Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jan 1966

Vol. 60 No. 10

Diseases of Animals Bill, 1965: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Haughey)

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 Amendments of that Act have, however, become necessary over the years and many of its sections have been repealed, altered, become obsolete or are inapplicable to our circumstances here.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 The Act applied also to Britain and Northern Ireland, but in both these areas, it has been repealed and replaced by consolidated legislation; in Britain by an Act of 1950 and in Northern Ireland by an Act of 1958.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.

Professor Stanford

This is an excellent Bill and the Minister and his Department deserve our congratulations for it. What is more, it is a happy Bill in a sense which I shall quickly define. Quite often, in the Bills before the House, there is a severe clash between different interests. However, in this Bill, the interests of the animals and the interests of human beings in this country seem to be almost entirely at one. It was not so in the last Bill about animals before this House. In it, some provisions were deemed to put unnecessary hardship or restrictions on the human beings for the sake of the animals and one or two provisions were lost on that account, which I regretted.

To return to the present Bill, on the whole, it is a most satisfactory measure. It will probably best be discussed on Committee Stage but at this point I should like to sound the Minister's opinion on the possibility of one amendment on section 28. There, we read:

For the purpose of preventing the spread of disease or of preventing injury or suffering to animals and poultry the Minister may make orders:—

(a) regulating generally the transport of animals and poultry and the conditions under which animals and poultry are to be kept at fairs, markets, marts, lairs, railway stations and other places where animals or poultry are assembled prior to transport, shipment, exhibition or slaughter.

I should like to ask the Minister if he would consider inserting the words "and handled" after the phrase "are to be kept". I shall explain the reason why I make that suggestion. Under this Bill, inspectors of the Department will have powers of entry and of enforcing all reasonable requirements—I quote the Bill. If injury or suffering was being caused to animals by improper or rough handling, then under this amendment these inspectors could step in. As I see it, under the Bill as it now stands—I may be wrong about this and, if so, I would welcome correction—if the hardship or cruelty is the result only of handling, the inspectors would have no powers.

Let me give the House two examples of the kind of thing that happens in this matter of handling animals. In the market, sometimes cattle are beaten unnecessarily and unmercifully. We also have heard of the use of unnecessarily sharp goads, cruelly handled. If we had the power, that kind of thing could be checked.

Even more specifically, may I quote the Ministerial Order of the Department of Agriculture on the Conveyance of Live Poultry (Ireland) 1919. This order says, in section 3, that poultry, "while being conveyed by road or exhibited for sale or while in a market or other place where poultry are habitually exposed for sale, shall, in Ireland"—the date is 1919, which explains some of the phraseology—"not unnecessarily be tied by the legs or be allowed to remain so tied for a longer period than is necessary, or unnecessarily be carried head downwards".

In fact, what is happening in some Dublin factories at which broiler fowl are killed for sale and export is this: the birds, on arrival, are frequently thrown very roughly, I am assured, in metal crates from the lorry to the ground and then they are hung up by the legs, head down, on a conveyor belt which takes upwards of five minutes to reach the point where the birds mercifully have their throats cut. Some people may smile and think that only a mere hen is involved, but even hens are God's creatures and deserve consideration. If the Minister would accept the amendment, then his inspectors would be able to take steps, where necessary, to prevent that type of thing. It may be that the Minister and the Department deem it to be fair treatment: that is for him to decide. However, I should like to put this point.

One slightly unhappy aspect of the Bill is that the Veterinary Council, I understand, was not consulted beforehand. I am sure there are administrative reasons, perhaps good administrative reasons, for this but, all the same, I think it is a pity. In this country, we have not so much expert knowledge that we can afford to neglect any of it where it is available. I would like to think that, in future, all Departments should consult any expert bodies working on similar lines before a Bill of this kind is drafted. However, that is not a major point.

There is just one other thing I should like to say. I hope the Minister will not rest on this excellent measure. There is a good deal more to be done in this country for the protection of animals, for the improvement of animal health, and for the lessening of cruelty to animals. In fact, in some ways, we are still a little behind other countries. I know the Minister is sympathetic to legislation of this kind. I am very grateful for the help he gave on the Protection of Animals Bill in this House and for putting it through the Dáil afterwards. Still, I hope he realises that there remain some grave questions to be considered. For example, there is still the burning question, in some quarters at any rate, of how pigs are slaughtered in this country. Some people believe that the method used is neither the most efficient nor the most merciful. However, I shall not stress that point. I shall end by congratulating the Minister and his Department on this excellent measure.

Mr. McDonald

I too welcome this Bill, as it certainly tidies up the legislation relating to diseases of animals in this country. However, there are a few small sections and a few points on which I am not too clear and I look forward to the Minister explaining away, perhaps, a few fears I may have in this regard. For example, subsection (5) of section 18 empowers the Minister to bury the carcases of animals in any convenient ground. I suggest that this would arise only in cases where an urban dweller has, shall we say, an extensive pig or poultry unit.

Subsection (6) (a) reads:

Where the owner or occupier of any such ground claims to have suffered loss by reason of such user, he may, within one month after such user, apply in writing to the Minister for compensation.

Surely the Minister should not confine a farmer to a time limit of one month. I can well imagine a situation arising where, shall we say, there is an outbreak of some disease or other and a farmer may have a disease amongst his stock and there is a certain amount of worry involved. I can easily imagine a month slipping by and a farmer not being able to reach on sitting down and writing to the Minister for compensation, more especially in view of the fact that from the time the Department's inspector inspects a heifer qualifying for the £15 grant, it takes the Department anything from eight to 12 weeks to pay that grant. In all fairness, the Minister should not limit the farmer to this very short period of a month.

I should like to impress upon the Minister and the Department of Agriculture—now that there is such a widespread outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Europs—the grave necessity of ensuring that every possible precaution is taken to prevent the disease spreading to this country. The Department should, if necessary, double all the precautionary measures because —at this time when we have such financial difficulties—it would be a tremendous blow to the economy if this disease came in here and, as it is so rampant in Europe, there is every possibility of it. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that every possible step will be taken to guard against an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country just now.

Section 16 reads:

A person owning or having charge of animals, poultry or eggs in an infected place or area may affix, at or near the entrance to a building or enclosure in which the animals, or poultry or eggs are, a notice forbidding persons to enter thereon without the permission mentioned in the notice, and thereupon it shall not be lawful for any person, not having by law a right of entry or way into, on or over that building or enclosure, to enter or go into, on, or over it without that permission.

Surely it should not be necessary for an outbreak of disease to have taken place before a farmer can preserve his lands. I believe farmers should have the right to complete ownership of their property in that regard. There are too many people in this country who feel that the farms of Ireland are just one large common. Should a situation arise where a farmer's neighbour has some contagious disease amongst his stock, I feel that before that farmer's stock is infected, he should have the right to forbid trespass on his property. The inclusion of this particular section, confines the farmer in the protection of his property. I think it should be left out altogether and let it be generally understood that farmers have a right to protect their property against all trespass.

Subsection (1) of section 18 reads:

Where an animal or bird has been slaughtered under this Act at the direction of the Minister, the carcase of the animal or bird shall belong to the Minister and shall be buried or sold or otherwise disposed of at the direction of the Minister, as the condition of the animal or bird or carcase and other circumstances may require or admit.

That is reasonable enough but subsection (3) reads:

If the owner of an animal or bird slaughtered under this Act at the direction of the Minister or a local authority, has an insurance on the animal or bird, the amount of compensation awarded to him under this Act or any order made thereunder may be deducted by the insurers from the amount of the money payable under the insurance before they make any payment in respect thereof.

Surely it is unreasonable that the State should more or less come to the aid of the insurance companies in this way? The premiums being paid to insurance companies are certainly high enough and they should be sufficient for their purposes without the Exchequer having to step in to compensate them. I do not suggest that the farmers should draw from both but the State should not be expected to compensate insurance companies whose business it is to take risks on such things.

Subsection (d) of section 20 reads: securing and regulating the keeping of records in relation to animals or poultry and the production and inspection of the records;

There is a small point here which the Minister might clarify for me. I should like to ask what records the Minister has in mind, what exactly this section covers, and if these records are to be maintained by farmers or by mart companies and, if dealt with by marts, how he proposes to meet the situation in regard to public fairs? The majority of our farmers at least are not great keepers of records; it has not been farm practice heretofore, especially in smaller farms, to devote any great attention to records—which is perhaps a pity—but since the introduction of the TB eradication scheme and this year the warble fly scheme, many farmers, especially older people, find it most confusing.

Might I ask the Minister would he consider having the Department produce a blue card which would incorporate the warble fly certificate, especially next year when I suppose we shall have the brucellosis certificate? It would be a very great help if the Department designed a card, even if it were an inch bigger that the present blue card, that would have the three certificates in one. Surely they could be stamped at the district offices if space were provided on the card, thereby eliminating a great deal of confusion and bother to farmers, especially the smaller farmers when it comes to market day or selling the cattle.

Section 35 deals with the prevention of sheep scab. It sets out orders and regulations that the Minister shall make. The present position where farmers are obliged to dip their sheep twice is unnecessarily harsh, particularly since many farmers dislike the late dipping. These people have long experience in sheep husbandry and quite a number of them feel that the late dipping especially is inclined to affect their early lamb crop. I know that An Foras Talúntais do not hold that view but many farmers who have been in the business for years and have very wide practical experience do hold that view, and I think the Minister is a little unfair in insisting that sheep be dipped twice.

When the Minister brought in the regulations on sheep dipping last year, he appears to have done so without prior consultation with the local authorities as to the facilities available for sheep dipping. In many counties the dipping tanks and facilities available were not only out of order but completely unsuitable for the very large numbers of sheep now in the country. It is also a pity he did not endeavour to delegate these powers to the county committees of agriculture to which he could also give entirely the present functions of the local authorities and thereby have the regulations pertaining to agriculture completely in the hands of the county committees which are composed almost entirely of practical farmers. That would have been a great asset.

I should like to know if the Department's policy of giving grants to individual farmers for building and erecting their own sheep dipping units and tanks is to continue and if so, if we can expect that a greater number of inspectors will be appointed in order to facilitate farmers in dipping their sheep. Under the new regulations a sheep dipping inspector must be present at the operation and since there are very few of them in the country, a farmer is not free to dip his sheep when he likes. This is something that must be looked into. The Department should facilitate farmers in every way possible in this matter.

I should like to ask the Minister if the grants for the erection of private baths will continue and if there is any minimum limit as to the number of sheep a farmer may have before qualifying for such a grant.

If I may refer briefly to Part V of the Bill which deals with offences and legal proceedings, it is extraordinary to see that a farmer may be fined, under sections 47 and 48 and, I think, section 49, up to £100 for an offence against this Act. This is even more extraordinary when we read in the papers practically every day of people being fined a matter of shillings for very serious offences committed against persons. I do not suggest that the penalties should be reduced but I recall seeing in the newspapers last summer where two men were fined 60/- for holding up a member of the Garda at gunpoint. That seems to me a very small fine when compared with the £100 that a farmer may be fined for not reporting a disease that may have broken out among his stock.

There are many other points which can best be dealt with on Committee Stage but I should like the Minister to deal with the few points I have mentioned because there are a few small amendments that perhaps the Minister would agree to make on the next Stage.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I think it fit and proper that somebody on this side of the House should commend the Minister for bringing this legislation before the House. I claim that it is fit and proper that I should do this as representative of the veterinary profession, nominated by that profession since the establishment of the Seanad in 1938.

This consolidation of the various Diseases of Animals Acts from 1894 to the present date is not as simple as one might imagine on reading it. I think the Schedule deals with 15 Acts which are repealed in toto and section 2 of the Dogs Act, 1906. Only section 2 is repealed in that case; it is a pity we could not have it all repealed and then all the legislation would be consolidated under this Bill. The system of consolidation really means that the future legislation must be enacted by order of the Minister rather than by writing it in in the terminology of an Act. I am in favour of legislation by order although many times in this House such a system was vociferously condemned. But when dealing with the cases we are dealing with now, enzootic and epizootic diseases and the various circumstances relating to each of these several diseases as well as to them all jointly, we could not consolidate all the legislation from the 15 Acts which are repealed into one consolidated measure in 1966 and make it effective, so that we must have, I think, legislation by order of the Minister to cover situations as they occur and outbreaks of various diseases as they occur. This means we must necessarily have extensive legislation under the system of orders made relative to the cases as they arise. This is nothing new to me. I well remember the Milk and Dairies Act, 1935. That Act was a relatively short one but the orders that had to be made and endorsed by both Houses of the Oireachtas consequent on that legislation were voluminous. I can visualise the same thing happening in connection with this Bill. That will be all to the good. The Bill allows the Minister to apply regulations for definite circumstances and to transpose diseases from one section of the Schedule to another.

The First Schedule shows in Part I the animals which are to be dealt with and in Part II the poultry to be dealt with. I read the report of the amusing discussion that took place in the Dáil in connection with item No. 9 of the list of animals in the First Schedule in which are set out the names of numerous animals, many of which I had never heard of. I went to the trouble of looking up the names in a dictionary and found that practically all the animals mentioned belong to the rodent family.

Part II of the First Schedule itemises the birds to which the Bill applies. Item No. 13 includes numerous birds commonly called parrots, parakeets, budgerigars, and so on. They are all of the parrot family. So I do not think we need start any discussion here.

Mr. McQuillan

Very common.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I do not follow the Senator. The first serious suggestion I have to make, if Senators do not regard my references so far as being serious, is as to the position of fish disease. The Bill allows the Minister at any time to insert a new disease in connection with animals or poultry. I should like to ask the Minister what stage has been reached in connection with the investigation of epizootic disease of fish in certain districts. I understand that the matter is being investigated by the Veterinary Section of the Fisheries Department, for which the Minister is responsible. According to Press reports, hundreds of salmon were found dead on the banks or in the rivers in Kerry and along the Black-water. These would seem to indicate that there is some serious infectious disease affecting fish, of which we have very little information. In view of this state of affairs, I would suggest the inclusion of fish in the First Schedule. It is the responsibility of the Minister and his Department to clarify the position relative to the disease which is affecting fish in Kerry, Waterford, and possibly elsewhere.

I can speak with some experience of epizootic disease in animals. It is a fact that our livestock are the most disease-free in the world. Foot-and-mouth disease and other epizootic diseases do not spread so easily in this country because of our insular position. There has been no incidence in this country for years past of most of the diseases specified in Part III of the Schedule and I do not anticipate that there will be any incidence of them in years to come. We do not know anything about cattle plague; we have not had it. We have not had any outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia. We have had foot-and-mouth disease. I have had some experience of it. We have not had sheep pox. We have had swine fever. We have not had epizootic lymphangitis. We have had parasitic mange. In my time it has disappeared completely from this country. We have not rabies but there would be a certain amount of danger of its being introduced here if we abolished the quarantine regulations applying to animals being imported. Glanders has disappeared. Anthrax does occur in this country. The eleventh item included in the list is fowl pest in any of its forms, including Newcastle disease and fowl plague, which are diseases which have been investigated and information obtained in relation to them. As far as the other diseases are concerned, we do not anticipate any danger of their reaching us unless by some extraordinary circumstance. Therefore, the list really can be reduced to about four diseases—foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever, anthrax and fowl pest.

I should like at this stage to emphasise the danger of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and to discuss briefly the difficulties of controlling it when it does arise. At the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, in 1941, which started up North and came down here, and occurred in the city of Dublin, I was on the veterinary staff of Dublin Corporation. For the veterinary staffs it was a 24-hour day job. We were collaborating with the officers of the Department of Agriculture. They appreciated the collaboration of the veterinary staff of Dublin Corporation. I would nearly boast that the Corporation staff were as efficient and competent a staff as the Department had at that time. They had to supervise operations which had reached nation-wide extent at that time. I refer to the export of animals, post mortems on animals, and so on.

I have some very amusing recollections of that period, one or two of which I should like to mention to demonstrate the difficulty of providing for everything by order. We had the job of disinfecting premises in which the central authority had had the affected animals slaughtered and disinfecting those who had been in contact with these animals. Fortunately we had several barrels of formalin. I remember on one occasion we were spraying with formalin when we suddenly saw a cat sitting on top of an unenclosed rick. His poor eyes were running as a result of the formalin and he was miaowing quite piteously. We did not know what to do with him and decided that the best thing was to ask the Garda to shoot him. A garda came. We did not know whether we had any power to shoot the cat; we did not know whether the cat was worth £100 or nothing at all. The garda said it would be no trouble to shoot him. He went as near to the cat as I am now to the Senators on the other side of the House and drew his revolver. I said: "You are missing", and actually he did miss him. The cat took off and we saw no more of him. The incident was amusing.

Mr. Haughey

But not for the cat.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

He got away. I remember there was considerable difficulty in disinfecting, particularly when we had to do a whole street. It was a narrow street admittedly; the lorries carrying the slaughtered animals travelled along it. Of course, it was also used by people. We had to close that street in order to disinfect it. Another power we had was that of disinfecting people who had been in contact with diseased animals. There is provision in a section of this Bill for disinfecting the clothes of those who might be contaminated.

Mr. McQuillan

Was that when the Senator was delousing the emigrants—120,000 of them every year?

Seán Ó Donnabháin

It was a pity the Senator was never sprayed. Not only did we disinfect clothing but we also provided baths. We had the municipal baths in Marrowbone Lane and we transported those in contact with foot and mouth disease to these baths for disinfecting. That was very useful because it lessened the danger of the disease spreading. There was one amusing incident in which one of those who had been taken from a dairy premises to Marrowbone Lane came back and showed us his hat after disinfecting: it was like the sort of little hat a clown wears.

There was an interesting case, too, in which foot and mouth occurred in a dairy premises on the north side. The premises were closed and all the routine steps were taken. One of the milkers, however, went over to south county Dublin the next morning and subsequently an outbreak of foot and mouth disease was notified. I have no personal proof but I was told that the man from the north side had milked in that premises and must have transported the disease on his person. Apart from disinfecting clothes, disinfecting the individual is also very important.

I had the experience of seeing a grave prepared in County Meath for animals that had been slaughtered. It was about eight feet deep and for that eight feet the soil was the same all the way down. It struck me that if we could transport some of that soil to Connemara, we would have no need to worry about Deputy Dillon's rock clearing scheme.

I shall come back to realities.

Professor Dooge

Hear, hear.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I have been speaking about realities. In Class B then we have sheep scab, bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis and warble fly infestation. We have succeeded in eradicating bovine tuberculosis. There is, of course, always the danger of reinfection. We are starting now to eradicate brucellosis and warble fly. I shall deal with warble fly first. The life history of the fly is really fantastic. In the years gone by, the life history was traced from the time the fly lays its eggs on the beast to the stage at which the next generation of warble fly is on the back of that beast. The warble fly is no respecter of fences. When, on a previous occasion, an earlier Fianna Fáil government endeavoured to rid the country of warble fly, they were derided by the Opposition and by the National Farmers Association of the day.

Mr. McDonald

The NFA were not established until 1956.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

A resolution of mine in favour of eradication of the warble fly was passed unanimously by this House. I exhibited specimens in the ante-room showing the damage done by the warble fly. Indeed, a general election was almost fought over the warble fly; Deputy Dillon told the farmers not to let one inspector inside their gates. The scheme proposed then fell through and I should like to emphasise now the enormous difference in the situation today. I do not mean in the opposition to the Government or in the National Farmers Association but in the facilities we have been afforded by research in dealing with the eradication of warbles.

It is not the warble on the back of the animal we are trying to deal with now, as we were trying to do with the derris treatment, but with the penetration of the parasite which hatches from the egg of the warble fly. The fly lays its eggs below the hocks and the fetlocks of a beast. That is why the animal tries to get into the shade to avoid the fly. Then the beast starts gadding and will go into a stream or river, anywhere there is water, to prevent the fly attacking it. Apart from the injury done to the animal through penetration by the warble fly, there has also to be considered the loss of animals through falling over cliffs and into ditches to avoid the fly. When the egg hatches out, the parasite penetrates the skin and pokes its way along through the lymphatic system of the animal and succeeds in coming to its permanent location beneath the skin on the back of the animal from which it is convenient for it to develop into a warble. When the grub develops, it then has to puncture the skin and the back to get out on to the ground and continue the rotation from grub to fly again. It is in course of the parasite's transit from where it penetrates the skin of the animal to its permanent location on the back that the dressing on the back of the animal becomes effective. The dressing is absorbed into the lymphatic system and kills the parasite in transit to the animal's back. This dressing, so conveniently and easily administered, can prevent the grub from developing into a warble which is the cause of great difficulty to leather manufacturers and others concerned with the cattle trade.

I should like to ask the Minister how many animals were omitted from the last eradication effort. I would say every farmer in the country is anxious to co-operate in this scheme. It is in every farmer's interest from the point of view of the appearance of the beast, the appearance of the carcase when the beast is slaughtered, and increasing the milk supply from dairy cows. Even if a couple of hundred thousand were missed during the last effort, many of them might not have warbles on them. However, I would like to know what number of animals are involved there. It should be possible, with full co-operation from the farming community, to eradicate the warble fly within two years, and that would be one other problem out of our way. I should like now to refer to sheep scab.

An Cathaoirleach

I trust the Senator does not intend to treat the House to a dissertation, in detail, on all these diseases.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

It was to the warble fly and sheep scab that I wanted to refer particularly. However, possibly I can refer to these in some detail on Committee Stage. The Minister mentioned that his estimate of the loss to the country was £100 per farmer. That is a tremendous amount of money and it would be interesting if the statisticians could tell us whether that is right or wrong. If £100 were added to the income of every small farmer, it would be an immense increase.

Mr. McDonald

Most of the increase would probably go to the tanners.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The Senator ought not to bring me back to the tanners. I could go back to the time when some of his colleagues said: "The tanners are the people who would be interested in this. We do not want to be bothered with the warble fly". They used those arguments and they were all erroneous. I had two specimens of hides which had been damaged by warble fly. They were like sieves, there were so many holes in them.

The matters of dishorning and colouring matter in sheep dips do not seem to be relevant to a measure dealing with animal diseases, but we shall have made very good progress if all the animals in the country are dishorned so that they will not injure other animals when being exported.

Senator Stanford referred to the Protection of Animals Act. In my opinion, this Bill goes a step further because if I recall correctly, in the earlier Bill, we did not succeed in ensuring that animals straying in the country would carry collars with the owners' names on them.

I do not think Senator Stanford was correct in his reference to the Veterinary Council. Like any other professional association, there is a controlling body which is called here the Veterinary Council and then there is the Veterinary Medical Association which I shall refer to as the trade union body of the profession. Senator Stanford did not mention that the Protection of Animals Bill was a private measure signed by a few Senators. He asked me at the time if I would like to give my support to it and I agreed. In discussing the details of the Bill with the Veterinary Association, we found there were many points needing amendment and the Minister for Agriculture was in this House when I proposed between 12 and 14 amendments. My point is that Senator Stanford appears to be confusing the Veterinary Council with the Veterinary Association. I jocosely referred to the latter body as the trade union branch of the profession. There are other professional bodies in a similar position. I shall not delay the House further at this stage. There are other points on which I made notes but which I shall leave until Committee Stage.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

I should like to join the other speakers in congratulating the Minister on this very important Bill. Its importance is spelled out in the Minister's introductory statements here and in the Dáil. He gave a figure of £25 million as the annual loss sustained by Irish farmers through diseases and pests, whether from deaths in flocks and herds or in reduced milk yields. He broke this figure down as representing £100 per farmer per annum. This, to my mind, is a staggering figure. Many people may be dubious about accepting it as correct but I believe it to be correct and if one examines the reports issued from time to time, one must agree that the Minister's figure is not very far off the mark. Our losses in yields and in deaths are far too high. It must be brought home to everyone engaged in agriculture that a great responsibility rests on them to co-operate in every possible way with officials of the Department in efforts to reduce this figure.

The figure makes one realise how very little was done between the Act of 1894 and the introduction of the Act of 1957 to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. There was a period of 35 years after the achievement of native government when nothing at all was done in this field. Then, we were compelled, because the British insisted on it, to ensure that our cattle were free from tuberculosis. We had to embark on the costly exercise of eradicating TB in our cattle herds and we can be very proud of the successful outcome of that campaign which proves that what was done in the tuberculosis eradication scheme can be done with equal success in the implementation of the Bill now being considered.

I welcome the introduction of a comprehensive programme for the eradication and control of such diseases and conditions as brucellosis, warble fly, sheep scab, liver fluke and mastitis. If we look at the losses occasioned by mastitis, we will be unanimous in agreeing that the Minister has done a very good job in introducing this Bill. The Irish Independent of 13th January published a report by the Agricultural Institute, compiled by a technical study group, on milk quality. The report stated that the group had been studying the problem of mastitis in Ireland during the previous year and it revealed that an annual loss of 30 million gallons of milk per year was sustained. A reduction in that figure would mean a considerable increase in milk production and it would also mean a big increase in the income of milk producers.

The success of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme has proved that when the farmers and the Department of Agriculture co-operate, they can be very successful. If we get the same co-operation in this matter, we can be as successful as we were in freeing our herds from tuberculosis. It is imperative that the terms of the Bill be implemented in view of the losses incurred in the agricultural field by the very diseases this Bill seeks to eradicate. To do so we must seek the co-operation of the voluntary organisations throughout the country who, assisted by the county committees of agriculture and their advisory services, can play a very important part in this matter.

The bovine tuberculosis scheme cost the State quite a lot of money but it was worth every penny. If this scheme is to be successful, we all must face up to our responsibilities. We must begin by ensuring that money will be made available for the successful implementation of the Bill. It will not do just to appeal to the good sense, the patriotism, the good citizenship of our farmers. Many people do not like the word "compulsion". I dislike it myself but here I cannot see any other answer because here it will not do to have 90 per cent of the people co-operating and the other ten per cent adopting the old casual attitude of saying: "God is good; we might escape." We must get into this in the same way as we did in the case of the TB scheme if we want to reduce the staggering figure of £25 million. This is equally important. As Deputy Murphy pointed out in the Dáil, many a Minister for Finance in the past could have very usefully used the money lost every year—this loss was referred to by the Minister—in the agricultural field. I welcome the Bill and I sincerely hope it will achieve its purpose.

Mr. Malone

I, too, should like to welcome the measure before the House. While I do not for one moment question the accuracy of the Minister's figure of £25 million in respect of losses the fact is that there was very little the country could do about it up to now. The eradication of some of the diseases dealt with in this Bill was rendered possible by the impressive advances made in veterinary research in recent years. I am sure the Minister knows very well that farmers can be led but not driven. The Minister is extremely fortunate in being able to get away with compulsion under the guise of a voluntary effort. I shall deal with that in more detail later on. I would divide the Bill into three categories—the part for which I have the most enthusiasm, the part about which I am least enthusiastic and the part which concerns me most.

The part about which I am least enthusiastic is that which relates to the dehorning of cattle. While it is, I suppose, true to say that the horns of an animal are more ornamental than useful, I can, nevertheless, see certain pedigree breeders objecting very strongly to having the horns removed from their animals. If you take a man who is breeding pedigree cows or bulls, who retains them on his farm for the duration of their useful life and who then wants to offer them for sale at a slaughterhouse, is such a person to be prevented from doing so because during the animals' life he had not had the horns removed? It would seem rather a hardship on the animal as well as on the farmer to have to do the job a couple of days before the animals are slaughtered.

The part about which I am most enthusiastic is that which deals with the control of dogs. Every item in this Bill is welcome and I am sure will receive from the House every commendation but the control of dogs is something that is so long overdue that people began to wonder if there could be anything at all done about it. Frankly, I cannot see how even the measures proposed in this Bill will be implemented. The greatest menace to sheep farmers is the number of dogs in and around towns. It very often happens that parents get a puppy for the children as a pet. When the puppy grows to maturity it turns out to be a most ugly mongrel. The children lose interest in it and it gets the door. A number of those dogs band together and they go out hunting sheep. It has happened I know on a number of occasions in Carlow.

When the dogs hunt the sheep the farmers follow the dogs back to the town but, of course, there are no owners. Will it be possible to insist on every dog owner having the name on the collar? While 5/- is a very small fee to pay for a dog licence—I do not know what it brings in—I think it could be very usefully doubled or certainly increased in order to discourage people from keeping so many dogs. It might possibly be a hardship in some cases where a poor person living alone keeps a dog for protection but I believe in the long run it would reduce the number of dogs in the country and help greatly to implement the measures proposed in the Bill. This would eliminate the frustrating experience which many farmers in the country have of seeing their sheep and lambs torn to pieces in the fields.

The part of the Bill about which I am concerned is that which deals with the power given to inspectors. They have power, under this Bill, to arrest and detain. I do not think any civilian should have such extensive power. Farmers are law-abiding citizens and they will be very co-operative as far as the Garda Síochána are concerned but if a civilian inspector, however wellintentioned he may be, approaches a farmer, who is going into or leaving a farm which is designated as isolated, and taps him on the shoulder and says: "If you are either going into or leaving that place I will arrest you" the farmer will not take very kindly to him. Surely there are sufficient members of the Garda Síochána throughout the country to deal with matters of that nature without giving such wide power to the inspectors of the Department?

I am quite sure, as some of the other speakers mentioned, that the Minister is as concerned as we all are with the danger of foot and mouth disease being introduced into the country at the present time. I believe the greatest hazard arises from the number of cars which are entering the country from the point of view of tourism. What control can be exercised over transport coming from rural areas in, say, England, Holland, Belgium or anywhere else where there may be an outbreak of foot and mouth disease? This is something which I am sure is engaging the attention of the Minister. I hope, in his reply, he will be able to outline the precautions taken in that regard.

I dealt with the question of warble fly and sheep scab on a previous occasion. We had the Minister for Finance here on that occasion but he was much more concerned with getting the Finance Bill passed than he was with the question of whether sheep would be dipped or not. Therefore, I would mention a few of the requests I made on that occasion, now that we have the Minister for Agriculture here. The sheep dipping arrangements are not to the satisfaction of the farming community in so far as they entail three dippings rather than two in many cases. Following the shearing, the farmers have to dip their sheep in order to prevent fly strike. A month later, they must dip them again under the new regulations, and a couple of months later, yet again.

A recommendation has been sent to the Minister from the General Council of the County Committees of Agriculture to have the date set changed from 1st July to the middle of June. Personally I should like it to be 1st June but I would settle for the middle of June which would ensure that all the sheep will be dipped at shearing time. Mountain sheep farmers gathering their sheep for shearing will not be so particular if the sheep have to be let out after shearing and then rounded up and brought back for dipping three weeks or a month later. It would increase the percentage of sheep dipped. I am also pleased that colouring is being added to the dip. That will ensure that all the sheep have gone through the dip tub. I wonder will that eliminate the necessity for having inspectors, because unless the sheep are fully immersed in the dip, it will be quite obvious that they have not been dipped. If they are properly immersed, the dye will show on the wool and there will be no necessity to have inspectors standing over them to see that they are dipped.

On the question of the warble fly, I am wondering about the compensation. Farmers who do not have to have their cattle dressed for warble fly should be encouraged to have them dressed. There are a number of them; for example, dairy farmers who do not intend offering their cows for sale within the following 12 months do not have to have the cows they are retaining in their herd dressed for warble fly under the present scheme. If by any chance they are unlucky enough to lose an animal because of the dressing, the compensation payable should encourage those farmers to offer their cows for dressing. I have sent details of one case to the Minister but I have not yet heard from him about it.

If the cow dies as a result of this dressing, the farmer is paid compensation on the slaughter value only. To my mind, that is not an encouragement to the farmers to offer for dressing animals that do not have to be dressed, because it does not take into consideration all the potentials, the milk yield, the calves, and so on. I should like to know at what stage a cow heavy in calf need not be dressed. There have been a lot of losses of cows which were near calving. Some direction should be given to the operators as to the stage at which an in-calf cow need not be dressed for warble fly.

Everyone will welcome the provision in respect of brucellosis and we hope it will be implemented as quickly as possible. It is frightening to think that while it has always been an offence to offer for sale a cow that had aborted, it happens all too often. It is such a frightfully contagious disease that even birds can carry it from one field to another. One can imagine how disheartening it must be to farmers to have that disease introduced into their herds in saleyards or at fairs. A man may not fully realise the harm he is doing, but he should be constantly reminded that such animals should not be offered for sale in any circumstances, just as the committees of agriculture and the various voluntary rural organisations can point out to the farmers the harm they are doing to the State by such sales and the danger of spreading undulant fever by offering for sale milk from such cows, and the danger of penicillin rash from milk from cows that have been treated for mastitis.

The co-operation between the rural organisations, the committees of agriculture and the Department has been very noticable in recent years. Nowadays the farmers are willing and anxious to learn, and the committees of agriculture are dealing with far more in the general range of agriculture than they did some years ago when they spent their time at meetings dealing with premiums for bulls, prizes at shows, turkey-cock stations and such matters. They are now dealing with every aspect of agriculture, a very healthy sign. The farmers are very interested in what is going on at these meetings, and are anxious to learn from them. I am quite certain they are prepared to co-operate in the implementing of this Bill, and to see that everything in it is carried to a successful conclusion. While it will cost a lot of money and no doubt involve a certain amount of inconvenience for farmers, I am sure the Minister will see that the cost and the inconvenience are kept to a minimum.

In regard to liver fluke, there is provision in the Bill that certain areas of land may be entered on and sprayed. Some of the smaller farms are run as one unit and there is no fencing available to keep the stock away from land that has been treated until it is ready to be used again. I can foresee a considerable hardship in that respect but I am sure that when the time arrives, the Minister will take that into consideration. I certainly welcome the Bill and I wish the Minister every luck in its implementation.

Mr. Cole

The previous speaker referred to the control of dogs. I should like the Minister to consider adding one other subsection to the section dealing with that matter, section 56. Would he consider declaring an area a danger area, for a certain time, for any dog found wandering in it either during the day or at night? This would be an area in which sheep had been killed and the dogs could not be traced. It could be declared an area in which no dog should be seen wandering by day or night for a week, two weeks or a month. In certain cases dogs are traced to some man's house and he disclaims ownership of them. The dogs may be wandering around unfed and doing damage. Therefore I hold that such an area should be included in that section.

The points which I have to raise are to some extent Committee points. One point I should like to mention is that we now have the blue card for tuberculin-tested cattle and attached to it, we have the warble fly certificate, and I take that we will have to join on the brucellosis test certificate, for the heifers at any rate, and perhaps also the warble fly certificate for the following year. It seems to me that we should devise some sort of blue card which will have space for noting the annual tests which have been carried out. Sometimes the blue card will last for four years. Sometimes when one buys cattle, one finds the warble fly certificate attached to the card with safety pins or stuck on with adhesive paper. A card will be in an awful mess, if it can be preserved at all, at the end of a year or two and therefore the Department should devise some type of card with appropriate spaces on it for notification of these diseases so that they will not have to be fastened on to it.

In regard to section 16, which deals with a private person putting up a notice prohibiting anyone from coming on his land if there is a disease of some kind or other, such as foot-and-mouth, in the area, I must say that I cannot see how this can be enforced unless he takes an action for trespass. I cannot find any way in the Bill in which this section can be enforced. The section excludes rights of way and I feel that the Minister, under section 19 where he may declare an area to be a diseased area, should take power to include rights of way. I think most people would be perfectly willing to uphold that for a certain time if there was any danger of them carrying disease to a farm. Either the Minister or the private person should have power to stop people from going over rights of way for a limited time if it was necessary that this should be done.

In regard to Part III, which brings in local authorities, it appears to me, having seen what powers are given to local authorities, that this part is unnecessary. I cannot see any local authority making orders under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, which will not be orders that are not directly sent out from the Minister's Department. The local authorities have no veterinary officers except those who carry out the meat inspections and they have no other officers to enforce any of these orders except perhaps poultry instructresses or people of that type. I think this whole matter is now carried out by the Minister's Department in some way or other. Perhaps they may collect something from the rates or perhaps Local Government are nominally allowed to make these orders.

Section 21 reads:

Section 7 (1) of the Animal Remedies Act, 1956 shall, notwithstanding subsection (2) of that section, apply to any animal remedy specified in any order of the Minister in relation to any Class B disease.

The section in the 1956 Act allows the Minister, after consultation with a consultative committee set up under that Act, to control the manufacture of various drugs and remedies and I should like to know why is it confined to Class B diseases. Why could the Minister not control remedies for Class A diseases?

There is another question which I should like to ask in regard to section 42 subsection (6) which reads:

A certificate of an inspector or other authorised person to the effect that an animal is or was affected with a disease specified in the certificate shall, for the purposes of this Act, be conclusive evidence of the matter certified.

There should be some method of appealing to a second authority in some cases. I know of a recent case where a mistake was made over a certain disease and the small farmer involved was put to considerable trouble. If the certificate of an inspector is conclusive evidence without any appeal to a second authority, a grave mistake or grave loss could occur and the farmer might be put to considerable loss before it was discovered that the inspector had made a mistake and that the disease was not present at all. The use of the phrase "conclusive evidence" makes it rather severe.

The Bill is rather comprehensive in a way and a lot of things are said a great many times in different ways. The drafting of the Bill is perhaps somewhat lax. I should like to refer to section 48 which commences by stating "If a person without lawful authority or excuse" etc., does any of the following things and then we have at the beginning of each paragraph another "if". In paragraph (c) it says:

if he fails to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, licence, rule, or thing which by this Act, or by an order of the Minister, or by a regulation of a local authority, or by an authorised person he is required to give, produce, observe, or do; or

Surely the words "this Act" include an order of the Minister or a regulation of a local authority because we come down to paragraph (h) in the same section which says:

if when duly required to do so under this Act or any order made thereunder he refuses or fails to give information within his knowledge or wilfully or negligently gives false or misleading information.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would raise these points on Committee Stage? I think he has gone into detail concerning drafting which is not appropriate to the Second Stage.

Mr. Cole

I agree.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will take it as notice to the Minister.

Mr. Cole

There are quite a few others, too. Under section 19 the Guards can enfore regulations of the Minister or the local authority, but apparently they cannot enforce any regulations or notices put up under section 16.

Mr. McGlinchey

I am not a veterinary surgeon like Senator Ó Donnabháin and, therefore, I could not understand many of the words used by him this evening. However, I am possibly the nearest thing to a veterinary surgeon: I am the son of one and possibly have learned a little from him.

I should like to comment on just one section here and to agree with Senator McDonald when he said there are not sufficient dipping inspectors to supervise the dipping of sheep. This is particularly so in a county such as mine where there are so many small hill farmers. Until a year or so ago, sheep owners could dip their sheep on their own farms if they had pens and used their own dip. The dipping inspector took a chance and issued a certificate. In 99 cases out of 100, he was justified because most farmers, for their own protection, take the necessary steps to ensure their sheep are dipped. If sheep scab is discovered, the restrictions are such that farmers do not like to have to face them. It is true that occasionally sheep could be missed and scab discovered from place to place.

I think this restriction whereby all sheep have to be dipped in the presence of the dipping inspector is now no longer necessary because of section 55, which is an important step forward. With the introduction of the dye, everyone, whether professional or layman, can see at a glance if the sheep have been dipped or not. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to reconsider this restriction whereby all farmers had to send their sheep to the local authority dipping pens to ensure they were dipped in the presence of the inspector. This is most inconvenient not alone for the farmers themselves but certainly for the dipping inspectors who, having regard to their present strength, cannot possibly carry out all this work. With the introduction of section 55, it is no longer necessary and I would ask the Minister to consider the withdrawal of this section.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): In rising to speak on this Bill, I am inclined to reminisce. I am blessed with a good memory, which probably compensates for other defects. I remember speaking on the Diseases of Animals Bill in 1949. I was probably not as experienced as I am now and certainly a good deal more ardent. I then made a case, which I had studied and substantiated, that some steps should then be taken towards the eradication of bovine TB. My approach at that time was that, if steps were taken to eliminate that disease from the cow population, it would reduce substantially the number of children finding their way into such institutions as Cappagh and Coole. We know that many of the cases in those places are directly the result of bovine TB being fed through milk.

I am convinced at this stage that, if we had attacked that problem much earlier, it would have been much less costly. If we had extracted the tubercular cows over a 15 year period, we would have prevented a lot of suffering and saved a large number of valuable lives. We would also have brought about the situation that, when it became economically necessary for us to tackle bovine TB, it would not have been the big problem it turned out to be and certainly would not have been as costly as it was.

We all know it is just as bad to be before your time as after your time. Because of the pattern of thinking at that time, I was attacked by those who should know better, by the representatives of the cattle traders' association, in this House. Apparently, it would appear if a butcher in England or this country was unfortunate enough to find himself with a carcase infected with bovine TB, he just had to take that risk. Senator Bigger, a member of the House at that time, was the only one to take my side in the argument. Were it not for him, I would have been completely overwhelmed; but Senator Bigger took the view that I was right. He was in a better position to prove I was right because he knew much more about the problem than I did.

Mr. Haughey

He is a bigger man than you.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): He knew more about the matter. I owe him a lot for taking my side in that rather heated debate. I felt I was held up to ridicule. It was said that my remarks would lead to depressing cattle prices if taken seriously. When Senator Malone now asks why was something like this not done earlier, I have given him the answer. Our pattern of thinking was such that it apparently was not possible to do much about it at that time. Only when it became economically necessary to do something about it, did we tackle the question seriously. I am glad it is a success and that there was so much co-operation. In my view, it would have been much less costly if it had been tackled sooner and if the infected cows had been eradicated over a period. However, it is now successful and, with our new pattern of thinking, we must get down to doing the other things that still remain to be done, in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and the Minister for Agriculture.

That brings me to this question of warble fly eradication. Somebody mentioned that it was not necessary for people who were not selling animals such as cows to have a certificate. That may be. I agree that if the Minister for Agriculture can get things done voluntarily, it is far better than compulsion. It is in the nature of things that some people will do a thing voluntarily while they get it hard to do it under compulsion. Again, at the other end of the scale, some people will do a thing only when it is compulsory. I still feel that since it is so necessary to eradicate completely and in a short time warble fly infestation, it is essential that the Minister take whatever steps he thinks best to make sure that all our cattle are treated with a view to completely eliminating warble fly infestation.

I shall now mention something about which I know very little, a scientific matter. I refer to the development of warble flies resistant to the treatment. If that should come about, we should find ourselves in a very disastrous position. Some people I have met have told me that it is possible: I do not know. It is a highly technical matter. I am not in any position to give an opinion and I just mention now that people have told me it is possible for a strain of warble fly to develop that would be resistant to the present treatment. If that should happen, it would be a disastrous situation and we should be back again where we started. That is why it is so necessary that the Minister should get every assistance possible in the eradication of the warble fly to make sure it is successful in a short time.

I am tempted to deal only with diseases in cattle because some Senators know more than I do about diseases in sheep. I might say this, however, in regard to the warble fly. I am afraid our farming population do not realise the amount of loss the warble fly causes to the nation and to the individual farmer. I went to the trouble of studying the effects of the warble fly on cows on a small farm of approximately 40 acres where milk was being sold to the creamery and the only test was the sale of milk. On this farm, in the year before the cows were treated, the sale value of the milk in July, as against June, fell by some £13 and some shillings and pence. The following year, on the same farm, for the same number of cows and after they were treated—I cannot tell the Seanad if there was any great upward adjustment in the price: not as much as I think there should have been—the cash value rose by £2 odd, and that was a small farm in the west of Ireland. If that happens on one farm, it is bound to happen on another farm. I am afraid it is only when the amount of loss he is suffering is fully brought home to the individual farmer that he will really take note. To speak in large figures about millions of pounds in losses is not nearly as effective as to tell a man how much he himself lost. To the extent that the Minister tried to calculate what it would mean to the individual farmer, I think his approach was the right one. I can tell him and the House, in relation to the case I mentioned, that the figures are accurate.

I should like to mention the question of brucellosis. I wonder whether it is now confirmed opinion that brucellosis is responsible for contagious abortion in cattle between the sixth and the eight month of pregnancy. That is one good reason why brucellosis should be eliminated but there is another reason, too. Milk from cows infected with brucellosis will cause a very severe fever in the human population. I have met people who have had that fever. I know an officer of the Department of Agriculture who was severely ill with that fever for quite a substantial length of time. His work necessitated his dealing with animals suffering from the disease. I should like to hope that, in our new pattern of thinking, it will not merely be economic necessity—a higher cattle population—that will force us to take steps to eliminate brucellosis. I should rather like to hope that we shall also work with a view to improving the health of our human population. Certainly, we must agree— it is a hard thing to have to say— that it was economic necessity that forced us to undertake the elimination of bovine tuberculosis.

I come now to a matter on which I shall not make a statement but ask a question. Can the Minister tell me, offhand, if trichomoniasis is a scheduled disease under this measure? I hope he will be able to give that information when he is replying. Because of the widespread use of artificial insemination, I agree that trichomoniasis is a disease which is not now as important as it was at one time but there are still some areas where that disease can flare up and in a congested district, it can have very serious economic consequences. I know a district where the spread of that disease became a very serious problem for the Department of Agriculture. I should like to think the Minister has some plan for its elimination. The unfortunate thing is that it is more likely to occur in congested districts. Some Senators may be anxious to interrupt me on this matter but this is a problem in relation to which I know what I am talking about. I know the amount of damage that was done some years ago in an area comprising parts of Cavan, Leitrim and Longford as a result of a high incidence of trichomoniasis. The effect of the disease is that cows which are proven in calf will abort in the first to the fourth month. That is a very serious matter in any district, not to speak of a congested district. I should like to Minister to tell me if trichomoniasis is regarded at the moment as a serious problem and, if it is a serious problem, what steps will be taken in the foreseeable future to deal with its incidence.

Mr. Sheldon

Any consolidation Bill is always welcome and this measure is certainly a consolidation Bill, Most of the points I wish to make I shall deal with on Committee Stage but, just in case I might be informed that this was not quite in order on a particular section, there are one or two I should like to make now.

It seems to me, and Senator Cole referred to this, that there is certain amount of repetition. For instance, I cannot see why it was necessary apparently to duplicate what is in section 15, subsection (b) in the first couple of items in the Second Schedule. In regard to the Second Schedule, in fact, I cannot see why it is put in as a Schedule and not just as a section. Neither can I see why section 13 should have given authority to the Second Schedule, rather than just putting all the items in at section 13 because it does not seem to me to vary very much in character from the other sections of the Bill in the sense that it goes into very great detail, because most of the sections do.

Again, in regard to section 13, I am wondering what would be the precise difference between the effect of section 13 on the Schedule and the effect of section 27 because section 13 deals with orders which may be made by the Minister for the purpose of the prevention or eradication of disease, section 27 empowers the Minister to make orders with regard to the regulation of movement of animals, etc. and again under section 28, with regard to the transport of animals. I am wondering whether disease does not come into it. Section 27 seems to me to be a very wide section in that the Minister may make an order for any reason he likes prohibiting the movement of animals to or from a fair. There is no question of eradication or prevention of disease entering into it. At least that is what it appears to be on the surface. I am not saying that this is what it does but it is what it appears to me to do and I am not sure that such a wide provision should be made.

I confess I did not read the 15 Acts which are repealed to find out how much of the present Bill is in them or whether this is practically a reinstatement; in other words, how far is the Bill consolidating and how far is it new. I did not wade through the 15 Acts to work this out. If the Minister can say that my fears in regard to these points are groundless because he already has such power, I should not be entirely satisfied but I raise these couple of points because on Committee Stage, where something is concerned with different parts of the Bill, it is difficult to find what is the best way to deal with them.

There is just one other point I should like to refer to and which was raised by Senator Stanford. He referred to the use of over-sharp goads in dealing with cattle. I am sorry he did not say where he saw this. It was the use of a sharp goad in a vicious way. I hope nobody will think I am being over-critical of the Senator in saying this but I do think that in anything as bad as that, the details should be given.

Professor Stanford

I shall say it here: I am so informed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals who usually know what they are talking about on these occasions.

Mr. Sheldon

The trouble with this sort of thing is somebody picks it up —it is news and it gets the headlines in the paper—and the next thing is that people who know nothing about the way people treat cattle assume that this is the general practice.

Professor Stanford

I did not say it was a general practice. I referred to its existence. I am assured of that by a society which does not go out of its way to look for trouble and I think Senator Sheldon may well take their view on this matter.

Mr. Sheldon

The Senator misunderstands the point I am trying to make. Where such a shocking practice is referred to by anyone, I think the details ought to be given because it is only too easy, as everybody knows, for something like this to be referred to in the newspapers, and a great many people——

Professor Stanford

Might I ask what harm that would do if it helped to prevent a continuance of the practice?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Might I point out that this type of dialogue is not appropriate in this House.

Mr. Sheldon

I trust the Chair is not referring to me. I am on my feet and I was trying to make a monologue. I am sorry if Senator Stanford takes my remarks up wrongly. I felt it should not be allowed to pass just in case there might be some misunderstanding about what the Senator said. May I assure him of that? Ignorant people might assume that such a practice could be widespread.

Professor Stanford

Nobody said it is widespread. It is the Senator who says it is widespread.

Mr. Sheldon

But I think that where a particular damage is referred to, the details should be given to prevent any misunderstanding.

The only other thing I want to say is that I fully agree with Senator O'Reilly who wanted to make sure that the eradication of the warble fly would be swift. Anybody who listened to the life story of the warble fly here this afternoon would not wish to see this thing starting up again.

There are one or two other points I should like to make but I think they ought to be left to the Committee Stage because it gets rather confusing dashing about from section to section and I am sure the Minister would prefer that the points should be raised then.

Mr. Haughey

I should like, first of all, to say how grateful I am to the Seanad for the welcome it has afforded this measure and, indeed, for the many instructive and useful contributions which have been made by Senators. I want to assure them that all the points they have made will be carefully reviewed by me and, if necessary, action taken in regard to them in relation to the measure between now and Committee Stage. It is true—as indeed most Senators have been ready to admit—that a great deal of the matters which have been raised are more appropriate to the Committee Stage and I know they will forgive me if I do not refer to many of them now but leave them over for a more detailed discussion on that Stage.

I should like to say at the outset that I agree very fully with the point of view expressed by Senator Stanford, that is, that kindness to animals, a regard for the welfare of animals, is not alone a virtuous thing but is also good business.

Mr. McQuillan

Does he include deer?

Mr. Haughey

I think that the more our farmers——

Mr. McQuillan

And sheep?

Mr. Haughey

It was that kind of approach to life that put the Senator out of the other House.

Mr. McQuillan

When the Minister gets on the horse's back he is not too worried about kindness to animals.

Mr. Haughey

It is important that we should try to get that message to more and more of our farmers, that the proper care of livestock is essential to good husbandry. Briefly, this measure is concerned with the whole question. In fact, what we are dealing with here is really an aspect of agricultural productivity. In this whole matter of the elimination of disease and pests and the care of livestock, we are in fact concerned with an attempt to get better production. We are trying to get greater output of animals per year from the same breeding stocks through improved methods of husbandry.

Mention has been made of the sum of £25 million per annum that I indicated that diseases and pests of one sort or another cost agriculture. I would personally put it at much more than £25 million per year but I gave that very conservative estimate in order to indicate the seriousness of this problem and the benefits we can reap from a comprehensive, vigorously-pursued programme of eradication of diseases and pests.

It has been suggested that the Veterinary Council were not consulted in regard to this measure. That is probably true, as a bald statement, but it does not at all represent the situation. In my Department the veterinary officers are in more or less constant touch with both bodies that Senator O'Donovan mentioned. We consult them regularly about all the different aspects of our campaigns and we shall continue to do so. We shall also consult them fully on the implementation of this particular measure, either in the form of particular schemes or campaigns inaugurated under its legislative sanction or in relation to any order which we shall make under it. The question of compulsion has been mentioned and I agree with a great deal of what Senator O'Reilly has said in this regard. It is undoubtedly far better if we can achieve the results we desire by persuasion, argument and co-operation. It may be necessary from time to time to have recourse to compulsion to succeed in persuading what is only a very minor hard core of farmers to adopt a particular course of action. By and large, if we want to achieve results on a large and comprehensive scale, we can only do so by getting the wholehearted and enthusiastic co-operation of the general body of farmers. That will always be my approach to this whole question.

I think it is indicative of the change that has come and the progress that has been made in the outlook of Irish farmers that nowadays we frequently find farmers themselves suggesting, or demanding from the Minister, that he should use compulsion because they are so convinced of the desirability of particular steps and the beneficial results that will flow from them that they think it worthwhile seeking to impose compulsion on themselves. That is probably the best indication we can get of the degree of progress made in Irish farming and the stage we have reached. A great many people deserve a great deal of credit for that situation. The advisory services, farmers' organisations, officials of my Department, An Foras Talúntais and a variety of other individuals and organisations deserve credit for the fact that we now have widespread acceptance of the necessity for the various measures which the Department proposes from time to time.

Senator Malone was concerned about the question of dehorning. As I explained in the Dáil, this is something we must do and do pretty quickly because the retention of horns in any substantial sector of our cattle can bring about a great deal of loss and waste. I think that with the co-operation of the authorities in the North, we should press on, as we intend to do, with proposals for dehorning the general body of our cattle. The Bill enables us to exempt certain categories of animals from this general provision and it is a matter which we shall certainly discuss with the pedigree people and see if they have any suggestions they want to make to us in that regard and see if we can go some, or all, of the way to meet them.

Probably because it aroused much more interest than any of the other points mentioned by Senators, I should like to refer to the disease Senator O'Reilly mentioned of trichomoniasis. I shall refrain from explaining to Senators, for reasons of delicacy, exactly what that disease is but I assure the Seanad that the reason we have not scheduled it as a disease is the difficulty of identifying it: there are other diseases of the same sort. The real remedy for this situation, I think, is increasing use of artificial insemination and it is along those lines we should direct our efforts in this matter.

As I expected, Senators mentioned the present threatening situation in Europe regarding foot and mouth disease. Of course this is a source of anxiety to us and I want to assure the House that we have been giving the matter very close attention. We have been reviewing all our practices and procedures in regard to veterinary regulations and controls to see if, in the light of this situation, they should be tightened up, and if any steps are necessary, Senators may be assured they will be taken.

I should have thought that more Senators would have mentioned contagious abortion or brucellosis because this Bill came into being because of brucellosis. Having eradicated bovine tuberculosis at a cost of over £30 million, the next step was clearly the eradication of brucellosis. We needed legislation to deal with it, just as we needed legislation to deal with bovine tuberculosis, and it seemed appropriate when having new legislation of this nature that we should proceed to consolidate all existing law in the matter and in addition to providing for brucellosis, provide also for any other possible campaigns on which we might wish to embark at any time in the future.

Basically, this Bill is before us now because of the necessity to initiate a campaign for the eradication of brucellosis and, as I have mentioned, we plan to tackle brucellosis on roughly the same lines as we have tackled bovine tuberculosis, with one refinement: we intend to start in the north-western region with an eradication campaign but at the same time, we plan—indeed, we have already inaugurated—in the two main dairying areas in the south and the east, a calf vaccination service so that we hope that, by the time we come to spread the eradication campaign to these areas, the disruption of herds and so on will be much less than was the case with bovine tuberculosis because of the fact that the calf vaccination service will have already been in operation for a few years.

Of course, while brucellosis is probably the greatest single source of loss in our livestock, there are many others, and I may mention in that connection particularly mastitis, which is the scourge of the dairy farmer and, undoubtedly, a matter that must be attended to as quickly as possible. We have, as many Senators know, taken preliminary steps with regard to mastitis with the establishment of regional laboratories, in co-operation with the great co-operative societies in the dairying business, but the fight against mastitis will be a long, hard and difficult struggle. It is estimated that mastitis certainly causes losses in any year to the extent of £6 million, £7 million to £8 million, maybe more. When it is realised that a penny a gallon on milk delivered to the creamery brings in to the dairy farmer somewhere in the region of £1¼ million, the impact that elimination of mastitis or even substantial reduction of the disease will have for the dairying industry can be immediately visualised.

Side by side with the attack on these various diseases and pests in our cattle population, we have to deal with our sheep. The situation there is also one in which active campaigns for the elimination of diseases and pests can bring very great and very beneficial results and we do not intend to neglect any opportunity of pursuing these objectives.

The warble fly, naturally, has been mentioned by Senators. I am pleased to be able to tell the Seanad that we have achieved what we can only regard as victory in this struggle. In the campaign in 1965, we estimate that we treated somewhere in the region of 4¼ million cattle, and that is out of a total of over five million. When you remove from the calculation all the animals that could not be treated or did not have to be treated for one reason or another, it is certain that the percentage was very high—indeed, well over 90 per cent—and can be taken as meaning that the campaign in 1965 was a complete success. We are now reviewing the situation in the light of the campaign and its achievements and are deciding on what further steps have to be taken. The Seanad can be satisfied that that particular battle is over and the warble fly, to all intents and purposes, has been eradicated or is well on the way towards final eradication.

There are quite a number of other points which Senators mentioned and which I think it is more appropriate that we should deal with in greater detail on Committee Stage and I shall not mention any of them now. I want again to assure Senators that the fact that I am not referring to them in this reply to the Second Reading debate does not mean that I am ignoring them in any way. I will certainly be giving a great deal of thought to the points that have been raised and, if it is considered necessary, will certainly either put down amendments between now and Committee Stage or else look forward to Senators themselves putting down their amendments in regard to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2nd February, 1966.