Farmers in this country and elsewhere sustain very considerable losses every year through diseases and pests in their herds and flocks. In Ireland, these losses are almost certainly not less than £25 million. This is equivalent to £100 a year for every farmer in the country. In addition, the existence of certain animal diseases can be a barrier to international trade in livestock and livestock products.
It was in this context that the campaign for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, which reached a successful conclusion a few months ago, was launched in 1954 and that in 1964 a comprehensive programme for the eradication and control of several further diseases and conditions was set forth as a major objective of veterinary policy in the Brown Book dealing with agriculture in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.
One of the main purposes of this Bill is to provide a suitable up-to-date statutory basis for this programme. The basic enactment governing the control of animal disease in this country became law as long ago as 1894. Amendments of that Act have, however, become necessary over the years and many of its sections have been repealed, altered, become obsolete or are inapplicable to our circumstances here. The Act is also in a number of respects rigid and inflexible and, as can be understood, does not give adequate powers for the control and treatment of diseases that were not of public concern when it became law. The Act applied also to Britain and Northern Ireland, but in both these areas, it has been repealed and replaced by consolidated legislation; in Britain by an Act of 1950 and in Northern Ireland by an Act of 1958.
There are at present fifteen separate enactments dealing with animal health and disease in this country. Several of these measures amend preceding legislation and it is becoming increasingly difficult to ascertain readily the precise legal position when the many animal disease problems confronting my Department and the general public come to be considered. In my opinion, the time has come for this body of legislation to be consolidated in a single Act and this among other things, the Bill at present before the House seeks to do.
In consolidating the existing legislation, many of the excellent provisions of the earlier enactments have been retained as, indeed, they have also been in the consolidating legislation passed in Britain and Northern Ireland. All the provisions of the Diseases of Animals (Bovine Tuberculosis) Act, 1957, which is repealed by the present measure, have been incorporated in the Bill which also includes many useful provisions of the consolidated legislation in Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Bill proposes, however, to go much further than a mere consolidation of existing legislation. It is designed also to provide not only for the specific diseases and conditions whose control or eradication is indicated in the Brown Book as the immediate objective of veterinary policy, but also, so far as can be foreseen, for future developments in the sphere of the control or eradication of animal disease.
I do not propose at this stage to go in very great detail into all the new provisions of the Bill, but I should like in particular to refer to the list of animals and diseases to which the Bill applies as indicated in the First Schedule.
In the Diseases of Animals Acts applicable to this country up to 1957, specific provision for slaughter and compensation in the case of epizootic diseases was made for each particular disease and, in the 1957 Bovine Tuberculosis Act, the treatment of affected animals and the conditions under which they could be taken up under compensation were spelled out in detail in the statute. The consolidated Acts of 1950 and 1958 in Britain and Northern Ireland, adopted the same practice. Both of these enactments contain detailed provisions dealing with the different diseases separately.
A simpler and more straightforward method is adopted in the present Bill. Parts I and II of the First Schedule contain a list of 23 different species of animals and poultry to which the Bill may be applied and Part III is divided into two Classes, one, Class A, indicating 11 epizootic diseases to which compulsory slaughter and compensation provisions may be applied, and the other, Class B, listing four enzootic diseases, for which this method of treatment would not be suitable. Any other animal or bird or any other disease may be added to the Schedule by Statutory Order and, indeed, any particular disease schedule under Class A may, should the need arise, be removed from that Class and scheduled under Class B and vice versa. The eradication measures set out in section 19 and the following sections, may, as in the case, for instance, of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, be applied to Class B diseases, but this does not mean that these measures will be automatically applied to all diseases scheduled under this class. The Second Schedule to the Bill contains very wide powers under which Orders may be made applying specific provisions to particular diseases. The eradication provisions relating to Class B diseases will be applied only if, having regard to the characteristics of the particular disease and other relevant considerations, such a course of action would be advisable. The effect of these provisions is that virtually all diseases and adverse conditions that can at present be foreseen, may be expeditiously dealt with by means of an appropriate Statutory Order.
Statutory Orders under the Act are required to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as they are made and they may be annulled if either House so wishes. It will be appreciated that outbreaks of animal and poultry disease may occur without prior warning and, notwithstanding the utmost vigilance, the introduction of diseases and conditions hitherto unknown cannot be guaranteed. It is, therefore, essential that machinery should be at all times available to provide adequate powers to deal with any such emergency with the least possible delay. This is the main reason why, throughout the Bill, as indeed in the 1894 Act also, it is proposed to take power to prescribe by Statutory Order for conditions that members of the House might otherwise consider could more appropriately be covered by legislation.
Members will note also that, in its passage through the Dáil, the Bill was in a few instances, amended to provide for action by Statutory Order, instead of by direction of the Minister as was originally proposed. It is proposed also that the compensation provisions, both for animals slaughtered and animals taken possession of by the Minister, be covered by Statutory Order and not, as hitherto, by express provision of the statute. This is necessary because of the wide variety of animals and birds and the numerous separate diseases with which the measure deals. It will be observed, however, that, whereas under the Acts of 1894 and 1957 the Minister was empowered to withhold compensation either in whole or in part when in his judgment the person concerned was guilty of an offence under the Act, or did not take adequate precautions to prevent the spread of disease, section 58 provides that, while a person may be disentitled to compensation where he is convicted of an offence under the Act and payment of compensation may be deferred if a prosecution is pending, where these circumstances do not obtain the amount of compensation may be settled by agreement between the claimant and the Minister and, in the event of failure to agree, the dispute may be referred to arbitration.
The Second Schedule to the Bill contains a number of important extensions of the Minister's general powers to make orders for the prevention or checking of animal or poultry disease. The Schedule repeats the corresponding provisions of section 22 of the 1894 Act and certain powers included in the 1957 Bovine Tuberculosis Act. When this Bill becomes law, these powers may, as appropriate, be extended to all animals and poultry and to all diseases. It is proposed also to take additional powers for several other purposes. It may, for instance, be necessary or advisable in the future to make the use of a particular remedy for a disease compulsory—the treatment of cattle for warbles comes to mind in this context—and powers are being sought accordingly; with a view to the possible future introduction of a scheme to control liver fluke, it is proposed that the treatment of land, ponds, streams and watercourses may be compulsorily regulated and, with brucellosis in mind, it is proposed to seek power to control the taking of samples, the making of tests and the application of any treatment and the use of sera and vaccines. I think it should be made clear at this stage that with the exception of the measures necessary for the operation of a scheme to eradicate brucellosis, no concrete proposals of the kind I have just mentioned have yet been formulated. The powers in question are included in the Bill to meet possible future contingencies.
Section 30 sets out revised controls on the importation of animals and birds which simplify the procedures laid down in the 1894 Act and clarify the legal position regarding the importation under licence. Provision is made in section 33 for the appropriate treatment of animals, birds and other things illegally imported and sections 29 and 30 extend the provisions of the 1894 Act in relation to ships and ports, to aircraft and aerodromes.
An important recent development is the establishment of our own quarantine station at Spike Island which enables us to import high class breeding stock in pursuance of our programme of livestock improvement. Provision for the exercise of control over the quarantine arrangements is contained in section 31.
Sections 48 and 49 make a relatively minor alteration in the provisions relating to penalties for offences. The Act of 1894 provided for a fine of up to £20 which could be increased depending on the number of animals or the quantity of material involved in the offence, and, as an alternative to the fine, imprisonment up to one month or up to two months for certain kinds of offences. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1945, substituted a fine of up to £100 for that appearing in the 1894 Act and repealed the provision regarding imprisonment. It is proposed to retain the provisions of the 1945 Act and to re-enact the provisions of the 1894 Act relating to imprisonment.
The powers and functions of local authorities as indicated in sections 36 to 41 correspond with the existing provisions of the 1894 Act, except that the powers and functions of these bodies or their officers may be curtailed to such extent as may be specified in the disease control order concerned.
There are two items in Part IV of the Bill which I regard as of special importance. The first of these, section 54, deals with the dehorning of cattle and will enable us to bring in controls at the same time as similar controls are imposed in Northern Ireland. Agreement has been reached with the authorities in Northern Ireland to introduced these controls on 1st February, 1969, and an announcement to that effect appeared in the public press last week-end. The second item to which I refer, section 55, is intended to enable a distinctive colouring agent to be incorporated in sheep dips. This should be read in the context of the campaign for the eradication of sheep scab. The certification of sheep dippings has always been somewhat of a problem and the incorporation of a suitable dye, which is at present being developed by the staff of my Department's Veterinary Research Laboratory, would enable dipped sheep to be easily distinguished from undipped animals. To proceed with this proposal, it is necessary to remove from the Clean Wool Act, 1947, a provision which prohibits the incorporation of colouring matter in sheep dips. The experiments being carried out on the development of a dye for inclusion in sheep dips have reached a promising stage, but I can assure members of the House that its inclusion in dips will not be permitted, if there is any danger that the quality or market price of wool might thereby be adversely affected.
I am satisfied that the measure before the House is essential to the successful implementation of the important veterinary programme at present in progress in my Department. It will contribute substantially towards our objective of achieving the highest possible standard in the health and well-being of our livestock, with all the immense benefits that will undoubtedly ensue not only to our farmers but also to the economy as a whole.
I commend the Bill to the House.