Diseases of Animals (Bovine Tuberculosis) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

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

In introducing this Bill to Dáil Éireann, I stressed that the eradication of bovine tuberculosis would be an arduous, a rather lengthy and a very costly undertaking, but I also emphasised that it can be done — as it has been done in other countries — and that its success is vital to the economic life of our country, which is intimately bound up with the cattle industry. The alternative to success would be a complete disruption of our economy. Success depends on the State's determination to do the job properly, but even more on the willing and practical co-operation of every interest concerned in the cattle industry. In view of the rapid strides that attestation is now making in Britain every farmer here must realise that unless he sets about the elimination of tuberculosis from his cattle now he may be left in a few years' time with stock unfit for the export market.

I have had distributed to Senators a memorandum giving much information on the progress already achieved in eradication with the voluntary co-operation of herd owners throughout the country. This is undoubtedly very considerable, but from the memorandum the House will also be able to appreciate to some extent the vastness of the task that lies ahead. To look at the position as it exists, we must first realise that we have been late in starting our eradication programme and that within a few years' time Britain may have concluded her campaign, which started in 1935. Let us also realise that we have many difficulties here, not the least of which is the shortage of veterinary surgeons in private practice and the rather high incidence of bovine tuberculosis in those districts from which we draw our young stock for rearing elsewhere throughout the country prior to their eventual export on the hoof. A formidable problem that admits of no speedy solution is the building up of healthy replacements for the reactors that will have to be removed in large number. Above all, let us understand that it would be unrealistic to demand of this country that it should complete in a few years a programme which in other wealthier countries has taken 20 years and more to accomplish.

Nevertheless, we need not be pessimistic. In the first place we, in this country, have an incentive towards tuberculosis eradiction which did not operate in other countries and which should spur us on to success more swiftly. In addition to this we have found that whereas the incidence of the disease in cattle generally is in the region of 17 per cent. our young cattle, including stores, are affected only to the overall extent of 7 per cent. In no fewer than 11 counties, mainly those in the west and north-west of the country, the incidence of the disease amongst the younger stock is less than 3 per cent. despite the fact that most of this stock must originally have come up from the rather heavily infected areas.

Over 75,000 herds containing more than 900,000 animals, representing over 20 per cent. of all the cattle in the country, have now been brought under test, very encouraging features of which are that 35 per cent of the herds tested proved to be completely free of the disease and that "free" herds are found even in the most heavily infected parts of the country. Most heartening of all is the evidence that there is a very strong opinion growing up in favour of our eradication effort which leaves little doubt that all the bodies representative of agricultural interests are prepared to do their part in the job. As I have already mentioned, the goodwill of every rural organisation is essential to attain success.

The Bill before the House contains, I think, all the powers — but no more — that a Minister for Agriculture must have in order to press ahead with the eradication campaign, to consolidate the progress that has already been achieved by voluntary effort and to assure our customers that eradication in this country is an effective force. I have, therefore, no hesitation in recommending the Bill to Senators for their favourable consideration.

May I say that I found a very ready acceptance of the Bill when it was introduced in the Dáil? Deputies better informed than I am in regard to the cattle trade and the possibilities for its decay or development directed their criticism rather to the lack of adequate progress in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis than to the terms of the Bill. All seemed to be concerned for the need of the more urgent and widespread action that cannot be taken until the Bill becomes law. The problem is great and urgent. The area of greatest difficulty is the dairying district.

I shall be rather demanding of the creameries in the matter of pasteurisation. I believe that complete pasteurisation will bring about at least 50 per cent. of success. The Bill, I repeat, is an urgent one. It is to be regretted that it comes so late in this legislative session. Because of the possible problem that fact entails, I ask for the agreement of the Seanad to its acceptance.

I take it that the House will welcome the Minister's effort here as the Dáil did when he introduced this Bill last week. It is a very urgent measure and it is very refreshing to hear the Minister speak of our cattle industry and its importance because if that fact had been grasped earlier and had been grasped completely, probably we would not have this major difficulty confronting us to-day. It is a major problem and it will be a very expensive problem, but whatever about the expense, we have got to go on with the work of cleaning our herds of bovine tuberculosis. We must be courageous and virile in the effort. We have no choice in the matter andforce majeure is responsible for the Minister's effort in legislation.

The decision of the British Government and the results that have come from their efforts over the years put us in the position that our markets will not be available to us within a few years, unless we clean our herds too. I am convinced it can be done. I think a greater problem is to stir the farmers into a consciousness of the plight in which they will find themselves and of the economic difficulties they will create for the country, unless they are wide awake and pushful in this effort. Some of our farmers are more backward than others and I suggest to the Minister that this fact must be brought home to the farmers. The Minister has distributed a very informative table which shows the kind of picture we have got. While it is true that the incidence of the disease is relatively low in a number of counties, it is startingly high in some of the others, especially in counties where we have the greatest number of dairy cows. I suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that it should be brought home to the county committees of agriculture in all these counties that the farmers there must step up their efforts and step them up quickly.

It is no harm to draw the attention of the House to some of the figures in the tables. It is significant that in my own county the number of herds for which applications for testing were made was 3,414 and in a much larger county, with a greater number of herds, Tipperary, the number was 2,157. In Tipperary, the number of cows tested was 14,000 and 36 per cent. failed the test. In Cavan, 14,500 cows were tested and 9 per cent. failed. So it is with Limerick and Cork and Waterford. Waterford is especially backward in the number of applications to have herds tested and there is a very high incidence of the disease in the county. So the picture is revealed, if one goes over all the figures.

I suggest to the Minister that, in addition to saying to the county committees of agriculture that they must make the farmers bestir themselves, if the market in Britain is not to be lost — and it does not matter whether the cattle are going to Britain or the European Free Trade Area; the same standards apply — we must make sure that we have healthy cattle available for export and also to keep on our farms at home.

A close investigation of the figures of the disease in certain areas demonstrates that the management of the dairying herds is a vital factor in the incidence of the disease. Bad management, poor feeding, a low level of nutrition and bad or careless housing are all factors which tend to cause and to hold this disease on farms and to propagate it from one generation to another. That is a point which the Minister might consider. It must be realised that no matter what effort is made to eradicate the disease, unless animals are properly fed, maintained and housed, the disease can come back. Cattle standing at a gate — whether in Cavan, Limerick, Tipperary or Kerry — on a cold winter's day, poorly fed, will be bound to develop this disease again. Therefore, we must attack the problem on many fronts.

I have some personal experience of this in my own herd and I know the experience of some of my neighbours who have also been making an effort, on their own over the years, to eradicate the disease. In addition to feeding and housing, on many of our farms there is too much carelessness about the poultry flocks circulating through the cattle herds. That matter should be tackled immediately. Unless we can separate the poultry from where calves, young stock and cows are feeding, the possibilities are still there for the development of this disease again.

Pasteurisation in creameries must come, and must come right away. When I went through the ritual of getting my own herd cleared of the disease, that was the sort of problem I was up against. The co-operative society in our area have taken action and in all their separating stations, they have pasteurisation plants now, so that those of us who are rearing young stock can be happy that disease will not be carried in from some other man's farm through the separated milk which is taken home from the creamery. It will be a difficult problem for many co-operative societies. There will be the problem of credit and there will be other considerations to be taken into account.

However, I am with the Minister that there is no point in encouraging farmers to have their cattle tested and do their utmost to eradicate the disease, if it is to come back again on to the farm from outside sources. If the facts are brought home to our people, they will bestir themselves and will move very quickly. The Minister and every member of the Oireachtas ought to encourage the farmers not to wait until the official comes from the Department to start the test. The farmers ought to get busy on their own, as some of us have been doing over the years, as the sooner they get a healthy stock, the better.

The whole problem of maintaining our live-stock numbers is part of the difficulty. It is easy to say we should kill off the infected animals. If we did that to-morrow, the cattle stocks of the country would be reduced to about 60 per cent. of the present numbers. Where would one get the replacements? Intelligent farming thought should be concentrated on the importance of farmers trying to clear their own herds. It will cost them much more than if it were done by the Department, but the profitability of this decision will not be open to discussion when they have got the stocks clear.

The necessity is there, for those who must wait until the Department inspector makes his tests, to discover the infected animals, have them slaughtered and taken away, and then to find replacements. They can only find rereplacements from healthy stock on farms where attestation has been carried out over a number of years. If that fact is brought home to the farmers, there are many who will not wait for the Department to do the work for them. In my county, quite a number of farmers have been attending to this over many years and our ability to pay the costs is no greater than that of counties where conditions are perhaps three times as good as they are with us.

This is a problem about which we have delayed too long. The Minister's energy and clear-headedness will encourage all of us not to wait until the last moment, until our herds can be proclaimed free of this disease and up to the level of those anywhere else. I agree with the Minister that, however active the Department may be, they cannot achieve this on their own: there must be a consciousness amongst our farmers of the urgency of this problem. It is important to use propaganda and every instrument and vehicle of opinion available to the Minister, to bring home to the farmer that there is not a day to be lost in seeing that this scheme is operated fully.

Mr. O'Donovan

I do not know whether we should sympathise with the Minister or congratulate him on the problem which faces him. However I congratulate him on his appointment and on the success of his previous endeavours in other Ministries. I hope that in this Department I will not have to sympathise with him in connection with this problem of bovine tuberculosis eradication. Senator Baxter has spoken favourably now of this scheme and has pointed out that in the Dáil Deputies were falling over themselves in their enthusiasm for it.

I cannot let this occasion pass without pointing out that, in the 1920s and 1930s, the veterinary profession tried to bring home to the members of the Oireachtas and to the farming community and public generally the great necessity to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. I speak here on behalf of the veterinary profession as well as being a nominee of the Taoiseach in this House. Unfortunately, whenever the veterinary profession put up that case — and I personally put it up here — we were told, not here but privately, that the veterinary surgeons were looking for money for themselves. It may be the usual criticism, but it was a very unfortunate criticism of an endeavour by the profession to improve the live-stock industry.

That occurred in the 1920s when one Government was in power. Very soon after the advent of the Fianna Fáil Government, the same effort was made. I used every endeavour with the Fianna Fáil Executive at that time. We had here an economic war, or what some people have called a comic war. The price of cattle had fallen very low and old cows were brought from the dairying districts to the Dublin market and sold at less than £2 a head. I said it would be better to knock them into a quarry in the dairying district and pay the money for them, as I knew quite well that many of them were affected with bovine tuberculosis.

I agree it was a difficult problem for a Minister who was facing considerable criticism from the Opposition in the Oireachtas and from outside it during that economic war. We have come from the 1920s and 1930s. Wars, international and universal, succeeded that period and we are now in the 1950s. I feel a certain amount of satisfaction now that every member of the vociferous farming community is all out for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and so are the members of both Houses of the Oireachtas. We have evidence of what happened in the Dáil. We have a united Oireachtas and a united organised farming community anxious for the success of this undertaking.

Unfortunately, we have lost 20 years and we are now asked to do in four years what we did not do in 20 years. In America, it has taken longer than 20 years and Britain is not yet at the stage when it could be classified as being free from bovine tuberculosis. Our problem, the problem of the Minister and of the nation, is to do in a short period what it took countries with greater capital a longer period to do. Like Senator Baxter, I would appeal to the organised members of the community as well as to the general body of citizens to realise the importance we attach to the success of this scheme.

I mention every section of the community because farmers, agriculturists and traders generally do not appreciate the danger to human beings — a danger which was evident to those of us who had to study the problem down through the years. There is a big danger to human beings through infection with tuberculosis of bovine origin. As one who has spent practically his whole lifetime — I was paid for it — working in the cause of public health from a veterinary point of view, I would say that the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in animals slaughtered was the greatest cause throughout the years of loss of property to the community. The animals affected with tuberculosis had to be disposed of. That was done in order to save the human population, but we did not do anything to save the live-stock population.

The carcases of animals found to be affected extensively with tuberculosis had to be classed as unfit for human consumption. That is why every citizen of the State should interest himself now in ensuring the success of this scheme. I might say that the incidence of tuberculosis of the udder, cows giving tubercular milk, is not very high. The fact that an animal reacts to tuberculosis does not mean it is a danger to any other animal, but it is always a potential danger. Cows cannot get tuberculosis unless they get the tubercle bacillus. People down the country used to say that a neglected cold would turn to tuberculosis. You cannot get tuberculosis unless the tubercle bacillus gets into the body. The neglected cold causes a lowering of the resistance and the tubercle bacillus in the body then avails of the opportunity.

Cattle will not get tuberculosis from standing in the wet or from being half starved during the winter time. If there is any other animal in the vicinity which is stored or stabled in an infected premises, then, its resistance being lowered, the tubercle bacillus will gain access to the body. Tuberculosis will spread very quickly to animals whose resistance is lowered.

On a previous occasion in this House, I referred to tuberculosis and Senator Baxter warned me — I cannot quote his exact words — not to foul my own nest. The point was that we should not publicise the fact that our cattle had tuberculosis, but tuberculosis was all over the world and it was higher in England than here. We see now, as those of us who were engaged in the cattle trade and in the public health service at that time saw, that the incidence of tuberculosis in the western areas was very slight. It is peculiar that should be so. The point is that they lead a more outdoor life.

Sheep are not tuberculosis resistant, but if I were to hear of a case of tuberculosis in sheep in Cork, I would go down and see it because it is so rare. The sheep is not resistant to tuberculosis but it leads an open-air life. That means that we have practically no tubercular sheep. We all know the West of Ireland was free from tuberculosis and that was our claim at the time, but nobody would listen to us when we said that we should proceed with the eradication of this disease from our stock. We are faced now with making a success of the scheme within a very short period of time and to do work we could have been doing over the past 30 years.

It is unfortunate that we did not get this memorandum until we were coming into the Seanad this evening. I had not seen it before. It does not give us much opportunity to study the figures. Senator Baxter already referred to the high incidence of tuberculosis in the dairying districts. These figures prove the high incidence in the dairying districts and the low incidence in the western areas. I think the figure for Galway is 4 per cent. One might say that the western districts are practically free from tuberculosis. It will still require a great deal of care and supervision to ensure that it does not increase.

Now for some criticism of the scheme. We have got to tackle the disease in the areas in which the incidence is high, as well as in the districts in which it is very low. I will boldly say that a lot of the money spent up to the present has been wasted. People were saying that the veterinary profession were looking for money for themselves when they were trying to get everybody interested in the eradication of tuberculosis. Now I can say that tens of thousands of pounds have been wasted. I will put it this way: there was a great response from the farming community to the central authority, and cattle were tested here, there and everywhere throughout the country. The owner was told what cattle reacted, but in a couple of days' time, he did not know which cow was a reactor and all those reactors were left there. It does not mean that because they were reactors there was a danger of their spreading the disease. They might not have had it in a vigorous form, but they were left there. The farmers lost interest when they saw all this work had been done for nothing. The veterinary surgeon was paid for doing it and nothing more was done.

Wherever he gets the money, the Minister will have to see to this matter. He must get veterinary surgeons enough to do the work, and if there is a scarcity, he could get whole-time staff. He will get them if he pays them satisfactorily and does not let them emigrate all over the world. Some have graduated yesterday or to-day in the veterinary college, and they will leave the country, if they get better opportunities of making a livelihood elsewhere. This is a problem which he ought to try to solve, the problem of maintaining these graduates in their own country and even in the whole-time staff of the Department.

This matter was discussed in the Dáil, and I have read the Dáil debate on it. You have to do something in the areas in which the incidence of the disease is highest, because the young stock, some of them only dropped calves, come from those districts into the areas which we are now endeavouring to classify as tuberculosis free areas. From Limerick and Kerry, Tipperary and North Cork, dropped calves come actually to the Dublin market. From that up to six months and even yearlings, they go out of those dairying districts where they are produced and reared in the initial stages, and go through Clare and Galway and into Sligo. That must be stopped, because you will then have the tuberculosis infection being carried into those districts which we are trying to clear completely of the infection. We cannot have untested young stock or stores or any stock going to those areas from which we are trying to eradicate the disease completely. It is not easy to do that, unless we have a scheme in operation in the areas of high incidence. That means that you have to do something more than simply wait until we have the other areas clear and then attack Limerick, Kerry, North Cork, or all Cork for that matter, which is a dairying district.

It is not easy for me to suggest what should be done there; but I come now to the Bovine Tuberculosis Order for which some sum of money has been advanced for the purpose of paying full compensation for any animals slaughtered under that Order. Again I say that it is no good unless we amend the Order, because the number of cases that can be dealt with under the Order is too restricted. I would quote the case occurring in Dublin cattle market to-day where a beast was seen with tuberculosis glands on the side of the head, some of them suppurated, and a tubercular gland on his shoulder. We could not take that beast under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order. The Order has a definition about clinical symptoms of tuberculosis, but the animal must also have a chronic cough, and this beast had no cough.

I will put this point to the Minister, that the scope of the Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926, which is not amended by this vote of money to pay full compensation, will not allow much work to be done in the non-intensive areas, unless we can get the Order amended and thereby acquire a greater number of animals which are obviously a danger in the spreading of the disease, but which cannot be dealt with under the existing Order.

I will not at this stage refer to the sections of the Bill, because they are mainly giving the Minister power to make Orders and the whole implementation of the Bill will be made effective by what all those Orders provide. It is only an empowering Act, enabling the Minister to make Orders and it is from the substance of those Orders that results will materialise. There is one point that I would ask the Minister to look into before the Committee Stage, that is, the marginal note to Section 3. It says: "Slaughter and compensation in areas other than clearance and accredited areas." The text of Section 3 does not, to me, indicate that the marginal note applies there. I just cannot follow it, and I bring the attention of the Minister to the point. It is probably right.

There are other items in the text of the Bill which I should like to discuss when we come to committee. In connection with pasteurisation, during the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 1941, the milk going from several creameries was rendered safe from the spread of foot and mouth disease. The same thing could apply so far as precautions against the spread of tuberculosis are concerned by the same means, that is, the insertion of the steam pipe into the tank before the milk is returned to the various farmers. There is no doubt that if the milk of my cows is tuberculous and I bring this milk to the creamery, then the separated cream is subsequently pasteurised, but the milk from my cows is mixed up with milk from other herds of men who are trying to clear their herds of tuberculosis, so the mixing of the milk is just giving a nice mixture of tubercle bacilli back to the various suppliers to the creamery.

I thought the pasteurisation of creamery milk had gone ahead and was practically completed now. We heard a lot of talk about pasteurisation from the previous Minister. Even if we could not get pasteurisation plants, we could at least get a simpler method than the elaborate type of plant which we have, for instance, for the citizens of Dublin. It would be worth while devising a steam jet to be placed in the milk before going back for distribution to the suppliers to the creamery. All that is necessary is to raise the temperature sufficiently high for a very short period. The modern system is H.T.S.T. — high temperature and short time. It would be a good thing if separated milk were brought to a sufficient temperature for a very short time. You need not worry about classifying it as pasteurised milk.

I appeal to the Minister to get that done in every creamery if he cannot get the creameries or co-operatives to provide pasteurisation plants as quickly as he would like them to do so. I would remind the Seanad that it was done in the case of foot and mouth disease. The same thing could be done to-morrow to prevent the spread of tuberculosis by heating the milk simply by inserting a steam pipe and raising the temperature sufficiently high to kill the tubercule bacilli. That is the main thing to do. If we could kill all the tubercule bacilli, we would eradicate tuberculosis, because you cannot have tuberculosis without the bacilli.

There has been much talk of incentives. The dairy farmers want an incentive to rid their animals of tuberculosis. "Incentive" means compensation and "compensation" can be interpreted as repayment for consequent loss in respect of animals. At this hour of the day, incentives should be forgotten. This matter affects every citizen because it is in everybody's interests that this disease should be eradicated. If we are looking for incentives for this and for that, which mean monetary support, it is not a good thing.

Let every member of the Oireachtas and every public authority advertise and publicise and do everything possible to make known the urgent necessity of doing now what should have been begun 20 years ago and which would now be nearing conclusion. The enthusiasm should be all the greater now to do everything in our power to get everybody in the country to realise that this matter is urgent and one in respect of which we should not be looking for incentives.

The dairyman may say: "Well, the store cattle exporters should pay for this as they are the people who will benefit." That sort of criticism will not get us anywhere. Everybody should get going full steam ahead in this regard. Many farmers and many members of the community were not thinking of incentives for this and for that when they were fighting collectively for the freedom of our country. We should not look for incentives now in this important matter which affects all our interests, but, instead, we should see to it that the job is done within the next four or five years because in three years' time we shall be in a difficult position so far as the British market is concerned.

Like Senator O'Donovan, I wish to welcome the speed with which the Minister introduced this Bill. It was begun in the other House only last Thursday and only this morning the memorandum in regard to the eradication of tuberculosis was put into the hands of Senators.

I also want to join with Senator O'Donovan in congratulating the previous Minister on his efforts in regard to this scourge of the Irish cattle trade. I believe the Minister was right in saying that the first thing to be tackled is the pasteurisation of milk. Some years ago, the then Minister made funds available towards half the cost of the equipment for the pasteurisation of milk in creameries. All forms of exhortations were made to the creameries to install pasteurisation plants immediately. However, according to this memorandum, it would appear that only about one-third of the total number of creameries installed such plants.

On page 4 of the memorandum, it is mentioned that there are 594 registered creamery premises throughout the country and that, of these, 203 — 59 creameries and 144 cream-separating stations — are now equipped with the necessary plant. There is a certain ambiguity there. The figure was not broken down in the first case, but was given as a total while in the second case, it was broken down. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many of the balance of the figure of two-thirds are creameries and how many are cream-separating stations.

We must also remember that pasteurising will cost a great deal of money. At a rough guess, I would say that probably 5 per cent. of the bacon produced in this country has to be destroyed because it is affected by tuberculosis. Milk is the cause of that. The incidence of tuberculosis in pigs in western areas is very low indeed. The Minister might consider that as a balancing factor in respect of the cost of tuberculosis eradication.

I realise that difficulty is experienced in finding money for schemes. Recently the Minister said a sum of £250,000 was being made available by the Minister for Finance to develop European markets for beef, lamb, and so on. That is desirable. However, if it has been possible to find money for such a purpose, I believe money must be found in respect of the British cattle market. The foreign markets are all right, but Britain is a day to day customer and we must safeguard the market which is nearest to us.

I discussed this matter with a person who engaged in a test in regard to bovine tuberculosis eradication on his own farm. I was given to understand that a number of farmers in Tipperary and Waterford are now boiling the skimmed milk coming back from the creameries because they found that among their animals which they tested there were many cases of 100 per cent. reactors before they started boiling the skimmed milk. That bears out Senator O'Donovan's point that it is all-important to proceed with this matter. If necessary, the Minister should take powers to compel creameries to pasteurise milk as otherwise any good which this scheme may do will be nullified.

I support Senator O'Donovan's contention that the full scheme ought to be put into operation all over the country. It is entirely a voluntary scheme. I do not see why everyone all over the country who wants to eradicate bovine tuberculosis should not enjoy the same facilities and grants as they might enjoy otherwise. It is only in that way we will get our herds free from tuberculosis in a short time.

I also want to say that I have been told things are going more quickly in England than was expected and we may find that by the year 1960 or 1961, there will be very little market in Britain except for cattle which have been subjected to test. I know that there is this 14-day test and that the animals can be quarantined in England for 60 days. However, that is a very expensive procedure and would probably bear heavily on our people at home.

The farmers who have done this test in my county and those who have done it in Senator Baxter's county find that they cannot ship their cattle because no transport is available. If the cattle have been subjected to the three tests and declared free from bovine tuberculosis, they cannot be shipped by public transport or in boats. There is no way I know of to get accredited herds out of the country from places such as, say, South Tipperary. If such facilities are not made available, will not the people in Tipperary, Cavan and other counties come to the conclusion that it is not worth while having their herds free from tuberculosis when there is no way of sending them out of the country?

Some scheme ought to be drawn up whereby the meat factories that take reactors might pay a small bonus to encourage farmers to sell their reactors and therefore clean their herds. I want to make what I believe is a practical suggestion. The Minister should make grants available for the erection of, or encourage county committees of agriculture to erect, in various parts of the country, what are known as cattle races. These are long, narrow passages about 2 ft. 4 ins. wide into which the cattle can be driven for vaccination and examination by veterinary officers. By using these races, veterinary officers could probably deal with about ten times as many animals per day as they could if the animals have to be caught in the ordinary way.

I am also informed by this person who has engaged in the eradication of tuberculosis for some three years past that, in the case of cattle which are manhandled, the number of reactors far exceeds that which results when the cattle are driven into these long passages with a gate at either end. I know scientific people may say that is not so, but I have been informed that where the animals are tested without being put into these cattle races, the percentage of reactors is greater than when they are put into cattle races.

This is a big problem for the Government and also for the veterinary surgeons. I should also like to suggest that, if these centres were there, final year veterinary students and final year students of the agricultural colleges could be brought along to assist the veterinary surgeons in stamping and earmarking these cattle. These young men would become proficient and it would be a great advantage to them when they go into their professions as agricultural instructors or veterinary surgeons to have had experience in this matter, which will be all-important for our live-stock trade.

I want to compliment the Minister on the despatch with which he has put this legislation through the other House. I hope he will get it through this House with the same despatch. In conclusion, I reiterate that I believe the Minister must take compulsory powers with regard to the pasteurisation of milk. If he does not do so, tuberculosis will spread all over the country. That is very pertinent for people who, like the Minister and myself, come from the southern portion of the country. This question of skim milk affected by tuberculosis may make it almost impossible for us to eradicate the disease. I wish this measure the success it deserves.

I rise to speak as one having experience in the dairying area of Limerick where I have come up against this problem in a most practical way. In the course of helping a brother of mine, a young farmer endeavouring to build up a herd, we found, on testing, that 60 per cent. reacted. Yet we were perfectly satisfied that there was nothing approaching a clinical case in that herd. It was probably due to infection through skim milk at the calf stage. Last year, that herd had an average, from old cows, of 800 gallons. This year, we expect it will be up to 850 gallons. I should be very reluctant to see such foundation stock interfered with, at least until there is any suspicion they are clinical cases.

While I agree with the desirability of eliminating the disease, I am a little alarmed at the speed and urgency demanded at present. It puts the store trade on a pedestal in this country. It seems to raise it up as the salvation of the country at a time when there is pessimism—which I am glad the Minister does not share—about our future as a dairying country. I believe that a companion scheme to raise our milk yields should go with the scheme to eradicate tuberculosis.

I for one—and I think I speak for most Limerick farmers and Cork farmers as well—am not enamoured of the prospect of replacements coming down to us from Mayo and Sligo. The foundation cattle in those counties already suffered too much in the '30s through the influence of the Scotch beef bulls. They recovered from it recently. They are recovering to such an extent that, in Kilmallock, the average yield in the cow testing last year was 720 gallons, a yield which is actually higher than that in England at present, despite the fact that the cows in Kilmallock get, at most, a supply of one cwt. of concentrates per year, whereas, in England, the cows get a minimum of 12 cwt.

There is valuable breeding stock in the dairying areas and it must not be sacrificed on any account for the purpose of eradicating tuberculosis. I believe that over a number of years, probably six or seven years, by pasteurisation, by segregation and other methods that any intelligent farmer can apply, these stocks will become tuberculosis free and conserved as foundation stocks.

I would ask the Minister to give some help and consideration to schemes to raise our milk yields. It is only by getting away from our 400-gallon average and getting up to the 600- or 700-gallon yield, of which we are quite capable, that we can enter into the dairying market with our produce. Our total production of milk at present, if converted into dairying products, would be only one-sixth of the amount of milk used for dairying products in England. In other words, we have ample scope for expansion.

To come back to the store trade, I wonder where are we going to supply our own grazing requirements if we are to accede to the request to send our cattle to England at two or two and a half years rather than at three or three and a half years. That will reduce our potential substantially, probably 30 or 40 per cent. We therefore have a problem to face in regard to what we are going to do with our surplus grass. As well as that, we have the desire to finish out our products and to get into the dressed-meat trade. The Ibec report of 1952, which gave a very comprehensive survey of our economy, was most critical of sending out cattle in an unfinished condition, and it calculated that by processing meat at home its gross value would be increased by 50 per cent. in the various by-products that follow.

I do know that the meat factories failed to be competitive over the last few years, but then I ask the question: did they have any protection or were there any efforts to help them in view of the advantage they were conferring on our economy by processing the raw material? All problems go together. I see the tuberculosis scheme as part of the whole problem, but by no means the whole problem. I see the store trade as at present, an essential but a rather undesirable feature of our agricultural economy. I would far more wish that in 1925 we had gone the road with New Zealand and gone whole hog for dairying.

If we are to take stock, not of the incidence of bovine tuberculosis, but of the alarming emigration report that came out a little over a year ago, we find that the solution to the emigration problem is not to be found in the export of stores to England. It is rather to be found in processing whatever we can at home and in developing our dairying industry to the full. Remember that the total meat produced, while we may think it is a colossal amount, is actually only 6 per cent. of the total amount of meat consumed in England in a year. Putting it another way, it is only the amount of meat consumed in the United States of America by the population increase in any one year.

These are the facts and figures from the Ibec report. We should think of the problem as a complete whole and keep before us the major problem for this country, which is the solution of our emigration problem and the solution of that problem will be found more in making this a land of milk and honey, rather than a land about which it can be written: The silence of unlaboured fields, lies like a judgment on the air.

I would like to start by welcoming not alone the Minister but also the tone in which he introduced this Bill. It was clear from his speech that he means business— and that is very refreshing—in relation to this whole problem which, as Senator O'Donovan said, has really been neglected for 30 years. I could not help remembering that on one or two previous occasions when I heard this matter discussed in this House, although the Minister's predecessor was concerned about the question, I thought he tended to lay too much stress on the word "voluntary". I notice that he has left the impression on Senator Burke that the scheme is "all voluntary" which, of course, it is not, I am glad to say. It is clear from Section 2, for instance, that the power of making Orders includes the power "to require" the carrying out of tests and so on. If it was to be "all voluntary", I think that many of us would be far more critical of it than we are of it in its present form.

I remember also that on previous occasions when the matter was discussed, and notably when Senator Sheridan introduced a motion on the question, it seemed to me that the Seanad was not as urgently concerned about the problem as it appears to be to-day. In fact, if you read the Official Reports, you get the impression that that whole debate was rather hustled through, and the sense of urgency put before the Seanad by the proposer and seconder of the motion, and by one or two others, was not then widely shared.

Since then, things have been moving and I welcome this Bill as an earnest of the intentions of the Government and of the Minister to take effective and swift action. This memorandum which has just been handed to us contains many items which are encouraging, and which show that at least some of the preliminary work has been done. It is not unsatsfactory to see, on page 2, that over 30 per cent. of all the herd owners have applied under the scheme. I think that is an encouraging beginning, but, quite clearly, it cannot be considered as much more than a beginning. Also, the overall incidence of the disease is put at slightly less than 17 per cent. While that is high, it does show that the problem can be coped with, and I believe that it will be coped with under the present Bill.

I welcome also what is mentioned on page 3, that it has been decided to extend the purchase and removal of reactors by the Department. That clearly is a very important step forward and I notice that at the end of that paragraph the phrase is used: "This programme will start in the very near future." I intended to ask the Minister, on reading this memorandum, to be more explicit about what is meant by "the very near future", but I feel from what he has said that it means precisely that, the very near future, and that he will not allow much time to pass before implementing this.

On page 4 of the memorandum, there is a paragraph relating to pasteurisation of separated milk, about which a good deal has been said. One of the writers in the farming page of theIrish Times not very long ago referred to the failure to pasteurise separated milk as a “tuberculosis propagation scheme”. I do not think that phrase is too strong, because it is obvious, as several Senators have said, that it is folly to allow the milk from one cow to infect perhaps all the separated milk or skim milk returned from the creamery. It is the height of folly and almost certainly one of the major factors in spreading bovine tuberculosis. I am glad the Minister recognises that. I think I am quoting him correctly when I say that he told us here to-day that if we can deal with this aspect, we shall have dealt with 50 per cent. of the existing problem.

Senator Burke has said that the figures given here in this paragraph are a little disappointing. We are told that of 594 registered creamery premises throughout the country, only 203 are equipped with the necessary pasteurising plant. That is a disappointing figure. I do not know how that would relate to the actual volume of milk handled. Some of the creameries which have not got pasteurisation may be very small creameries. However, the figure as it stands is a disquieting one.

I was very much struck, and I am sure the Minister was, by the very practical suggestion made by Senator O'Donovan, that what we want is to render the milk safe, and that that is a very immediate need. As he said, that can be done in a relatively simple way, as was done in the case of foot and mouth disease. It does not really matter whether you are entitled to use the word pasteurisation or sterilisation in relation to this milk—what we want is that it be rendered safe, now, quickly. Later on, we can deal progressively with the problem of seeing that all this milk is pasteurised. Obviously it is of great and immediate importance to introduce some such practical scheme as that suggested by Senator O'Donovan, to see to it that, at once, all this milk is rendered safe, through his suggested method or by some similar method.

I put the point to him and to the Minister that it might entail some amendment of Section 4 of the Bill itself, in order to give the Minister power, not merely "to make regulations" to see that this milk be "pasteurised", but, perhaps under another related paragraph, to see that where it cannot be immediately pasteurised, it should at least be rendered safe. That additional power might be useful, because as the Bill stands the Minister has power to make regulations only to see that the milk is pasteurised.

Several Senators referred to the past history of this problem. Senator O'Donovan spoke of the danger to human health as well as to cattle health—that sometimes we forget one and concentrate on the other, whereas the two are interconnected. I should like to quote from a memorandum drawn up by one of the several women's organisations which for long years have been battling to have our milk supplies made safe. This particular one, the Irish Housewives Association, said, as far back as 1943—

"On inquiring from the Corporation School Meals Committee, we learned that the committee advertise every year for supplies of milk to schools and that ‘usually' the ‘cheapest' tender is accepted. This explains why no T.T. milk is distributed to school children. Our inquiry from schools had revealed that three schools provided T.T. milk, but according to the Corporation School Meals Committee not a single tender was received last October from any highest grade milk producer. The bulk of the milk supplied to schools is pasteurised, but a small proportion is just ‘ordinary' milk.

This investigation showed that neither the corporation (representing the Dublin ratepayers) nor the State (which pays half the expense on school-meals) are willing to pay enough to give the best and safest milk to school children. It also gave us a further proof that T.T. milk production cannot but diminish as long as it gets no encouragement from local or State authorities.

We also learned that T.B. reactors are sold in the open market week after week, and that on the other hand the cattle exported from Éire regularly are ‘the pick of our live stock, the ones we should be breeding from'."

In 1945, the Milk Tribunal was set up and took evidence from a wide number of organisations, including this Irish Housewives Association, which submitted the following in its evidence to them:—

"An economic reason was also put forward: cowkeepers and dairymen complain that compensation for slaughter of cows in the building of a T.T. herd is not adequate, and that veterinary fees for regular testing of cows are a heavy burden. We would like to suggest:—

(i) that inquiries be made as to what would be adequate compensation for slaughter; and

(ii) that the tuberculin test be a State service, the cost to be borne by the State—or that only a nominal fee be charged.

When we put these suggestions to the Minister for Public Health (November, 1942)——"

that is now 15 years ago

"——we were told that the Department had no money at its disposal for such a scheme. But, as we pointed out then, if money can be found to maintain the high standard of Irish cattle (in compensating for and replacing the thousands slaughtered during a foot and mouth epidemic), surely it could also be found to build up a high standard of health in the Irish people."

That was part of the evidence submitted to the tribunal in 1945. Its report —the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Milk Supply for the Dublin Sale District—which was issued in December, 1946, made a specific recommendation about bovine tuberculosis. It is Recommendation 319:—

"We recommend the planned eradication of bovine tuberculosis in the production district by the application of one or more of the well-recognised methods of bringing this about. We recognise that the production district presents certain special difficulties in relation to eradication unless the scheme adopted be part of a general scheme for the eradication of the disease throughout the country. The measures to be taken should be such as to achieve appreciable results in a period of not more than ten years."

I have indicated the kind of evidence which was being given to this tribunal and here is the kind of recommendation which was being made by this tribunal. The evidence was submitted during 1945 and 1946. The report was finished at the end of 1946, and it held out a strong hope that if active steps were taken in 1946, the problem would be solved within about ten years. This is 1957 and I cannot help looking back to that time and wondering why that kind of advice was not taken.

Senator O'Donovan has adverted to the fact that, in the 1920s and 1930s, the various Governments failed to take action. I remember when I was a member of the Anti-Tuberculosis League— which failed effectively to come into independent being, and became on second thoughts a section of the Irish Red Cross—the veterinary members of that Anti-Tuberculosis Section of the Red Cross were vehement in their demand, all through the 1940s, for an active coping with this problem. They were vehement, but they were virtually ignored.

I think I should say that Senator O'Donovan himself was one of the few people in political life at that time who throughout the period was very vigorous in advocating the bringing in of some such scheme as this which has come now at long last. He was inhibited to-day, of course, from indicating the fact that he found it just as hard to move the Fianna Fáil Government as to move the Fine Gael Government. I suppose it might be fair to say that he had more leverage over the Fianna Fáil Government; yet though, as he told us in his speech to-day, he raised the matter again and again on the Party Executive, it was without avail. He mentioned that he pressed for it also at the time of the economic war, and he made it very clear to us, as should have been seen at the time, that we missed then a golden opportunity for dealing with the whole question of bovine tuberculosis. The lamentable fact is that it did not become a subject of Government Party political concern until it could be shown that big money was going to be lost if we did not do something about it.

I am afraid that happens all too often. If you can prove that the health of school children or of the people is involved, politicians say: "Yes; we are all sympathetic but the money cannot be found". If you can prove you are going to damage the cattle trade, then you will find that the money somehow or other is there. That sort of thing might induce a certain spirit of cynicism. I think it would be a pity if it did, but, in welcoming this new sense of urgency, deriving—let us face the fact—from the recent action taken by the British Government, I should like to point to the fact that we have been very late. We have been caught napping because of our preoccupation with cash, money, profits and not sufficiently with the health of our people.

Senator O'Donovan rightly reminded us that bovine tuberculosis also constitutes a potential "danger to the human subject". I just want to remind the House that, when it seemed to constitute a danger to the human subject only and not to the cattle trade, it was regarded as a matter of relative unimportance, not half as important as the foot and mouth disease question. The money "could not be found" to compensate for slaughter, as it is now being found after all, because now the British market is going to close to us unless we eradicate tuberculosis from our cattle.

There is a lesson to us in that which relates not only to the question of bovine tuberculosis. I notice in this regard that nobody says we should compensate only farmers with farms having a valuation of under £50 or farmers with a family income of less than £600 a year. There is no talk about "self-reliance", about relying on the farmers to "do their duty", and "leaving it to the individual". I believe we all recognise now that in this particular instance community interest is deeply involved and, therefore, we demand—as I wish we would more often in other fields—community action. We are not content to leave it to the "self-reliance" of individuals many of whom will respond but whose efforts in that respect may well be subsequently ruined by those who do not respond. We are getting, under this Bill, community action for the protection of the community. It is now welcomed by everyone, although some of us would like to have seen it occurring 15 or 20 years ago.

I should now like to say something about one or two points in the Bill itself. I notice that in Section 2, sub-section (1), paragraph (iii) power is given to make regulations for "the prohibition or restriction of the movement of animals into, out of, through or within an area". There are two points I should like to make and one is related to the point made by Senator O'Donovan who used words to the effect that it is criminal folly to allow the movement of young stock in and out of affected areas.

Mr. O'Donovan

In.

I should like to ask the Minister whether the power under this paragraph will be used by him to prevent such young cattle from being moved into areas which are not tuberculosis free. The other point I want to make is that when the Minister makes his regulations prohibiting or restricting the movement of animals, how is he going to set about seeing that his regulations are observed? If we read our newspapers, we notice that a great number of pig producers are to-day ignoring their duty not to move animals. How is the Minister going to deal with such people in relation to these new regulations? In other words, what teeth is the Minister going to put in his powers? How is he going to see to it that his powers will not remain a dead letter and his regulations remain ignored?

The next point I want to make is related to Section 4, about which I have said something already, which gives the Minister power, at last, to make regulations to see to it that separated milk is pasteurised. I do not want to dwell at length on this point, but this is incredibly late, and it seems fantastic that we should have spent so much money eradicating reactors and allow this source of infection to remain and respread the disease. The Minister is aware of that. I have already pointed out that fact. Therefore, I will pass from that point to the next, which I want to make in relation to Section 6.

Section 6, sub-section (2), paragraph (b), says:—

"... notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, the compensation shall not exceed such limit as may from time to time be determined by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance."

I believe that that is a dangerous clause. I believe it would be far better even to pay too much compensation and be sure of getting rid of tubercular cattle than to be stingy at the wrong moment and risk the possibility that such cattle might remain in the herd and would not be eradicated. If the Bill gives the Minister the power to see to it that compensation shall be "at the market value" of the animal or "as fixed by a valuer", as stated in paragraph (a), I do not see why it is that the Minister requires the further safeguarding power that "the compensation shall not exceed such limit as may from time to time be determined by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance".

I am afraid of that clause, because I know that Ministers for Finance are all alike when they are asked: "Do you think that such and such a sum to be paid for cattle at such and such a date is too much, or do you think it is a fair price?" A Minister for Finance, if consulted, will always say it is too much, will always reduce the price and try to save a few pounds here and there. This is not a matter in which we want to save a few pounds. It would be far better to pay a bit too much, with the safeguard you already have that you are paying only "the market value", which has to be "agreed between the Minister and the owner". You do not require the additional safeguard that there shall be "a limit with the consent of the Minister for Finance". I believe that that is dangerous.

The next paragraph (c) in the same sub-section says:—

"... the fees of any such valuer shall, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance with respect to their amount, be paid by the Minister."

I welcome that paragraph in that it agrees that the fees of the valuer shall be paid by the Minister. That is excellent, but I should like to see rejected the parenthesis which says that the fees shall be "subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance with respect to their amount". Do we really want that safeguarding clause? We have just gone to the trouble earlier to-day of putting through an entire Bill for the purpose of removing such a safeguarding clause in relation to Defence Forces pensions, because it was found in practice that it was extremely complicated and expensive to have to refer to the Minister for Finance, back and forth. I think we are all confident here that the fees to be paid in such circumstances by the Minister for Agriculture to the valuer, would be correct fees, without having to run to the Minister for Finance, who certainly does not want to be consulted, with respect to their amount. I should like to see that paragraph amended in that particular way, while welcoming the fact that the Minister is going to pay the valuer's fees.

Paragraph (d)—this is the last point I want to make in relation to this Bill— says that:—

"... the Minister shall be entitled to withhold the compensation wholly or partially, where, in the judgment of the Minister, the owner, or the person having charge, of the animal has been guilty in relation to the animal of an offence against the Principal Act or otherwise has not taken adequate precautions to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis."

Two points arise there. One, is there any appeal under this paragraph against the judgment of the Minister? Is there any way by which an owner having been deprived of the compensation either wholly or in part can appeal against this judgment of the Minister, the Minister having decided that he thinks the owner has been guilty in relation to the animal either of "an offence" or of "not having taken adequate precautions" to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis? That last phrase could cover a multitude of sins. It could cover, for instance, giving to calves unpasteurised skimmed milk. The farmer who does that has presumably not "taken adequate precautions". Is he on that account, under this paragraph, liable to be deprived in part or fully of the compensation? I do not think that that is very likely, but power is given to the Minister without appeal under this paragraph. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

I would conclude, in welcoming this Bill, by saying that both the Bill and the Minister's introduction of it indicate an intention to take vigorous and quick action on this matter, action that we all here now welcome. I believe that the farmers have had time enough to wake up to the urgency of this problem, and many of them have done so. The best farmers in the country have. But the sluggards, those who are still asleep, must be vigorously helped to wake up by the Minister with the powers given to him under this Bill. Tuberculosis in cattle should not be a voluntary disease, to be accepted or combated by individual farmers. It should be a prohibited disease, and I believe that that is the intention of this Bill. It is for that reason that I welcome it wholeheartedly.

I welcome this Bill as I am very much alive to its urgency and its importance for the live-stock trade. I fully realise the magnitude of the problem that the Minister has to face; in fact, it is one of the biggest tasks that any Minister for Agriculture has ever had to undertake. Listening to Senator O'Donovan, I feel it is a pity that the Governments in power in the 20s and the 30s turned a deaf ear to his plea that this scheme should be introduced at that time. No doubt, in the middle 30s, the Government in power during the economic war were busy eliminating the live-stock trade. But that is past history.

Mr. O'Donovan

If it is past, do not be introducing it again.

You introduced it. I assure the Minister that as far as the Irish live-stock traders are concerned, he will get all the co-operation possible, and I hope that the farmers whose survival depends on the success of this scheme will give him every help in its speedy implementation. I should also like an appeal to be made to such organisations as the N.F.A. and Macra na Feirme, which have large memberships, to co-operate to the best of their ability and in any way they can to help out this scheme.

I am glad that the Minister stresses the importance of intensifying the scheme for pasteurising creamery milk. There is no doubt that there is great danger of contamination from infected creamery milk going back to calves.

As we all know, it is a medical fact that no human being is born with tuberculosis. It is in environment and food, or lack of food, in their young days that the responsibility lies in many cases for tuberculosis. That brings me to the housing and stabling of cattle. A lot of the cases of tuberculosis arise from unventilated, draughty lairs. I have seen cattle houses in the United States and in Britain, and it is really worth while for anybody to see the layout of those houses, where the temperature is kept even and the cattle have adequate ventilation and light. I know that there is a scheme under which farmers can get those houses built, but I am not quite sure if the plans of those houses have to be submitted to the Department prior to the Department's sanctioning their building. I am afraid that is not the case.

I am surprised at the remarks of Senator Quinlan when he said that there was too much emphasis on the importance of the store trade. It is beyond my conception, where a trade of £35,000,000 to £40,000,000 is involved, how anyone can make the statement that there is too much emphasis on its importance. He also mentioned the Ibec report and that we should market our cattle younger. He did not agree with marketing our cattle younger. He mentioned that they should be kept until two and a half to three years old instead of being marketed at two years.

Mr. O'Donovan

He said it the other way round.

I must have misunderstood him. He said there was too much emphasis on the importance of the store trade. I cannot possibly agree with that statement. He mentioned that we should slaughter our cattle here. I can speak with authority on that subject, because I am a director of a meat factory. If we were to slaughter our cattle here then, under the conditions prevailing to-day on the British market, we should have to take anything from £15 to £20 apiece less than the British prices.

I had some cattle on the market to-day. I received approximately £6 15s. a cwt. for T.T. cattle. If I were to slaughter these cattle at my meat factory, I could not possibly get more than £5 on what beef is making in London or Manchester at the moment. While I might, perhaps, like to agree with Senator Quinlan on that point, the fact is that the store cattle trade and the beef cattle trade are not comparable under present conditions.

Senator Quinlan also said he regretted we did not go more extensively into the dairying industry. We are very lucky we did not do so. Unfortunately, at the moment we are paying the British to eat our butter. If we had got further involved, we would find ourselves in more trouble, as far as the Exchequer is concerned.

I agree with the section of the Bill dealing with compensation, but I should like the Minister to enlighten me as regards compensation for pedigree stock. Will the compensation be according to their value for pedigree purposes or according to their value as ordinary store or beef cattle?

There is also the matter of the words "accredited" and "attested". There are people who feel that we should have called this scheme the "attested scheme" in conjunction with the attested scheme in England. Some British farmers feel that if they are getting cattle from an accredited area and bringing them into their attested area, the word "accredited" does not coincide with "attested". Perhaps, on the Committee Stage, we could have an amendment to have the alternative word "attested" substituted.

I am well aware that the Minister has a problem in regard to the shortage of veterinary staff and I sympathise with him. I agree with Senator O'Donovan that a lot of our veterinary surgeons are emigrating instead of remaining at home to do very urgent and necessary work. I find it hard to blame them. I know veterinary men working in the British Department of Agriculture and, with overtime and other expenses, they can earn double and treble what can be earned in the Irish Department of Agriculture. So far as I am aware, no overtime is paid to veterinary officers in the Irish Department of Agriculture. Therefore, it is difficult to blame these chaps for taking the boat to England when they qualify. The Minister might look into the matter of paying these men better and then he might have more veterinary officers.

Senator Baxter spoke about "stirring up" and Senator Sheehy Skeffington spoke about "waking up" the people of the country in regard to this Bill and the effect it will have on our live-stock industry. I do not think either expression is correct. We must get the enthusiastic reception of this scheme throughout the country. It must be explained at meetings of farmers and in the country Press and, in that connection, I should like the Minister to be present at some of these meetings. It is very difficult to get the enthusiastic reception of this scheme by some small farmers through advertisements or announcements in the advertising columns of papers where they do not appear amongst their ordinary reading matter. It is very important to get an enthusiastic reception of this scheme by every farmer.

There has been a certain amount of trouble lately in regard to the reception of this scheme by farmers when, on going to a fair and buying an animal and bringing it home, they find, maybe on a subsequent test or even before that, that the animal has failed the test. It is obvious that that must be so if one looks at the Minister's memorandum. On page 3 of that memorandum, we read that, in County Clare, over 56 of all cow reactors disclosed by the testing have been purchased by the Department and 26 were disposed of privately. I will hazard the guess that all of these cattle did not go to the factories for slaughter but were disposed of privately at fairs.

We are now going to compensate. If we compensate only for, say, County Cavan or County Monaghan or County Donegal, we will find reactors being brought in from areas and people in other areas selling the reactors in the oper fair and that will cause a considerable amount of trouble.

I agree with Senator Prendergast that the byres and houses must be a big cause of the spread of tuberculosis. That is particularly so on small farms where you will sometimes find hovels with two or three cows and in the winter time every little hole in these hovels is stuffed with a bag or a bunch of hay. Sooner or later, the Minister will have to take powers to remedy that situation. It is a matter which should have been attended to a long time ago but perhaps it is not too late even yet. For instance, if any increase for milk at creameries is to be given, I suggest the increase be given by grading the byres. Even if it were only a small thing, it would bring to the attention of farmers that byres are being graded. We need not be as strict as for byres for, say, registered dairies, but we could grade them up. That is what is happening in Northern Ireland. The milk coming from what I might describe as one of these hovels gets only about 6d. per gallon at the creamery. Unless they improve the byres, they do not get anything like the maximum price. A cow that may have passed the test coming into a byre, possibly with another animal in it, is bound to become infected. There is no fresh air or ventilation of any sort.

I want to impress upon the Minister that it is this selling of reactors at fairs that has brought a lot of disrepute to the scheme as worked at present. It is very important that they should be visibly marked or prohibited from movement altogether. I would say that the condition of the byres must be one of the main reasons for the huge amount of reactors amongst the cows, as published in this list. Age may come into it, but I think the condition of the byres must contribute towards the huge percentage of cows—up to 42 per cent.—that have failed throughout the country. In only two counties are there single figures.

There is another small point. I am not quite sure about Section 5 of the Bill, which prohibits a person holding out a herd of cattle as being an accredited herd. Here is another instance where a man could bring in cattle, if he had an accredited herd. At present, if unscrupulous enough, he could bring in cattle on to that land, perhaps mix them with his other cattle and could get rid of them again before being inspected. I take it the Minister will have these herds inspected annually. Supposing a person were unscrupulous enough to want to buy cheap cattle that had failed to pass the test. After the inspector had been with him, he could buy those cattle. They may look perfectly well and may thrive perfectly well. He may then have disposed of them before the Minister's inspector comes around again. I want to know is that the position or has the Minister power under this Act to stop that? I understand it is being done elsewhere.

I wish to deal with only one other matter. Pasteurisation has been discussed here. Has the Minister powers in regard to, or does he think there is any danger from imported foodstuffs such as meat meal? I remember some years ago hearing a lecture at the National Stud by a Mr. Friend Sykes, who was a great believer in growing his own food. He said he was one of the pioneers of this scheme in England. With his brother, he had a very large herd of Friesian cows. The Ministry asked him to set an example and allow his herd to be the first in that area to be tested. I think 60 per cent. of his prize Friesian herd reacted. He said at that time he did not grow anything on his farm. Everything was imported. When they studied the cause, they blamed it on imported cattle feeding stuffs. From that on, he grew everything he wanted on his own farm.

I do not know whether the Minister is satisfied that these meat meals, by the way they are manufactured, can be free from tuberculosis. Just as unpasteurised milk may contain germs, it is possible they could, too. I think the chief thing at the present time is to get an enthusiastic reception of the Bill by everybody, but particularly by the smaller farmers in counties like Cavan who breed stock for sale to a large extent and who all keep a few cows.

As a farmer and cattle producer, I want to tell the Minister and the Government that any steps they take to eradicate this discase will have our full support. There is no doubt that the cattle trade in this country is the lifeblood of the nation. I understand the seriousness of the situation. The Minister is taking what steps he can to eradicate the disease. I can assure him, although I have listened to various speeches from different parts of the House to-day, that the big majority of the farming community and the cattle breeders are behind him in every step he will take to eradicate this disease.

As has been mentioned, you may have sluggards in every branch of industry and agriculture in this country, but speaking as one who is mixing with the farmers every day and understand their problems, I can tell the Minister that every one of them, from the smallest to the biggest, is well aware that his livelihood is at stake if this problem is not tackled.

I can also say that the co-operative societies of Ireland are taking very active steps to see that pasteurisation plants are put into every creamery and every branch creamery in the country, as far as their financial resources will allow. Speaking for a co-operative society with 11 branches, I can say that already, thanks to the generous grants from the Department, we have installed pasteurisation plants in the central creamery and at least five or six of the branches. In that way, I think we are hitting at the real source of infection. If we can eliminate the disease from the young stock, we will be doing a great day's work towards the elimination of the disease from the herds in this country.

I must say I was glad to see during the week that the Minister had approved of the open type of shed for the housing of cattle. This is a very important step. Senator O'Donovan stated that sheep were nearly immune from the disease, but, in my view, the open type of shed will be the most satisfactory kind of housing for our stock. Anybody with a knowledge of the housing of stock will say that cattle that are stalled, lying down on concrete floors without freedom of movement, are more susceptible to the disease than cattle housed in open sheds.

I would ask the Minister, when he is going into the question of grants for the erection of this type of open shed, to be very generous with them. I visualise an open shed with plenty of room for the cattle to move around, with water available for them and a milking parlour for the milking stocks. Any financial help which the farmers get in this respect will repay the country.

I am sorry that the influence of Senator O'Donovan with his Party at the period to which he referred was not great enough to make them accept his recommendations. We know that the entire stock of the country at that time would not be worth one quarter of what we are exporting to-day. I am sure the Minister regrets it himself, as it would have eased the country of a very great financial burden and would have paid for itself twice over in the meantime.

Mr. O'Donovan

If Senator O'Sullivan had been a bit helpful at the time, it would have been a good thing, too.

Senator O'Sullivan's help was always available, as you know. I want to assure the Minister and the Government that whatever steps they take we on this side of the House will throw our weight behind them, whether it is in regard to housing or financial resolutions or anything else that is required, because we are fully cognisant of the fact that our livelihood, and the livelihood of every man and woman in the country, no matter what his or her profession may be, depends on the export of our cattle, and on our exports of dairy produce. I want to dispel any feeling there may be in this House, or anywhere in the country, that the farmers and cattle producers are not aware of what they are facing. They certainly are and I can assure the Minister they will give him every support in the steps to eradicate this disease.

As a nominee of the live-stock trade in this House, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and I think the alacrity with which he has produced this Bill is evidence that he is the right man for the job and that he is going to get on with it. Speaking as a practical man, I think I am voicing the opinion of the entire trade when I wholeheartedly welcome this measure. It is long overdue. I heard Senator O'Donovan saying that he advocated this many years ago and that he was not too well received. Ten years ago, I went to the Chief Inspector of the Department and pointed out that this scheme was moving rapidly in England and that it was only a matter of time before the export trade here would be greatly affected by it. The answer he gave me was that the whole scheme in England would go up like a balloon— although at that time the English Government had spent about £60,000,000 on the scheme. However, I do not suppose it is much use crying over spilt milk. Even now, it is not too late for us to tackle the problem.

I agree with the Minister when, in his speech to the Dáil, he deprecated the defeatist attitude that it would be impossible to undertake this scheme, mainly because of the high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in a good many parts of the country. The South of Ireland is probably the worst off region as far as tuberculosis in cattle is concerned. I have practical experience of the West of Ireland where I have tested a good many thousands of cattle in Sligo, Roscommon, Leitrim and Mayo, and I have had some wonderful tests. We have tested perhaps 100 cattle at a time and found only two reactors. We have even had 100 per cent T.B. free cases in the West. I think the previous Minister was right in tackling Sligo as offering the most hopeful prospects in which to try this experiment.

There are one or two small criticisms I have to offer. They are not really criticisms and I am merely offering them in a helpful spirit. I know that the task which the Minister has is probably the most difficult that any Minister has had to tackle in this country. The first criticism is that I think it is rather unfortunate that the phrase "accredited scheme" has been used. The term used in Great Britain, which is the market we are catering for, is "attested scheme". The whole scheme, as laid down by this Ministry, is analogous to the British scheme, almost word for word, and why it should be called by a different name is very difficult to understand.

I do know that probably this term "accredited" was adopted prior to the Minister tackling this scheme, but here there has been the idea that, in Great Britain, there is a certain amount of suspicion against our cattle in some areas of the country. I do not see what is to be gained by calling the scheme by a different name from that of the British scheme, in view of the fact that our ambition is to get this scheme to dovetail in with that of the British. I suggest that the Minister should amend the wording and should use the word "attested" in place of "accredited," and then the farmers of Great Britain will understand that the cattle they are getting have gone through all the same examinations as the cattle in Great Britain.

The second point is the matter of export arrangements. I hear various opinions from different sections of this House as to the merits or demerits of store cattle, and one man says that he does not know that it is such a great thing at all. Only the other day the ex-Minister for Agriculture said in the Dáil that, without the live-stock export trade, the country would burst. It is probably a harsh term to use, but it is the one he used, and I am more or less in agreement with him. Independent of any inducements the Minister can offer by way of compensation for reactors, and that has been stressed by certain sections, the Irish farmer who enters into this attesting scheme will get a great deal more for his cattle. My experience of the farmers is that the most eloquent argument you can use is the argument of benefit to his pocket. This attestation scheme will be very beneficial, as farmers will get increased prices.

I was pointing out to the Minister the other day that in the Dublin market last week, in one store cattle sale, they had 1,000 store cattle. Of that number, 450 were tuberculin tested—not accredited, but had passed the first test. That has occurred without any compulsion or influence being brought to bear on them. Why did they make so many cattle pass the test? Because those cattle, even at the sale last week, averaged £2 and £3 a head more than the cattle not tested. The Irish farmer is quick to see if there is something to be achieved from first testing, and, of course, there is a great deal more to be gained from attesting.

With regard to shipping, in order to make the position clear to the farmers, the Minister should announce that they have gone into the matter of export. This attestation scheme, so far as Great Britain is concerned, is a matter which has been considered most meticulously. Our Minister and officials should be able to meet the British Ministry and say: "You want our cattle. You want them on certain conditions; you want them fully attested. We are going to give you that. Will you receive our cattle; will you give them movement licences; will you leave out a place at Liverpool and Glasgow or wherever our cattle are going to?" No indication has been given that these arrangements have been made.

To a man out of touch with the trade, it may not be clear how that would affect it very much. I have met a good many farmers down the country and have said: "I hope you have applied for this accredited scheme". Many of them said: "We have thought about it, but that is the point; if we had our cattle fully accredited, how are we to get them shipped?" At the present moment there is only one exit route for accredited cattle and that is in Northern Ireland—Larne to Stranraer. Under this new scheme, we have got only—I think I am right in saying—five fully accredited herds. It is not bad; it has only started. One of these accredited herd owners asked me down to Donegal to buy some cattle recently and I said I would go, but I asked if I did, how would I get them away? He said I could do so by Larne and Stranraer. I phoned Larne and they said they had a port there for accredited cattle, but they would take cattle from the Twenty-Six Counties only on any night when there were no northern cattle offered. For that reason, I call the Minister's attention to the fact that it would be very wise on his part if he studied the shipping facilities for that class of trade.

That is all the criticism I have to offer. The Minister can be assured that the farmers and the cattle men of Ireland are 100 per cent. behind him and are willing to give him all the help they can.

Like many others who have spoken, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the practical steps he is taking to eradicate this disease. It takes a man of courage to face it. It is probably one of the biggest problems that any Minister of State here has ever had to face. I think I am voicing the unanimous opinion of Senators when I say we have a man of courage at the helm, who will leave nothing undone to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

Previous speakers referred to the possible reconstruction of trade in young calves between certain counties in the South and West of Ireland. I was born in that area and have some knowledge of that trade. In my native County Clare, a very high percentage of the stock raised there came from County Limerick. I am also fully aware of the very high incidence of tuberculosis in the dairying districts. At one time I was in a position to examine reports which came back from the Continent about every animal shipped thereto. Each had a tag attached to it and the reports were sent back to us. The incidence of tuberculosis was alarmingly high in those years, but as a result of recent tests carried out in Clare and Sligo—I am not sure about Sligo, but I know about Clare and a large percentage of calves reared in Clare have their origin in Limerick—it has been found that the incidence of tuberculosis has not been as high in Clare as in Limerick.

In their enthusiasm, some Senators suggest an absolute prohibition of this trade. We are all very keen to exploit the remedies to put an end to this disease, but in taking such drastic steps we may impose great hardships on the farmers both in Clare and Limerick. I am not at all sure—I have no evidence to show—that though perhaps the cows may be reactors, the calves of those cows coming from Limerick, will be reactors, if they are taken young and raised properly. I can assure you that in Clare the calves get as much attention as the children. I could nearly say the same of most of the people on the small holdings in the West of Ireland. They get particular attention and are properly fed. The feeding particularly of young cattle has a considerable effect on their future health.

I would appeal to the Minister to tread that path very carefully and cautiously, lest, with the best intentions in the world, we may be imposing great hardships. One may say I am attempting to prevent progress being made. I am doing no such thing. No one welcomes this scheme more than I do; but in our efforts to achieve one objective, we may be inflicting a hardship, perhaps an unnecessary hardship. What I want the Minister to do is to satisfy himself—he has the means at his disposal—that this trade need not necessarily be interfered with. If it has to be done, we must face up to it, but only reluctantly and when there is no alternative.

I also welcome the pasteurisation scheme. It seems to be the essence of foolishness to bring milk to creameries where perhaps 5 per cent. of the cows —a very high per cent. in some areas —are reactors. Milk is mixed with ordinary milk and the separated milk is brought home and fed to calves, pigs and other live stock. If we were to devise a scheme for the spread of tuberculosis, I think we could not hit upon a better plan. For that reason, I welcome the steps taken in connection with pasteurised milk. As Senator O'Donovan pointed out, if the pasteurisation plants cannot be installed overnight in every area, I think the milk should be brought to a certain temperature for a limited period of time to render it safe. The Minister should go ahead with that scheme forthwith.

Like Senator O'Grady, I come from County Clare, where we take great pride in the store cattle trade. We buy most of our store calves in County Limerick. They are brought back to Clare to small-holdings where they are well fed, well cared for and where they develop into beautiful stores. We have had the tuberculosis eradication scheme in Clare for the past two or three years, and it has succeeded very well.

With regard to pasteurisation, we have a number of travelling creameries in Clare, and I should like the Minister to devise some solution to the problem involved in that regard. We have the East Clare creameries, the North Clare creameries and the West Clare creameries which operate many of the travelling creameries in the three areas. I should like the Minister to take that into account and see if some solution to the problem can be found.

I always took an interest in trying to exhibit a few good dairy cows at shows and good fat cattle at fat stock sales in the winter. I had a reasonable amount of success. I take a deep interest both in the dairying side and the fat stock side of the industry. I should like to congratulate the Minister very heartily on this Bill. We in Clare are 100 per cent. behind him in the scheme and we wish him every success.

I have noticed that when somebody, who has not an agricultural background, attempts to speak upon an agricultural measure, eyebrows tend to lift. I have no farm, but I am constrained to say something on this matter because the Minister made the point that it was of the utmost importance to the country as a whole that bovine tuberculosis should be eliminated. I do not know very much about it. I read the debate in the Dáil and I noticed there was general agreement all round that this was a very good measure. It was welcomed and everybody promised co-operation. I do not stand to criticise the measure in the least. I welcome it.

I think the Minister should have clarified a few points. I notice that we got a document to day just as we were coming into the Seanad. I think it is rather a pity that with such an important Bill we did not get such a valuable document into our possession earlier to enable us to study the matter. This Bill provides for compensation in eradicating that disease. Nobody seemed to deal with the principle as to why this compensation should have to be paid by the community as a whole rather than by the section which would benefit by the elimination of bovine tuberculosis.

I do not want to be taken as questioning this. Perhaps it is right and proper that the compensation should be met by the general taxpayer, but I think the Minister, in fairness to himself, and, perhaps, in fairness to the Seanad, should explain the general principles and why it is considered necessary that this burden should be borne by the community rather than by the particular industry. I do not know what will be the costs involved. Again the Minister might have indicated what the estimated cost will be. I think it will be a continuing burden for some years. We might have been given some indication as to what it will amount to. Again, why does the Government think this burden should be met by the community as a whole? It is because of that fact that I think we who are not directly involved in agriculture have an interest in the matter. Not alone will we be paying for it as general taxpayers, but we are also involved because of the fact that taxation which could otherwise be diverted to the improvement of social services will have to be spent on the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.

It is probably a fact that it would be practicable by way of levies or some other method to have this industry, if I may call it such, bear the cost of this eradication. I do not know. Again, I say I have not sufficient knowledge of it. I am not questioning the fact, but I am saying that the Minister might in his reply give us some general ideas as to why it is thought necessary that the community as a whole should bear this burden and also indicate the time it will take to eradicate bovine tuberculosis.

As one who has been actively associated with almost every angle of the cattle trade during a long number of years, I welcome this Bill. I welcome it especially because I consider it one of the most important Bills to come before this House since I became a member. It is a Bill which affects each and every one of us, no matter what walk of life we are in. It is something which can affect the economy of the country so much. This was proved in a big way last year when we had our balance of payments troubles. When the cattle trade got on its feet once more, with the advent of increased prices and a larger export trade, the balance of payments problem gradually righted itself. We have been told by the Minister that, by 1960, Great Britain will be fully attested. This means that we have no time to lose in tackling this difficult problem. Whether we like it or not, everybody in the House agrees that Great Britain is our most convenient and greatest customer, and if it ever came to the point that Britain's doors were closed to our export trade in 1960, 1961 or 1962, there would be very serious consequences indeed. It does not need further comment than to say that the lifeblood of this country economically is the cattle trade.

Enthusiastic as I am about this Bill, there is just one item I should like to mention, and I do not mean to criticise. As I have stated earlier, my activities in the cattle trade for a number of years leave me with a good practical knowledge of how the trade works in this country and outside it, and as long as I can remember, I have in the course of my journeys attended fairs in the South of Ireland where I have met dozens of farmers and dealers from the South of Ireland, the West of Ireland, Dublin and elsewhere. All those people were there with one business in mind—to buy cattle. As a rule, the West of Ireland people were there buying calves, what we call sucklings at a certain time of the year, during the spring and early summer. Later on, they were back buying weanlings. The North of Ireland people were there to buy different types of cattle also.

To my mind, the South of Ireland is the supply farm or cattle pool for the other portions of this country, but the scheme has not been tackled there at all. The particular part of the South of Ireland I have in mind is also the place where the incidence of the disease is highest. I know the problems that face the Minister, but I think it is a grave mistake not to tackle those areas. Cattle have been taken from the South of Ireland by every available means of transport for years and years as long as I can remember, but I saw very few cattle being taken from the western areas back to the South for breeding or other purposes and very few being taken from Monaghan, Cavan or those other counties mentioned in the scheme.

I remember that some time ago an English farmer with whom I used to do some business before the attestation scheme became so acute a matter in England always made the point that his heifers for breeding purposes must come from the West of Ireland, or Monaghan or Cavan. That proves that for a long time the incidence of this disease is very low in those areas. I think it is a grave mistake not to tackle this scheme in what I call the supply farms, that is, in the dairying areas in the South of Ireland where people keep the cows for the milk they give and sell the calves at an early age. No matter what part of Ireland you go to to buy cattle—as the cattle people say, the most fields you look into—you always notice that those cattle have some time seen the South.

I have no further comments to make except to wish the Minister God speed with the Bill and to assure him, as every other Senator has, of support. As a farmer and a cattle trader I, and I am sure everybody else, is behind him in a big way in the development of this scheme.

I want to intervene in this debate merely to join with the other members of this House in welcoming the Bill and congratulating the Minister on his courage in taking such a vast step to eradicate this very terrible disease which has affected our cattle population. It will be a great benefit if eradication can be achieved in a reasonable time. It will be necessary in order to maintain our place on the British market to put this scheme through. Looking at it in another way, I am sure it will help to eradicate the disease so far as human beings are concerned also. At the moment, I would venture to say that in many small holdings throughout the length and breadth of Ireland children are obliged, through economic necessity, to use milk from cows that are known to be affected. I hope that when this Bill is being operated the Minister's agents throughout the country will deal generously in the matter of compensation with the poorer people. Many a small farmer in the country would get rid of affected animals, if he could replace them, but unfortunately with the high prices of cows at the moment, he is unable to replace them.

When I was looking at the map supplied to us to-day and noticing the areas set aside to be dealt with first, I thought it a great pity that, when dealing with practically the whole western seaboard, or nearly half the country of the West and South, the Counties of Limerick and Cork should be omitted, instead of filling out that space at the bottom. If we are to tackle the disease seriously, we must begin at the beginning. I believe that there are cows in Limerick and Cork better than those in any other county. Not alone have they fine dairying herds but they are producing the best calves and the best live stock in the country, and distributing them right across the rich lands of the Midlands and up to the Six Counties and to Dublin. If we are to tackle the disease seriously, is it not important that the counties we are looking to to repopulate the other areas should be the first to be tackled? The Counties of Limerick, Cork and parts of South Tipperary should be the first areas to be tackled.

I am not for a moment trying to belittle the dairy farmers of the South. I know that our foundation stock has to be got from them, and calves and young stock come across the Midlands into Offaly, Laois, Kildare and right up to Cavan and into Louth and Dublin. The very best quality comes from County Cork and South Tipperary. I should like the Minister to deal with these areas first, if the disease exists there—and I think it does. It would be a pity to allow it to spread through the rest of the country or to have a danger of its spreading by reason of the fact that they are supplying our young stock.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

I should like the Minister to explain whether it is the veterinary staff of his Department or of the county councils who will operate this scheme. I should also like to know if it is proposed to pay compensation to the people concerned through the county council or through the Department of Agriculture. If the money is to be paid through the county council, will the full amount be recouped to the county council or will extra expense be imposed on local bodies if the payments are to be made through them?

With regard to the fixing of compensation, I should like to know if the word of the local veterinary surgeon must be taken as regards the value of the beast. If the owner is not satisfied and if an independent valuer has to be brought in, will that man have to be paid and at what rate? Furthermore, will it then be obligatory on the owner of the beast to accept his valuation?

With these little points made clear, I wish to offer the Minister every help and co-operation in the execution of the big job before him.

Senator Hogan asked the Minister how the scheme would be operated. I do not know whether the Minister has fully developed the ways and means by which the Bill, when enacted, will be operated. A very good way to do so would be through the creameries, if the creameries would work it, subject to supervision from Dublin. The creameries could employ a man and be recouped something for paying him. There would be local control and local help and local sympathy —at any rate, I expect there would be. I think it would be an ideal way to operate this scheme. If in some districts the creameries would not operate it for one reason or another, I feel sure the Cow Testing Association would step into the breach and do the job.

This is the most important Bill to pass through the House in my time. It is good to see we are all unanimous about it. There was unanimity in the other House and almost unanimity here—there was one dissentient. I think Senator Murphy dissented to some extent. He saw no reason why farmers should be compensated for doing a job which should be for their own benefit. My reaction to that is: Go on with the Bill but do not compensate the farmers; it is a splendid way of exterminating the small-farming community and accelerating emigration, which we all want to stop.

On a point of correction, I did not say that.

I am sorry; I apologise. That is what I understood the Senator to say. I am glad it is corrected. I would be very sorry if a viewpoint like that went out from this House. I am glad the matter is settled because I was a little distressed to hear the Senator, as I thought, making that remark.

It is to be hoped that the Bill will get unanimous support throughout the country. Everybody seems to think that pasteurisation is the remedy for the evil. I agree with that fully. I do not think anybody mentioned compulsory pasteurisation, but it would not be out of place to introduce it. If we cannot have it, let us have, as Senator O'Donovan suggested, the milk boiled by some similar process, either at the creamery or at the farm. Perhaps, however, it would not be of general application, if it had to be done on the farm.

The cattle trade has promised its support. Senator J.D. Sheridan indicated that some of the cattle from the West which he had tested showed an incidence as low as 2 per cent., and in some cases nil. They have no creameries in the West and that might account for the happy state of affairs there. There is no doubt that the high incidence of the disease in the South is due to the non-pasteurisation of milk in the creamery areas. Several people have spoken on this point already and I will not labour it further, except to say that if you remedy that position, you have dealt with the principal part of our problem.

The cattle trade has given its support through members of the trade in the House. I think the creameries, through Senator Baxter have promised their support, and I, on behalf of the cow testing associations, can promise the unstinted and loyal support of these associations. There is a golden opportunity for the N.F.A., the I.C.A. and similar associations to step into the breach and do something to help the country in its hour of need.

Senator Quinlan referred to the high grade cows in the Kilmallock area and asked how are we to compensate those people who have high grade cows. There is no doubt at all that they must be compensated for these cows in a better way than they would be if they had ordinary commercial cattle; but if word gets out that the super-grade cows are being paid for at a higher rate, then there will be millions, certainly thousands, of high grade cattle in the country. It is a difficult matter to deal with. The point I want to make is that those super-grade cows must be paid for at a higher rate than the ordinary commercial cows, but there must be evidence that they are super-grade cows.

Senator Quinlan also stated it was a pity we did not devote more attention to the milk trade instead of the cattle trade. The cattle trade disagree with him on that, and so do I. I think we have too much milk. I think if we could improve our methods of bringing up our store cattle and lowering our costs of production, we would be doing what is required. The experts tell us that the bringing up of store cattle and beef cattle is the lowest form of remuneration a farmer can have and that the dairy cow is much better; but we are coming to the point where we have too much milk. On the other hand, there is no diminution in the outlet for our cattle and there appears to be a demand for all the cattle we have. Senator Quinlan's idea was not quite correct and I do not think he gave it much thought. I know he will not agree with me, but we will not fall out about that.

Another matter I should like to refer to is a statement made by Senator Burke. We in the South have a high incidence of the disease in our cattle. Senator Burke made a statement, I think, that one man in his area who had 100 per cent. reactors reduced that percentage to nil by boiling the milk.

On a point of correction, I do not think I said he reduced it to nil. He found it was necessary to boil the milk to reduce the incidence amongst his calves.

We are bad enough. We are sorry to have to admit we have a high incidence of the disease, but do not let us make it any worse than it is.

I can give the proof, if necessary.

There is very little more I have to say. Any more would be a repetition of what has been said already by so many others.

I wish to offer my congratulations to the Minister on this Bill and also to offer him all the support of the farmers of East Cork. I was especially glad to hear the representatives of the Cattle Trade Association volunteer their full co-operation. I should like to ask them whether they are prepared to give their full support to the cattle marts all over the country, because I believe those marts are obviously the best way to market cattle in order to eliminate tuberculosis.

I rise to offer a few brief remarks in support of this Bill. Judging by the speeches we have heard, it would appear that the Minister is receiving full co-operation from all sides of this House, as he received it from all sides in the lower House. That is as it should be and it is absolutely necessary if this Bill is to be successful. Speaking on an Estimate for Agriculture in the Dáil last year, I expressed the fear, when dealing with an item under the heading of Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication, that we were only tinkering with the job at that time. As I live in an area which is close to the Clare border, and which was then an intensive area, I knew that cows which reacted in Clare were driven into the fairs in Galway and sold there without restriction. If that were allowed to continue, we would be wasting our time and money in putting through legislation designed to correct the spread of tuberculosis in cattle.

I hope that under this Bill we may be able to stop actions such as that. I suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider that, where a herd has been tested, the reactors should be taken away as soon as possible and disposed of. I have seen reactor cows sold in fairs in County Galway and then transported to the Dublin markets to fetch a good price there, and, if that is allowed to continue, we will be still only tinkering with the problem. We must stop that kind of thing if we are to check effectively the spread of tuberculosis.

Senators have mentioned the possibility of sterilising the skim milk from the creameries. I live in an area where we have mobile creameries, operated by the Dairy Disposals Board. These are small mobile creameries travelling around from stop to stop and a lot of the milk supply which they get comes from County Galway where there is no scheme in operation up to this. Most of that milk is not coming from attested cows. It is going into these creameries and the people who supply them from the Clare end get the affected milk back in many cases. If it can be done, it is essential that this milk should be pasteurised. If it can be done, it should be done. If it is not done, you are again spreading the disease back to the area which has been cleared.

Some Senators asked why Limerick and Kerry and the southern counties are not being dealt with first. There must have been a reason for it and perhaps the reason is, as has been said by Senator O'Grady, that most of the store cattle in the West come from Limerick and Kerry where we find the lowest percentage of reactors in the whole country. What has happened from the time the calf is taken from the herd in Limerick or Kerry and brought to the West? Could it be that, by taking it away from the affected herd in Limerick or Kerry and having it housed and fed properly, it has developed immunity against the disease? I do not think the herds in Limerick or Kerry are so badly housed and fed that they would not be able to feed their own calves if they had them, but there must be some reason. From the time it leaves the herd in Limerick or Kerry and goes to the West, Galway, Sligo or Mayo, and comes back again to be exported, it is found, before it is exported, that the beast is absolutely free from the disease. That might be the reason why Limerick and Kerry were not tackled first.

It has come to my notice recently that there was a suggestion thrown out that the Department were about to recruit laymen to help the veterinary surgeons in the testing of stock. I would seriously advise the Minister not to permit such a thing. You can rely to a large extent on the reports and on the honesty of the professional veterinary men, but if it comes to having a group of laymen, then I feel we should stop somewhere. I think the Minister should not consider such a suggestion if it is mooted and I hope it will not.

Senator Murphy wondered why the agricultural community should not have to pay all the cost involved. The reason is simple. Perhaps Senator Murphy does not understand that the dairy herd owner, or the live-stock producer, must make a very severe sacrifice before he gets anything back. The owner of a herd of 20, 30 or 40 cows will have his stock tested and he will find 20 or 30 per cent. of reactors in that herd. Many of these cows will be the prize cows in his herd. He must sacrifice these for a very small compensation. Now will Senator Murphy not agree that that farmer must face severe losses before he gains anything? The whole community must gain in the meantime. After all, with the eradication of infected milk and meat, everybody will benefit.

I think I have converted Senator Murphy into seeing that farmers should be compensated, if the scheme is to be a success and that the compensation should be equally borne by the community as a whole. The live-stock traders agree that it is a good scheme and do not cavil at having to pay compensation to the live-stock owner. I am sure Senator Murphy will not cavil either. Every encouragement must be held out to the owners of dairy herds to get rid of their reactors, even if they have to sacrifice a very good cow, as they have to do on occasions.

Then we come to the question of how compensation is to be determined. The Bill states in one section "full market value." What would be the full market value for one cow giving 1,500 or 2,000 gallons in a lactation?

Where are they?

They are in it.

Shorthorn or Friesian.

You have both.

I have both. I am not looking for compensation for either of them, but they are in it. There is no doubt whatever about that. As Senator O'Callaghan has said, who is to determine whether these cows have that yield or not? Where there are such high yields and if they are pedigree stock, the Department carry out the recording. In other parts of the country, there are recording associations which will verify the yield. The question arises with the Minister: who will determine the compensation to be paid for such a beast? Will the compensation be determined as the price to be paid for the cow to be sent to the canners? It is a six-mark question for the Minister and his Department. It is a good indication that the Minister has the full co-operation of all sides of both Houses and of all sections of the community outside. That is a good start. We know he has the iron determination and iron courage to handle the matter. We can leave it to him and give our blessing to it.

I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister on introducing it. He is continuing the energetic methods and steps which were taken by the last Government to eradicate tuberculosis from our cattle. This Bill will command the approval of all of us here. Senator O'Donovan said this question was neglected for 20 years. We all agree with him on that. It was a pity it was not tackled during the 1930s when our entire cattle population was worth around £25,000,000 —taking it that there were 4,000,000 cattle in the country. At the present time, the entire cattle population is worth something like £200,000,000. If a third of the cattle then were reactors and had been bought by the State, the compensation would have amounted to something like £6,000,000. To-day it would cost over £70,000,000. Therefore, we will all agree it was a pity it was not tackled during those years.

Senator Hogan and Senator O'Grady in complimenting the Minister, said it would take a man of courage and a man like the present Minister. I do not want to introduce politics, as I believe this debate should be above politics. Still, credit should be given where it is due. It was the previous Minister who had the courage to face the problem and take the step to eradicate this disease. Let us go back to 1950, when we started the scheme in Bansha. It was he who started it at that time. Then there was a change of Government. The same Minister came back again in June, 1954 and on 1st September, 1954, three short months after coming back to power, he put the scheme into operation in three counties and got things going. We should be proud of what has been done during the past three years. I do not think there is any reason for any of us to adopt a defeatist attitude. The progress during those years has been encouraging.

If one looks at the memorandum we got to-day, one will see that during those three years the total applications exceeded 89,000, representing over 30 per cent. of all herd owners in the country and that more than 900,000 cattle in 75,000 herds have been brought under the initial test. That is progress of which we should be proud. We all admit we must get buzzing and even work faster inside the next five or six years. One may ask why that is so important.

Some Senator asked why the nation as a whole is being asked to pay for it. We all admit our live cattle are the country's principal exports and that the standard of living of every man, woman and child depends upon what the farmers can get from their land and what we can export profitably, principally our cattle exports. As we have no coal, steel, are or underground wealth, we must depend on our cattle for the money we get from abroad to pay for the raw materials to keep the wheels of industry turning and to keep our people in employment. Therefore, we all must admit that if the British market is closed to us—it is the best market, after our own—this country would go bankrupt and everyone would suffer, including the people in the cities and towns, the civil servants and everyone else. As the whole country would suffer, it is only right that the whole country should help to pay, since everyone in the end will benefit.

We have been told the British market may be closed entirely to us by 1960. While we value the markets which were got last year when we exported cattle and beef to Germany, France and Spain, at the same time, Britain has always been our principal purchaser. If we lose that market, our whole economy will suffer. That was proved to each and every one of us in 1955 when cattle prices dropped and the whole economy of our country suffered immediately and everyone felt the effects of it. Now, when cattle prices have started going up again—since last December and in January, February and March, and they have been increasing up to the present time—we all know that the economy of this country has improved immensely.

It is definitely essential that whatever Minister is in power should have the co-operation of everyone concerned. He should have the co-operation of our committees of agriculture throughout the country. Someone suggested to-day that he should go to the different committees. It would be a good idea, if he had time, but he is a busy man and has a big task and may not be able to do that. The county committees could give a lead in many ways. Their officers could also help. I have been speaking to some, not in my own county, and they seem to know very little about this disease or the scheme itself, so it would be no harm if they were brought up for a course for a month or two. They have been brought up for other purposes. Then they could go back and spend the next year or two giving lectures. That would be good work and money well spent. If the cattle industry goes, there will be nothing to pay for anyone in the different counties. The farmers' organisations—the N.F.A., Macra na Feirme and the other organisations— should also help. I think they can help and are only too willing and anxious to do so. We must try to do in the next five or six years what it took other countries 15 or 20 years to accomplish. I think it took America 20 years. Britain started in 1935 and does not expect to be finished for another four years. That means they will have been 25 years eradicating the disease. We must try to do that work much more quickly. I suppose the Minister has sent some veterinary inspectors over to England to consult with those who have been carrying out the work there. If he has not done so, it would be a good idea to send them over, so that we may learn from mistakes. If they have been at it for from 20 to 25 years, then they should have first class knowledge of how to eliminate the disease.

We must make it clear to the livestock owners that their survival, as well as the survival of the whole nation, depends on the complete eradication of tuberculosis from our cattle as speedily as possible. It is a pity the Minister did not set certain targets or name certain dates and say to the creameries and to the farmers for example: "You must do this before 1st January, 1959."

A great deal has been said in regard to the pasteurisation of separated milk and I do not want to give a rehash of what has already been said. We know it is a serious source of infection. This milk must be rendered safe as quickly as possible. I think there are over 594 registered creameries and over 203 have set up the plants and are complying with the requests of the Department of Agriculture. I do not see any reason why the remaining creameries cannot also set up these plants and get ahead with the work as quickly as possible. I think the Minister should say to them: "I want this done before 1st January, 1959. If you have not done it by that date, we will not register your premises".

It cannot be due to any shortage of money, as generous grants are provided. If they apply for a loan, I dare say the Department will be only too anxious and too willing to facilitate them. I also think that all farmers should be compelled to have their cows and their heifers tested, again, before a certain date, say, 1st January, 1959. As a farmer, I abhor compulsion and I have always spoken in the past against compulsion, but this is a case in which it is necessary to tell every farmer to get his cows and breeding heifers tested and have it done before a certain date.

If the farmers did that, they would know the task that faced them. If, for instance, a farmer had 20 cows, ten of which reacted, he would see that he would have to replace ten cows immediately. The Minister and the Department would also know the exact task that faced them and they could set their sights accordingly. They would know that so many thousand cows would have to be eliminated and got rid of inside the next three or four years. The Minister should compel all farmers to have that done before 1st January, 1959.

If the farmers knew that, they would go out and start buying to replace. Some ten years ago we had here a heifer scheme. Heifers should be sold to farmers who paid down one-third of the price. They should be allowed to pay the balance back inside three or four years. We must get rid of this disease and at the same time keep up our stock of cattle. That is very essential at the moment because the Department will get a jolt this year when they see the number of cattle in the country. Due to the heavy buying of cattle by Britain, our cattle population is declining.

Hundreds of thousands of shorthorn heifers, excellent breeding cattle, are exported yearly from this country to Britain. If the Department had a scheme whereby they could buy those heifers and sell them to those dairy people, it would be an excellent idea. I would not charge them the full price, for, if you did, a farmer would not be in a position to make use of the scheme. The State should be at no loss. One-third of the price should be paid as a deposit and the balance paid over three or four years. It takes three years to make a cow. I am in full agreement with the Bill which will have our wholehearted support. As a farmer and a member of the Westmeath County Committee of Agriculture, I will do everything possible to further it.

This Bill is the only type of legislation that could be framed, taking into account the cattle breeding industry and the cattle trade. It divides the country into areas. It is completely in line with the action taken by the previous Minister for Agriculture who did excellent work. He it was, I am sure, who framed the greater part of this Bill.

I think the real problem will be the South of Ireland. We have there a situation where for many years up to the present time this pasteurisation of skim milk was unheard of and everybody's calves got T.B. germs if there was one T.B. germ or T.B. cow in an entire herd of cows. This must have resulted in the spread of tuberculosis. I believe that the bad name the South of Ireland calves have in our part of the country is the direct result of all this.

Perhaps the standard of husbandry was not as good in the South of Ireland. That may have been a contributory factor in the high incidence of tuberculosis in those areas. I do not know whether the farmers can be blamed for that; I do not think they can. I believe that the type of land in the Golden Vale would result in a situation where the farmers just could not put cows out on the land early in the spring and could not keep them on the land in the autumn and winter. There was the bad system of a stand for cows. Cows stood hungry outside the cow-sheds all the year round in conditions where the contracting of tuberculosis would be the simplest thing imaginable.

We have got past that. The Minister should take unto himself the powers he gives himself under this Bill and insist that every creamery and cream separating station in this country should install a pasteurisation plant for the pasteurisation of skim milk. The Department of Agriculture at the present time pays a 50 per cent. grant towards this. In this instance, I think it is fair to say that nobody should care where the money comes from for this worthwhile work. Without doubt, every creamery should be instructed to install a pasteurisation plant by this day 12 months.

There is one point—it is a particular point—with regard to this legislation. It concerns one of the ways reported to me by which I believe somebody can become T.B. free at the expense of the country and the neighbour. I should like the Minister to let me know whether I am right or wrong when I instance this case to him. There are many farmers in this country who do not rear calves. They buy their stores, rear them and sell them. We have them all over the Midlands, some of them in Louth and a great number of them in Meath. If there is any farmer who is in the habit of buying his stores and who would, of course, find it most difficult now to get his accredited herd licensed, if he decided that he would risk carrying on for the next three or four years, and would stock up his lands, he could say: "Right; if Britain decides not to take any T.B. cattle from this country in 1959, I will risk the fact that I will be rearing 50 cattle on my land, and before they fix the date, I will most probably be one of the first people to know. Therefore, what I will do is this: before the fatal day, I will sell every beast on my land; then go to a farmer who has availed of this scheme and has got an accredited herd licence and buy one beast from him at its value, at double its value or at treble its value—it matters little. Having got this one beast, I will be able to have my accredited herd licence, going through all the formalities, and then stock my land again, only with T.B. free cattle."

That has been put to me as a way to get past the very stringent regulations there are for a person who wants to set up a T.B. free herd. Stringent they should be. I have been trying for many months and I know just how stringent they can be. I should like the Minister to tell me what he thinks of that situation and whether or not it leaves him in a happy frame of mind.

If the Cathaoirleach will bear with me, I do not know whether I am in order on this Second Reading in making reference to Section 6, subsection (2) (a) and (b). The section leaves very definite powers in the hands of the Minister with regard to paying compensation for T.B. cows. The first clause refers to payment after agreement has been reached, or if agreement about the valuer is not reached, the Minister appoints the valuer. Following that is a clause which says that the Minister for Finance may put a maximum on the value of any one cow. That, I think, is rather sweeping. I feel that perhaps the Minister would be wise to reconsider this section and frame its provisions in some other way—that, in fact, there should be an independent valuer.

I know that there is a covering section which says that the value shall be the market value at the time, but I know Government valuers and they are largely the same whether valuing pigs that contracted swine fever or cattle that have tuberculosis. Many farmers are dissatisfied, and I feel that for the good of the Bill the Minister would be wise to depart from what has been largely the pattern of Government valuing of live stock over the past 30 years, and set up some sort of independent valuation officer or some individual such as an auctioneer or panel of auctioneers, who could be fixed from time to time, possibly after discussion with the farmers' organisations.

Finally, I want to say that the Minister has one job now, and that is to go round Ireland at every chance he gets and shout from the housetops that we have to get rid of tuberculosis. In my opinion, at this stage the idea has not got across to the farmers and has not got into their minds. A lot of them know it and are doing nothing about it; a lot of them do not know it and are doing nothing about it. Very few of them are getting down to it and setting about getting accredited herd licences. The figures may be all right, but there are a great number of them going half way and stopping. There are a number facing the expense of having three or four examinations by veterinary surgeons at their own expense and they are not in fact going to go the whole way. In order that that idea may be put across—and it must be put across into their minds— the Minister must avail of every opportunity to go everywhere and say every time he can that we must get our cattle free from tuberculosis.

At the outset, I should like to comment on what Senator Quinlan said earlier this evening in speaking of this scheme. As far as I can remember, he suggested to the Minister that he should go easy with the scheme, especially where there is a good dairy strain, and that he should devise some means of keeping these cows on; and that he would not be at all welcome to come to the West, particularly Sligo or Mayo, to replace cows that would have to be destroyed. He did not make that statement in a derogatory sense, I know well, but I should like to inform the Senator and the House that anyone looking for replacements of dairy herds will, if he comes to Sligo, or even Leitrim, get a type of heifer on which he can build up a good dairy herd. This is due to the attention the first Minister for Agriculture, the late Deputy Paddy Hogan, paid to the West.

The milk yield was very low, particularly in Leitrim, and I know that it could be proved from the records of the Department that a Department inspector went out and bought the best dairy bulls he could at the time to send over to Leitrim, and to-day the milking strain is still there, and anyone who wants a good heifer will get the good dairy strain in Leitrim. For Sligo, too, it is a proven fact that there are remnants still of the old shorthorn type dairy cow. If Senator Quinlan doubts my word let him come to Sligo or Leitrim and he can pick out the choicest heifers there and find that the milking strain is as high and the yield of milk as good in the West as in the South.

Another point is that the cattle are better fed in the West than in any other part of Ireland. There is more care and attention paid to them because cows will not milk unless they are properly fed with proper food, and they definitely get that in the West. We carry on the real mixed farming there.

I, like others, believe that this scheme should be operated in areas where the incidence of disease is high, as well as where it is low. I am concerned about that because the scheme is going full blast in Sligo under a very competent staff, both veterinary and clerical, but Sligo will not become an attested area if suck calves from Cork, Limerick and other southern counties, where the scheme is not in operation, are allowed to come there, as they do from the Dublin cattle markets. I hope the Minister will undertake some means of stopping that. If it is allowed to continue, we can never say Sligo will be free of tuberculosis.

Another point I want to make concerns the pasteurisation of skim milk. This is all very good, and I am sure that the Minister will have the scheme expedited, but here again we are up against a snag in that there would not be proper results in feeding pasteurised skim milk to calves, if they had been fed for eight to ten weeks on new milk from cows not free of tuberculosis. So there are a number of obstacles to the operation of this Bill. It is, however, necessary, for on its success depends the health of our people, as well as the prosperity of the country. I wish the Minister every success. He should be happy in the knowledge that he has a united House and country behind him.

I am not entirely familiar with the procedure in the Seanad. There seems to be a formula here of offering congratulations to the Minister. I do not deserve any congratulations about this Bill. If things had been otherwise, my predecessor would have brought in the Bill. I think I heard Senator Stanford some time ago insist that this is a vocational body. I do not understand why you should be so worried about the comparative characteristics or ability of my predecessor and myself. What I need, instead of congratulations, is a great measure of sympathy from all the House.

Senators should not assume that I am entirely familiar with the matter of dealing with tuberculosis. To my mind there is no bigger nuisance in any political Party than the Minister expert. I come into a Ministry with an open mind and no prejudices. I think the matter of dealing with bovine tuberculosis is one for experts. I, with your agreement, provide the instrument of policy and, with the support needed for success, I am sure we will succeed.

This debate has ranged rather widely and, with my personal disability, I do not know if I have gathered a complete understanding of every question put to me, even the $64 question which one Senator put. Almost 50 years ago, the King of England visited Dublin. I heard a man speak at a protest meeting—a protest against the great loyalty and fulsome welcome shown to the King of England here in Dublin. He said: "When I look around me, I am reminded of the old Jingo rhyme:—

‘We have got the military,

We have got the police, and

We have got the G-men, too.'

I did not hear much more because, with others, I was engaged in amêlée with the police and the G-men afterwards. His name was Sheehy Skeffington. We had a different Government then. I hope we have a Government that better suits us now.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington this evening seems to think we ought to be more anxious about humans than about cattle. We certainly are. Governments, because they are in the position of having to try to solve different problems, are always hardhearted, always inept and always moved by material motives. I came into politics not from any material motives and I have not gotblasé yet. I have rather enthusiastic ideas and ideals yet. I hold that my comrades in politics with me have still the same ideals, even if they have to face the difficulties. It was suggested that those in charge are always wrong and that perfection is to be found only among those who have to submit to authority; but those on whom authority is thrust have to accept conditions as they are and not merely philosophise about them. Often betterment is achieved by devious and secondary ways.

We provide T.T. milk for children and we ensure better health for our people if we succeed in operating the proposals that this Bill contains. Remember that, many years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote a bookThe Jungle. It was a book about the Chicago stockyards. One result of the book was America's pure food laws. Lewis republished the book 20 years afterwards and complained about his aim. “I aimed,” he said, “at America's heart and I hit America's stomach.” Maybe we will have some success in mitigating the evils that affect the physique of our people even by this very material Bill which deals with very material matters.

Senator Burke gave us statistics of Tipperary reactors which were very interesting. Again, I am reminded of a statistic published in Washington about a logging camp where 100 loggers were employed and there were two female cooks. One of the loggers married one of the cooks and the statistic was to the effect that 1 per cent. of the loggers married 50 per cent. of the cooks. I cannot quite accept that Tipperary is quite as bad as Senator Burke stated.

Try to give me the information.

Senator Murphy asked why must compensation be provided by the community for the farmer. I suggest that we pay compensation to the farmer on the same basis as the community provides subsidies for C.I.E. I think one about cuts the other.

Senator O'Sullivan at least gave me some hope that he has realised that this is a vocational body, in spite of his known past. He speaks for the co-operative societies and for the farmers. I accept his statement—particularly coming from the source from which it has come—as one of encouragement and specific hope for the success of our project.

There was a savour of Muintir na Tíre about Professor Quinlan's speech: do not sacrifice high-yielding cows to tuberculosis claims. Our job is to eliminate bovine tuberculosis. We must do that. We must do it resolutely and with all care so as to inflict the least possible damage. Like Professor Quinlan, I am a County Limerick man and I have a feeling for the County Limerick people. If they have developed 750 gallon cows in Kilmallock, they are the late arrivals. I spoke recently about seeing the most beautifully saved hay I ever saw here in County Dublin and, in a field near it, seeing the worst saved hay I ever saw, except for what I saw in County Limerick a long time ago. One of the reasons why tuberculosis is so widespread in County Limerick is not merely the spread of the disease by way of skim milk but also bad feeding.

Senator J.D. Sheridan sets me a problem. He has a flair for words and he wants to know why we use "accredited" instead of "attested". We use "accredited"; "attested" is used in England. Maybe it is national feeling that we want to be different or maybe it is that the thesaurus is standard equipment in all Government offices. When we have a Bill of such vital importance as this before the Seanad, we are fortunate in having Senator Sheridan to explain his views, because he has a great deal of experience, and I value his contribution to the debate. There are specific reasons why we use "accredited". The position we have to deal with is not the position in England. I would suggest that the Senator might agree that for the moment we might be permitted to use the word "accredited" and give ourselves the opportunity in the immediate future of changing it to "attested". I think I can meet him on that.

There is one hopeful thing in what Senator Lahiffe said—that calves sent from County Limerick to Galway are generally free from disease. That is hopeful in the fact that calves when born seem to be free from the disease and only acquire it afterwards. If we can get proper segregation in the farmstead, I think we will succeed much more rapidly than other countries have done.

Senator L'Estrange might be assured that we have sought everywhere for information as to how to deal with the matter. I think he said we should finish it by 1959. I like optimism——

On a point of explanation, no.

——but he said one thing with respect to Senator Sheridan and his colleagues. He said we might be so anxious to sell our cattle as to denude ourselves. One of our problems is to try to build up as many cattle as we can as foundation stock.

I have a note here which I shall read for Senators in regard to the movement of accredited stock. As regards the movement of our accredited stock for export to attested areas or herds in Britain, the main requirement to be complied with is that such cattle will travel in isolation. This means that where accredited cattle are transported by road or rail separate lorries and wagons, which have been thoroughly cleansed and disinfected before the animals are placed in them, must be used. While awaiting shipment at the ports accredited stock must be kept in isolation in lairages which have been similarly cleansed and disinfected. While in transit by sea, no other cattle may be carried on the same ship with accredited cattle and only approved routes may be used so that the cattle will be landed at British ports where all necessary arrangements for their reception have been made. The ships used must have facilities for cleansing by water under pressure.

The Department has already discussed these matters fully with representatives of the shipping companies concerned and has received their assurances that the requirements as regards cleansing, disinfection and the complete isolation of accredited cattle while awaiting embarkation can, and will, be met to the full. The shipping companies furthermore intimated that they can make suitable ships available for the transport of accredited cattle in isolation at any time that they become available in sufficient number. The Department has also been in close touch all along in this matter with the British Ministry who have already named some ports at which our accredited cattle may be received.

That statement is somewhat of a challenge to the cattle trade.

The question of pasteurisation is one that will be taken up immediately the Bill is passed, and, pending the installation of complete and effective pasteurisation plant, sterilisation along somewhat similar lines as has been suggested here will be undertaken and adopted. Personally, I think pasteurisation is the most important step of any we can take. I think more can be done in the dairying areas by pasteurisation than by any other method.

We cannot compensate for reactors as if they were all the progeny of the golden calf, nor in the matter of compensation, can we come to any special arrangement with any section of owners. Section 3 enables compensation to be paid in areas which are not yet clearance areas or accredited areas, provided notice has been given that they are to become such areas. I hope to make contact personally with and secure the co-operation of all rural societies. I have already arranged to meet the agricultural advisory committee in County Cork, which is an area I know to be heavily affected and where I am familiar with the people and the conditions. I shall pursue this method of personal close contact with the problem so far as it is possible for me to do so.

I do not know who said—I think it was Senator Baxter—that it is not a question now of choosing what we believe is the right thing to do. We have absolutely no choice. It is a question of not merely safeguarding our export trade but of developing here a superior type of cattle and a betterment of our dairy produce for our own use.

There was some complaint here to-day that already money has been wasted. Every new and unfamiliar venture is bound to be wasteful for a start. I do not blame the Department, nor have I any blame for my predecessor, if there has been waste. We have had to get experience of how the thing should be done. If we gain experience, we shall ensure a return for all the money spent.

In regard to incentives, I think Senators have in mind the British form of incentives. I think we are offering a very definite incentive. Testing is free and compensation is provided and that is not done in Britain. I think the provisions are at least as generous as those which Senators have in mind.

Many things such as pasteurisation, isolation and segregation will have to be dealt with. Housing is a very important item with cows. Many of our people seem to think that what is comfort for human beings is also comfort for cows. That is not true. If I had my way, I would tear out the front of every cowshed. I wish also that people would learn to make hay and silage. Further, there is a danger of avian tuberculosis and, shall I call it, porcine tuberculosis. Pigs and hens kept with, and in close connection with, cattle will definitely spread and maintain the condition of tuberculosis in the herds, and care should be taken about that.

There may be many things—it is useful to be deaf sometimes; it is a good excuse—that I have missed, but perhaps, having been over the hurdles for the first time, Senators on the next stage of this Bill may enlighten me further and I will try to help them. I am in the hands of the House as I am anxious to get the Bill through.

Question put and agreed to.

There are some amendments which some Senators might like to put down. I had three amendments in mind and Senator O'Donovan had a suggestion about giving the Minister power regarding pasteurisation and making milk safe. I think the Bill could be improved in Committee, although I realise that it should go through.

If the points are not very involved or contentious, perhaps we could take the Committee Stage now. If the Senators made their points, the Minister might be able to clear up the matters for them.

Perhaps we could take the Committee and Final Stages to-morrow.

In view of the fact that the Dáil is rising to-morrow, would it not be possible to meet in the morning?

We will have to allow until at least 1 o'clock for the submission of amendments. I think that, in the circumstances, 3 o'clock would be the earliest we could meet to-morrow.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 4th July.