinary citizen, I see a marvellous opportunity to improve our stock and if an international channel were arranged for swopping semen, it would be a very good thing for our live stock. Consequently, I believe that it should be in the hands of the Minister. Whatever regulation you may make, it must be in his hands and certainly this method cannot be allowed to be used indiscriminately, to the detriment of the whole cattle population of this country.

I am sorry that I humorously prevented Senator O'Donovan from replying to the objections raised by Senator Counihan and Senator Ruane. As Senator O'Donovan rightly pointed out, these two Senators were violently opposed to this method of breeding and also to the Bill. The strange thing is that, without the Bill, anybody could come in here and introduce this method of breeding into any district in the country. It could be made, as it were, a sort of free for all. The Bill, at least, has this to recommend it to the two Senators who are opposed to the system that it gives the Minister power to say whether or not a particular person, society or group of people will be allowed to introduce this practice. Senator Foran was quite right in saying that under this Bill I have the power to admit under licence—just as I have the power to admit a bull under licence—semen from outside this country for the purposes set out.

Some other Senators have spoken quite enthusiastically of this system. I do not know that there is any need to be in any way excited about it. It is true to say that we have not had any practical experience, worth talking of, of this system. We can see from what is on record what the experience in other countries has been. Even if tremendous advantages were to be obtained from this practice, you cannot move out of line completely with public demand. I will admit that if once it is established that benefits can result from this particular practice it would then be the duty of the Department of Agriculture to endeavour to lead those who would be likely to benefit most from it.

I do not profess to know anything about this other than what I have learned from breeding reports. Members of the House can see these for themselves, and can learn from them what has been done in other countries. It would appear from these reports as if the practice has been quite successful, but the problems in those countries may not be just the same as ours. Our live-stock problems are, I suggest, somewhat different from those in most other countries. For that reason, you cannot make comparisons between our conditions here and the conditions in those other countries.

Senator Sir John Keane has expressed some surprise and disappointment that I did not announce some general policy, so far as my Department is concerned, in regard to this whole matter. It is not on a Bill such as this that I would make such an announcement, because really there is nothing in the Bill except the power to see that a number of things cannot happen without my permission as Minister, and that if I get applications from the Mitchelstown society, or from some society in Limerick or some other group of people, I will be able to say to them that they have my permission to go ahead, as well as to stipulate the sort of animals that I think they should use. I can also impose any other conditions which I think are necessary.

Some Senators seem to regard as very objectionable the giving of powers to Ministers and Departments to make regulations. That is the usual sort of approach we find to measures of this kind—how undesirable it is to give Ministers and Departments such powers. Great play is always made on measures of this kind as to the undesirability of doing that. As everybody knows, however, there are a number of matters which arise in the course of legislation where it would be absolutely impossible to set out in any Bill just exactly the way in which you are going to deal with every problem that may arise. I admit, of course, that excellent debating points can be made by suggesting that it is all wrong to give this power to Ministers and Departments, but in reality these points have very little substance in them.

I am not a bit keen on giving professional people all kinds of control where it is not necessary to do so. In the carrying out of this practice at any particular place, it is not necessary that a qualified veterinary surgeon should be there, but it is necessary that a veterinary surgeon should be in charge of each station. Lay assistants can be employed and trained, and are being trained, not only at the one centre that we have but in other places, and their services are being availed of successfully. I do suggest that it is necessary to have a veterinary surgeon in charge of each centre. As to the advantages that may accrue from the development of this practice here—an ordinary man might not be fully appreciative of the dangers that may result from it—I think it is right that we should be careful lest, while trying to do good, harm might result. If, as I said in a few remarks I made in introducing the measure, I should find at any future date that it was desirable to introduce here a scheme by which encouragement might be given by the State to this practice, we can discuss the many other aspects of this matter then, but in this, as I say, there is nothing with any reference to these aspects. I am merely asking for powers which I think I should have and which are enjoyed by every Minister in every other modern country, so far as I know.

Question put and agreed to.

Would the Seanad agree to give me all stages of the Bill now?

Oh, no; I have a lot to say on this yet. The Minister can get them next week. The Minister seems to think that we are unreasonable, but this is a very far-reaching measure and it is only reasonable that we should get time to consider it. In the meantime, would the Minister let us who are interested know what are these publications which deal with this matter, because I should like to get hold of them and read them before we reach the Committee Stage?

We will see about that.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th November.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, November 26th, 1947.
Top
Share