I was surprised, on reading this morning's papers, to find, in connection with this all-important matter of foot-and-mouth disease, the very short reports that were given to the important points raised here yesterday. I have been reliably informed that reports of this House are censored. It strikes me that the statements made by responsible Deputies here yesterday on this matter of supreme national importance have been censored and not allowed out to the public.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Agriculture (Resumed).
That matter cannot be raised now.
I am only saying that in passing, and I hope that that will not be repeated to-morrow, considering the extra gravity of the position to-day as compared with yesterday, as far as we know. I was reported as protesting against the race meeting in Leopardstown, but my reasons for protesting against it were not given.
They were.
I do not want to repeat them here to-day. I gave them yesterday. It is extraordinary that this matter should be a cause for laughter to certain Deputies, and some of them farmer Deputies. I should like if some of those people would go down to Kildare and Galway and laugh at those matters down there. It is not a laughing matter for us who are living through it. It is not a laughing matter for Mr. Cannon, who had perhaps the finest dairy herd and dairy premises in the world, to find that his 130 excellent cows are to be slaughtered.
The Minister told us yesterday that up to that there were 53 outbreaks, affecting 2,212 cattle, 1,444 sheep, and 150 swine—valued at about £40,000. That is increasing to-day. A very important phase in connection with this matter was raised by me yesterday— that in County Dublin, where the Minister has told us that this thing is not under control, our excellent veterinary organisation is not being availed of, and has not been informed. I protested yesterday; I protest to-day; but there is no room in the papers to carry out to the public the fact that we are serving the people who sent us here. The Minister told us yesterday that he has issued an order making it a criminal offence for unauthorised persons to cross grazing land. I say that that order is not being carried out. If there is such an order at all, I doubt that it has been circulated to the Gárda Síochána. I saw about a dozen people crossing a pasture field of mine to-day—caddies going to a golf club—where I have about 40 bullocks grazing, and that is in County Dublin, where I think the Minister told us yesterday 2,000 special constables had been enrolled. They are guarding my premises to keep hay and straw from going out, but here they are closing their eyes to crowds crossing my pasture land, and crossing from my land into other pasture land. Are we taking the thing seriously at all?
We were told here yesterday by the Minister that he stands behind one remedy, and that is the remedy of slaughtering. I am not competent to say that that is the proper remedy. I am not competent to say that it is not the proper remedy, but I ask myself this question: If this disease spreads to a substantial portion of our live stock, what does the Department propose doing? Does it propose still continuing to slaughter? If it does, are we not in a very dangerous and precarious position? Why did not the Department take proper precautions to isolate the disease? When they had it detected, if there was no remedy but ruthless stamping out, why were they not more ruthless? Have the Department investigated the possibility of segregating this disease? Are they satisfied as to what proper segregation means? Will the Minister tell us what they did when they discovered the disease, and then let the public judge whether adequate measures were taken to segregate it? I do not think adequate measures were taken.
Have the Department ever experimented on an alternative method of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease? For the last 30 years foot-and-mouth disease has occurred once or twice here and has been more or less prevalent in Great Britain. Roughly speaking, for a period of 30 or 40 years before that there was no outbreak here. As a youngster I remember old people referring to the year of the foot-and-mouth disease, regarding it as a landmark in their lifetime. In the year of the foot-and-mouth disease, as told to us by our fathers and grandfathers, the remedy was not to kill all the stock. A lot of the animals, according to tradition, were cured. The old people were not, perhaps, in a position to say whether the animals that were cured really had foot-and-mouth disease. The whole thing is too far back and, at any rate, that is not the point I want to make. Have the officers of the Department diagnosed a case that was, beyond yea or nay, a case of foot-and-mouth disease? Have they segregated such a case and treated it and, if so, have they found a cure? Have they established that foot-and-mouth disease can be cured, how a beast will react to a cure, and whether it will thrive afterwards? Are the officers of the Department in a position to tell us whether it would pay to cure animals?
If this disease spreads any further we will come to the stage when we must reconsider the whole position and ask ourselves if we can afford to go on killing animals. Some of us can visualise a situation where most herds in the country can be affected and then we will be in the position of having to kill the lot or introduce some effective treatment. I say quite fearlessly that the officers of the Department have not done their duty to the country if they have not experimented in order to find a cure. They should be able to tell us whether the disease can be cured, the cost of curing and how the animals will fare when cured.
The question of compensation was raised here yesterday. So far as the area in and around Dublin is concerned, a better case can be made there for compensation than in any other part of the country, except Cork or some of the other cities. There are people in and around Dublin who keep upwards of 100 cows and, if you ask them whether they value their cows higher than they do the value of the round of retail customers to whom they sell the milk, they will tell you they have a greater property value in the round of customers. That is a saleable commodity in Dublin. I know, because I purchased it. If a dairy herd becomes infected, is it fair to compensate the owner by merely paying the market value of the animals? The man's trade is gone. He has lost more than the value of his herd. He has lost something that apparently the Department is not recognising as a property value. The Minister is now up against the case of Mr. Cannon, and I submit that in calculating compensation the Department should consider the asset that the dairy men have in their round of customers, an asset which goes to somebody else once the animals are slaughtered.
I find fault with the manner in which the Department have endeavoured to deal with this disease. I would not offer to a man as compensation merely the market value of his cattle. I would offer him twice the market value and I would have a reward for any citizen who reports a case of foot-and-mouth disease. When a case has been proved I would pay the citizen that reward, and I would offer the owner of the stock adequate compensation. Remember that the feeling abroad to-day is that if a man's herd is slaughtered he will not get their full value. I suggest he should get twice the value, because it would then be an inducement to him to report any suspected animal he might have, and the nation would gain in the long run.
Already a sum of £40,000 has gone down the sewer, and the country is worse off now than a fortnight ago. A sum of £1,000 as a constant reward might have prevented the spread of the disease, and would it not be cheap if we could buy off the disease now at £40,000? I am sure the Minister would not have regretted spending £40,000, nor would anybody in the country say he had done wrong in spending it, if he could have bought off the disease. Unfortunately, it would appear we have hardly reached the peak yet. My suggestions on this subject are not to be taken as censuring the Minister or his Department.
We all can be wise after the event. I am sure the officers of the Department, the Minister and many of us here will be much wiser after this calamity, and we will have a better realisation in the future of how serious this disease is. I submit that in the future the Department can, by offering a little reward, make every citizen a potential detective so far as foot-and-mouth disease is concerned.
I was not here when the Minister started his speech yesterday, but I think he hinted, and it is beyond doubt, that there has been some cloaking of this disease somewhere. I do not want to indicate where, but I have pretty good information on certain points. Information, however, may look well until it is put to the test, when flaws may be found in it, but even if it were flawless—and personally I think it is—I do not want to trot it out here as the absolute truth.
The Minister is given in the papers to-day as having said that there was some concealing of the disease. Nobody will conceal this disease unless he fears he is going to suffer a loss by publishing it and instead of the inducement being to conceal it, give a few more pounds and the inducement will be the other way. Would it not be well spent money? Suppose I had 50 cows and thought one was infected, I would be afraid that I would not get more than 60 or 70 per cent. of the value of these cows, if I notified the disease. I would also suffer a loss otherwise because nobody would buy my milk and there would be no knowing where the thing would stop. The inducement to me there is to save myself, to try to conceal it, to put out a cow which I fear has the disease and to sell her. Is that not what happens in practice? If, on the other hand, I knew that I would be compensated for the loss of my business and that I would get twice the value of my cows, is the inducement not in the opposite direction and would it not be a very good investment for the country? I submit that for the serious consideration of the Minister and the Department.
I also submit for their serious consideration—we cannot deal with the present epidemic—that they might well start the experiment now of getting a beast which, beyond doubt, is infected, segregating the vet., the beast and the whole outfit and having the vet. treat the animal with the most up-to-date treatment known to veterinary science, and see if it is possible to cure the beast and what the cost of curing it is. We could see how the beast would do afterwards and we would learn a lot even in six months by starting the experiment now, when we have the disease, according to all authorities, in a very virulent form. Now is the time to carry out that experiment. This position is so dangerous at present that, if necessary, there should be a curfew. If it is not necessary, such drastic measures are not required, but if the vets of this country are satisfied that the coming together of large concourses of people may bring the germs of this disease from one part of the country to be taken back to areas which are immune at present, such meetings should be stopped.
Coming down to-day about 2 o'clock, I could scarcely pass Amiens Street station with the crowd going up with Shelbourne to Dundalk, and I daresay that all County Louth and people from Armagh and adjoining districts will mix with the crowd from Dublin there. If there is anything in the possibility of spreading the germs of this disease, I suggest that Deputy Coburn should look out. Is it remotely possible that a football crowd could carry the germs? If it is, even that remote possibility should be prevented.
Since yesterday, I was rung up by a person in the Dunboyne area where a fresh outbreak has taken place, and he tells me that their information down there is that foxes are very potential carriers. Yet the fox coverts in Meath have not been interfered with. Why are they not enclosed and all the foxes shot, if necessary? Is it not better to shoot the foxes of Meath than to shoot the cattle in Dunboyne? Give the Local Security Force rifles, let them out and let them shoot anything—I do not suggest this for a football crowd— in the shape of an animal. If not, we are going to pay a terrible price.
Would that not apply to the members of the Dáil?
Does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that it would be a good proposition to shoot off a lot of the members of the Dáil?
That is what I am asking the Deputy. That is his argument, if he wants to be logical in the matter.
I will be logical, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that if a meeting of the Dáil would spread the disease, it would be better that the Dáil should not meet.
Then we could not hear this speech.
Look at the loss that would be to your education.
That is what I am trying to avoid.
It would be worth while being fumigated and disinfected and coming from Cork to Dublin to get the educational value of my speech.
That was why the papers published it yesterday.
Precisely. That is why they were afraid to publish it because it shows the ignorance they have been wallowing in. Deputy Fagan raised the question of the price allowed and the profits made in the slaughter of animals under this new arrangement. Deputy Fagan is more conversant with the commercial end of the cattle business than I, inasmuch as he is a salesman, and I think his contribution was very valuable and his information very sound. The price of meat, live weight —first-class heifer or bullock meat— would be 57/- or 58/-, and 53/- is not enough. A profit of £4 odd is too much.
I think the criticisms of the men who have been selected to buy were rather on the severe side. One of them I know to be a reputable butcher in Blackrock, who has been in the butchering trade all his life. I think his father was in the trade, too, and he knows how to buy for the Dublin trade. So far as I know, he is the only one of the four who buys for the Dublin trade. So far as my information goes, one of them bought for the Germans, another was a cattle exporter, and I will not say anything about the fourth.
I think the reticence is libellous.
Most libellous.
I would appeal to the Minister to give an assurance that he and his Department are preparing for the worst, and the worst will be the spread of this disease. I think he should right away offer a prize for the detection of it and that he should not resort to any cheeseparing in the matter of compensation while the disease is so circumscribed as it is. I suggested that he should offer twice the value, but that might be too much. I suggest, however, to the Minister that he should deal with the question of compensation on a very liberal scale. I am not making this appeal with the idea of giving easy money or money for nothing, to the owner of cattle, but a strong inducement or, if you like, a bribe, should be held out to the owner to inform the Department if in his opinion there is a danger of infection in his herd. I suggest that that policy should be followed rather than a niggardly policy which may have the effect of inducing cattle owners to conceal the disease. If we had not concealment we would not have the position we have to-day. The Minister knows very well that a fortnight ago you could almost put your arms round this disease here in Dublin. Why were not our arms put around it? When it was discovered last night fortnight that the cattle that infected herds in Dublin were bought either at the fair at Birr or at the fair at Roscrea, why were not immediate steps taken? I say the Department had that information last night fortnight. Why were not steps taken——
What steps were not taken?
To go to the cattle pens and parks and segregate them.
That was done.
Two dairy herds under the direct supervision of the county veterinary officer were found afterwards to be infected at St. Helen's, Finglas—Mr. Clarke's and Mr. Craigie's.
Yes.
Was the veterinary officer in charge of that area informed of that?
I do not know.
Do not be side-tracking the question. I say he was not informed.
We had advertisements in the papers.
Why was he not informed?
Because he was not in our employment.
Veterinary officers could be brought from County Waterford to County Dublin.
They were.
And the County Dublin officers who knew every laneway in the county were not informed. You went to the expense of bringing up veterinary officers from the South of Ireland when we had perfect machinery here in the county. Not even yet have these officers been informed by the Department.
They are not employed by us.
Were the vets. from the South of Ireland employed by you?
Yes.
You sent for them and gave them special pay. There is no county has the veterinary machinery that County Dublin has, yet the officers here were never consulted. What are we paying them for? Are they no good?
Surely there is some work for them to do apart from foot-and-mouth disease, or you would not have them at all.
In doing their ordinary work they would carry the infection of foot-and-mouth disease, yet they were not told by the Department that in carrying out their duties they might spread the infection. The inspection of cow sheds and dairy herds went on all over the County Dublin under the chief veterinary officer of the county. Yet, that officer was not informed that there should be no more inspection while the disease was in existence. Is it not a necessary precaution for every cattle owner to keep people from going amongst his cattle at the present time in Dublin?
Yes; that notice was issued several times.
While that was necessary, the inspection of dairies and cowsheds was proceeding, and no order was issued by the Department to stop it.
Surely to goodness, if farmers and labourers were expected to take notice that they must not visit places that were affected, veterinary officers should take the same notice?
When were the farmers and labourers given that notice?
There were several advertisements about it.
Do not the veterinary services of the county function either under your Department or the Department of Local Government?
They function under the local authority, as far as I know.
Yes, but some of their activities are carried out under your Department, and others under the Department of Local Government.
That is right.
Surely, it was the function of the superior body—I give you that dignity—to tell those down on the spade how we should conduct ourselves?
It was done through the newspapers.
But there is an organisation in existence——
The Deputy is making the most ridiculous point, that the veterinary surgeon should take no heed of a notice that was issued to farmers and farm labourers. Surely, he should take more notice of it, and I am sure he did.
Substitute for "veterinary surgeon" the chief veterinary officer of the county.
Surely, that man knew.
Surely, that officer should have been informed that there was an outbreak in the area, in the area under his control?
If every farmer and labourer knew as much about foot-and-mouth disease as the veterinary surgeons, there would be no necessity to issue that notice.
I am not talking about farmers or farm labourers. I am talking about the chief veterinary officers.
Who were not doing their duty.
That is brilliant.
It is, definitely brilliant.
And the Department in a hermetically sealed glass in Merrion Street will not inform the officer of his duty. I do not mind a member of the Party helping the Party on occasions but in a debate of this kind the old Imperial order "My country, right or wrong," should find no place here.
Does the Deputy realise the point he is making, that a veterinary surgeon, because he is a veterinary surgeon, should go about his work and not take notice of foot-and-mouth disease unless he is officially informed?
The point I am making is that an officer of a local authority, operating under the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government, who is the head of the veterinary organisation in the county, should have been at once informed when it was discovered that there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this county. That is the point I am making, and it is admitted that he was not informed. I can say that he was not: I have it from himself—not privately; we brought him to a board of health meeting on Tuesday and he said it in public and it was published in the Press. I say it is a disgrace to the Department that they did not do their duty when they did not inform that veterinary organisation and put it working.
I know that one herd was the pride of our chief veterinary officer—Mr. Cannon's dairy down at Ballymacarney. That is infected now, and still our chief veterinary officer has no more information about infection in County Dublin than he has read in the papers. Why is he not used in this? There is also a professor in the Veterinary College, who is a part-time veterinary officer of ours in the county, who has said that he does not know a thing more than he has read in the papers. Surely these men are competent and would be very useful. I am sure it is not through any doubt about their competency that they are not used, but through some terrible oversight. I am sure they are not deliberately cold-shouldered for any reason. They should know exactly how the county stands with regard to its cattle population, and I would ask the Minister even now to get in touch with our county organisation and use it for all it is worth. They would be glad to help and so would every local body in the county. There is no hostility in this, and the criticism I am making is not to be taken as destructive criticism, but as honest criticism.
As far as an individual can be of assistance, I will give all the help I can. I had occasion to get in touch with the office in O'Connell Street to get permission for the removal of some hay, straw and cattle, and I must pay tribute to the courteous manner in which the Minister's officials are trying to help everybody who troubles them. There is no question of finding fault with the Minister or the Department. This criticism of mine—I can speak only for myself—must not be taken as destructive or vindictive. Any help that can be given will be given and any suggestion made is made for the purpose of helping. My constituents in County Dublin fear the consequences of the further spread of this disease. I was talking to a man a couple of days ago on the telephone and he told me that he would not come out near my place. He is from North Dublin. He said he would not let anybody into his place now. He has 180 cows and says that, no matter what compensation he may get, if the disease comes to his place he will never look at a cow again, that it would pull the heart out of him if the disease penetrates to his farm. The people of County Dublin live in fear of what is going to happen them just now. I wonder if the matter is taken as seriously as it should be.
In conclusion, I would impress on the Minister the absolute necessity and urgency of treating an infected animal to see if a cure can be found. It may not be necessary to find a cure: it may be stamped out the other way; but the disease may increase in spite of the measures taken. That experiment should be tried. Then, if we were confronted with killing all the cattle or trying treatment, the method would be available. I heard it from old people 30 or 40 years ago that, 30 or 40 years before that, there was a foot-and-mouth epidemic in this country and that it was cured. They did not slaughter the cattle. I am not suggesting that we should abandon the slaughter, as I am not competent to pass an opinion on that; I am only suggesting that if the slaughter fails to check the disease we are confronted with, perhaps, the substantial, if not entire, slaughter of our live stock, and we cannot contemplate that. Therefore, while there is yet time—if it has not been done already—an experiment should be tried to effect a cure.
I would like to know from the Minister, when concluding, what complete isolation is. He should explain to us what it means, and whether through the ring no infection can pass. Has he applied that complete isolation up to the present? If he has, we would all say that it should be maintained. If he has applied that complete isolation, how is the disease spreading? Is there not a leakage somewhere? However drastic complete isolation is, it should be applied. Again, I would urge on the Minister to increase the compensation to even an extravagant amount—not for the sake of making people rich quickly, but to induce them to report any signs of the disease they may see in their stock. If they are sure that they will benefit—if you like, not only not lose, but benefit—by reporting the disease and having their animals slaughtered, then there is no inducement in the world to them to conceal it, but every inducement to them to report it.
The last point is this: Consider the scores of dairymen in and around this city—Mr. Clarke of Finglas, for example. I know that family in the dairy business for over 30 years—a very good dairy at Finglas Bridge. Unless they got it lately, they had no land— nothing but a house and a yard, and they have that only rented. They run an excellent dairy there, the property value of which is really its run of customers. If the compensation in such cases is confined to merely what might be called the stripper value of the cows as taken out and sold, there is every inducement to such dairy people to conceal the disease; for the real value is in the value of their customers. Once they go, the whole thing is gone. For the sake of the protection of herds and the people generally—not, as I said before, in order to enrich people quickly—the money would be well spent in compensating them for the loss of trade, once and a half or twice the value of the herd. That would remove every inducement to people to conceal the disease. In addition to that, there should be complete isolation, to the furthest limit advised by the Department's veterinary officers, and even there the Minister might go one better. Finally, the Minister should get on with the experiment of trying a cure, to see what remedy lies in that direction.
In his opening statement yesterday on this matter, the Minister said that he was subject to two forms of criticism—that one group thought he was too lenient in his actions and another thought that he was too drastic. I think he deserves both forms of criticism; but my belief is that he was lenient where he should have been drastic and drastic where he should have been lenient. Dealing with the drastic side of it, I, who live 200 miles away from the scene of this unfortunate outbreak, feel that we have suffered as much as those who are living in the immediate area. For instance, the Munster Agricultural Society, Cork, who had arranged to hold a bull sale a fortnight ago in Munster where there is no outbreak, were obliged to put off that sale.
I would not mind that so much at the moment, because the Munster sale is a very important sale, and these beasts, after purchase, would, perhaps, be brought into Leinster and other places, and the buyers would have travelled, perhaps, from the infected areas to purchase bulls. I come nearer home, however, to my own immediate neighbourhood, Clonakilty and Skibbereen, where we have two little bull sales under the auspices of the Dairy Shorthorn Breeders' Association. These are both local sales, and there has been no outbreak there, but the Skibbereen sale had to be abandoned a week ago, although it is 230 miles away from the nearest point of outbreak. Yesterday, on behalf of Clonakilty, I appealed to the Minister to see if it were possible to grant a permit to the people of Clonakilty to hold a sale there next Thursday. That is 250 miles away from the nearest point of the outbreak, but yet we could not get a permit to hold that sale next Thursday. Now, that is confined to four parishes and to members of the association in those parishes. There would be only about 40 of them, and they would be confined to that sale and none of them would go outside that limit. Still we would not be allowed to hold the sale.
I am not complaining, nor am I disagreeing with the Minister at all in the means that are being taken to eradicate this disease. Because of the necessity, I think it is only right to insist that the most drastic action should be taken in order to get rid of this disease, but I do say that in these areas to which I have referred, such as in West Cork, which are so many miles away from the outbreak of the disease, the farmers are being held up with regard to fairs or sales and cannot get the manures that they require for their land because they have not the wherewithal to get these manures.
Yet, when the farmer down there takes up his paper in the morning, the first thing he sees in the newspaper is that there has been dog-racing at Shelbourne Park, a point-to-point meeting somewhere else, race meetings and football matches in other places— and all of these sporting meetings being held in the immediate vicinity of the outbreak. People are suffering now from this drastic action which is necessary, I think, on account of the Minister's leniency at the commencement of this thing, but I think it is an extraordinary thing and a wrong thing that these sporting meetings should be allowed to take place in the immediate vicinity of the outbreak. I suppose Shelbourne Park is not very far away from Prussia Street. I do not know the geography or the distances in Dublin very well, but I should think that Shelbourne Park is in the near vicinity of Prussia Street, and you have people coming in from the country to Shelbourne Park, and some of them bringing their dogs with them, and yet we will not be allowed, at Castletownbere, at the foot of the mountain, 250 miles away, to go to a fair in order to try to earn a few pounds. As I have said, I am not against the taking of drastic action, but some of us are suffering unnecessarily, I think, as a result of it. Undoubtedly the Minister should stand over whatever drastic action is necessary and prevent any beast or any person, suspected of being in touch with the infected areas, being moved unless they are fumigated and disinfected.
It is quite a number of years since the last serious outbreak of this disease. I think that the last serious outbreak we had was in 1914, and anybody who was suspected at that time of being in the vicinity of the outbreak had to be fumigated and disinfected. I believe that, at the moment, that should be carried out all over the country.
With regard to the question of compensation, with which Deputy Belton has dealt, I am not satisfied that the method of compensation has been equitably arranged. The question has been raised as to people withholding information in cases where an outbreak has occurred, but that is because they are afraid. They are going to get compensation, for a beast that is slaughtered, on the value of the beast as it stands at the moment, but there is the question of a springer or cow that might be in calf and might be going to calve in a few weeks. That cow, therefore, might be worth a lot more in a week or two, and I think that such things should be taken into consideration and that people should be given the compensation to which they are really entitled.
With regard to the question of not giving information, I agree with Deputy Belton's suggestion of offering a reward, and a good reward, in every case where a person would give information as to an outbreak of the disease. At the present time, in connection with another Department of the Government, if a floating mine is seen along the coast, anybody who goes into the nearest Gárda barracks and reports the presence of the floating mine can get £1 reward for reporting it. How much more important it is to preserve the live-stock industry of this country! As a matter of fact, instead of £1, I think that a reward of £5, £10, £20 or even more would not be too great for anybody who could help in any way to eradicate this disease.
The criticism of the Minister may have been severe, but I think that every Deputy who has spoken in this debate was imbued with the idea of helping the Minister in every way he could. The Minister has a staff and a Department to help him stamp out this disease, and I would suggest to him now that he should take more drastic action in the areas that are affected and put a stop to horse racing, dog racing, football, golfing and every other form of amusement where numbers of people congregate, in these affected areas, until we have saved our live-stock industry, and then let these people have their amusements to their hearts' content.
Like other Deputies who have spoken, I am anxious to cooperate with, and give every possible assistance to, the Minister and his Department. All I regret is that the Minister did not seem to think, at the commencement, that this outbreak would be serious. Certain Deputies have criticised the veterinary staff of the Department, but I think none of them has proved that the veterinary staff have failed because, after all, the veterinary staff are confined to the professional part of their business. The Minister, however, is over and above that, and the Minister has failed to take the necessary steps that do not concern the veterinary staff at all. Now, I put down a question two weeks ago. I sent it out on last Saturday fortnight, and things were not very serious-looking at that time, but I knew what was coming and I gave the Minister the information, both privately and otherwise, that it might be serious, but the Minister stated that it was not so serious.
The Deputy knew what was coming?
I sent a covering note and I gave my reason. I do not know whether or not the Minister was notified, but that question ran the ordinary course and, when the Minister did reply to it, what reply did he make? The effect of his reply was that he did not seem to regard the matter as very serious. I do not know whether it is a question of censorship or not, but like Deputy Belton I have a complaint to make in that regard. I put down a question which dealt with a good many points, and there was also a supplementary question. Neither of the two appeared. The Minister's reply appeared but not the question, in any publication.
The Deputy is not referring to the official reports?
I am only following Deputy Belton. I do not know whether I am correct.
The Chair assumes both Deputies refer to the public Press, over which the Minister has no control and for which he has no responsibility.
The Minister has not acted upon my suggestion. He talks about criticism. Some people criticise him because his methods are too drastic. I defy the Minister to escape criticism, no matter what he does. I am afraid the Minister should not attach too much importance to the particular class who criticise drastic measures.
I would not be alive if I did.
The Minister has stated that the policy of his Department is the drastic policy of stamping it out. If that is so, then there is only one policy for him—to be ruthless in stamping it out, as almost every Deputy on this side of the House has asked him to be. I would like to ask the Minister a question. Does the Minister think it would be all right to conceal it and try to treat and cure it? The Minister is not listening. of course. It is not worth while. This matter that is costing the country many hundreds of thousands of pounds is not worth considering. I would like to ask the Minister does he believe it would be well for people to cure it privately?
No.
Very well. The Minister does not believe in it. Then what good can it do for people to be giving cures? Is it not possible that it can do a great amount of harm? I know that people are going down to the fairs saying the policy of the Department is entirely wrong in trying to stamp out this, and giving people large compensation, that this thing can be cured. I suggest that the Minister should have made it a serious offence, and should have attached a penalty to it, that if he had not the power to deal with these cases, he should take power, that it would be in the interests of the country that this should not be allowed so long as the Department stands upon the one policy of stamping it out.
I would like to tell the Deputy that it is a serious offence to attempt to cure it.
The Minister has never publicly stated that there are serious penalties, and that they will be imposed. The Minister told us yesterday—at least, it appeared in the Press to-day—that there were attempts at concealing.
That is right.
I want to ask the Minister what measures did he take against that? Did he take any measures?
Not yet. That will come.
Everybody should know it. Nobody would be at any loss if it was known beforehand what they had to expect if they were found concealing it. It would be much better that they should know beforehand. In a case like this we should take time by the forelock. We should let the people know it is a serious offence, and that there are serious penalties for anybody who attempts to conceal or cloak it or who recommends treatment for it. After all, so long as the Minister does not approve of curing it—and I agree that he should not approve of any measures except the measures the Department have in operation at the present time—so long as that is the policy, then it can do nothing but harm to have cures recommended either privately or in letters to the papers. I think it is the business of the Minister —it is not the business of the veterinary staff—to say such and such steps should be taken to prevent people recommending treatment or to prevent people treating it.
It is for the Minister alone, and the Minister should not be so sensitive about criticism from certain quarters in regard to taking drastic measures. The people who are here to represent the country, who are the trustees of the people, every one of them that has spoken, has asked the Minister to take drastic measures. After all, we are the representatives of the people of the country, and I have not heard anyone in this House criticising the Minister for taking measures that are too drastic. Everyone has criticised the Minister for not taking sufficiently drastic measures, because the matter is too serious, and if it gets out of hand it may cost the taxpayers millions of pounds. Everybody is going to suffer, and, apart from the burden that it will impose upon the taxpayers, our cattle trade will be injured, our adverse balance of trade will be affected adversely. All these things are so serious that the Minister should stop at nothing for a short time in order to get it stamped out at once.
The Minister said he stands upon the policy of slaughter and stamping it out. I am afraid the Minister does not stand on this policy, but that he sits between two stools, and between the two stools the country is going to fall. I do not think the country can afford to have the Minister sitting on two stools in a case like this. Either he should adopt the policy of slaughter and stand firmly for it, or fling it aside and let everybody cure his cattle, but so long as the Minister is half and half for two policies, giving the people the idea that it is no harm to treat it and cloak it, or to recommend treating it, he is sitting between two stools, and that is what is doing all the harm.
I wish to impress upon the Minister that if there is any doubt—and, of course, there is a doubt; one cannot be quite sure about anything in a case like this, and the number of outbreaks that have occurred is proof of what I am saying; you cannot be quite sure how the disease spreads—the safer course is to assume that the most drastic measures are necessary. Even if they are not absolutely necessary, even though it should turn out that they are not necessary, it is the safer course to assume they are. If the Minister adopts that policy, I believe he will be on the right course. The sooner he abandons the policy of sitting between two stools, and stands firmly, as he said he did, upon the policy of stamping it out, the better.
With regard to the compensation, I would not quite agree with Deputy Belton that they should have an inducement to declare their cattle have got the disease, but I would say that there should be an impartial and strict inquiry after the cattle are slaughtered. This should be upon oath. There should be close examination upon oath of the individual people who incur losses and of independent, competent witnesses, to see they get the last shilling of compensation but not one shilling more, as far as that is possible. They should not have an inducement because then they might have an interest in getting their cattle infected and that might be worse than concealing. It is a matter that requires very careful consideration, and I hope the Minister will give it more particular consideration for the future and make up for lost time.
Why has it been concealed?
The present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is very serious, and it is unfortunate that some Deputies more or less laughed at statements that were made by responsible farmers who are concerned about the future of our cattle trade. It is also unfortunate when looking over at the Fianna Fáil Benches, which we are told represent the farming community, to find that there are not two farmers interested in this question. It is terrible to see empty benches.
There are plenty of the benches empty beside the Deputy. We have more Deputies present than the Party on the opposite side.
There is serious alarm in County Meath at the present outbreak, because that county is really the gateway of the live-stock export trade. The present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is one of the greatest disasters that has overtaken the cattle trade since the Famine. The Minister's Department was subjected to severe criticism yesterday and to-day, but it was honest criticism, seeing that the livelihood of large numbers of people is at stake. The speech made by Deputy Belton was one that the whole House should be proud of. He spoke without fear, favour or affection. The Minister was told that there was no definite "set" on his Department, the object being to make it known to the country how serious this outbreak was. I believe that in our veterinary department we have a body of men who are as capable of dealing with the present situation as could be found in Europe. I must pay special tribute to them. It was only a few months ago that an outbreak of anthrax, which is even more deadly in live stock than foot-and-mouth disease, took place in the Dunboyne district, where a whole herd of cattle was wiped out. It is to the credit of the Department and its officials that that outbreak was confined to one farm, and did not extend to neighbouring ranches.
Unfortunately, the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease seems to have been badly handled, if rumours that are abroad are correct. The statement is that the spread of the disease to County Meath seems to have come through Prussia Street. I have been told on reliable authority by men in the cattle business that the outbreak spread from Prussia Street, and that while inspections were taking place there cattle dealers walked in and out in a most irresponsible way, instead of being made stay at home. It has been definitely established that one of the men who was in Prussia Street while inspections were taking place went to a large farm in County Meath to buy cattle, and one and a half days later the disease was discovered there. As well as rounding up cattle that type of man should be rounded up and given ten years in Mountjoy. It was disgraceful.
I do not believe that the disease was spread by dogs, cats, or foxes but that it could be traced to cattle dealers who went to people's land in different parts of the country to buy cattle. That type of business should stop, and stock should be only bought at fairs. These dealers come and go from Scotland and Great Britain, and then go down to the ranches of Meath to buy cattle, and perhaps they bring the germs. That is really the cause of the present outbreak. Everyone connected with Prussia Street, whether in this House or in the Cattle Dealers' Association, should be rounded up for three or four weeks until it was considered that there was no danger of the disease spreading. I believe it was a cattle dealer from the North of Ireland who came from an infected area spread the disease. If it spreads further in County Meath it may destroy the live stock export trade, and one of our greatest industries may be doomed. I know that our veterinary departments, and the Minister, will make every effort to see that large herds of cattle from Dunboyne to the Hill of Tara are safeguarded. If the outbreak spreads to one animal on holdings of 500 acres, where there may be 600 first-class cattle ready for export, the whole lot will have to be destroyed. Look what that would mean not only in cash but to the livelihood of those who are depending on the industry.
I say that the House is not taking this outbreak as seriously as it should take it. Those of us who live by the cattle trade realise that our whole livelihood is at stake. Consequently, we view this outbreak with great alarm. I urge the Minister and the Department to do everything possible to stamp it out and not to spare expense. If money is spared now it may mean losses amounting to millions later. Every possible step should be taken to eradicate the disease, and every beast that may have been in contact with affected animals should be destroyed. That is the only possible policy. It will be the cheapest in the end. We have heard outcries about the expense and waste, but I stand over everything that the Minister has done. I think his action has been right. While I believe that the disease can be cured, it must be remembered that when it occurs it may pass to neighbouring farms and that cattle that are cured may be worth nothing and the export trade might be wiped out.
A large number of men have been employed to see that different farms have been isolated. In most cases I believe it is unemployed men have been taken on. I agree that it is a good thing to give that type of men work, but I would prefer to see another type engaged: farmers' sons who understand farming. There is no use in getting unemployed men for that work because they have no great interest in it except the few shillings that they earn. They could not take to that work as seriously as farmers' sons, who would realise that as a result of their efforts they might be the means of saving their own relations from loss. The class of men wanted are intelligent men, like Civic Guards, who would take a serious view of the outbreak and do their duty fearlessly in the interests of the community.
With regard to the question of compensation, I agree with Deputy Belton that the present scheme is inadequate. Take a dairy herd consisting of 50 or 60 cows, half of which would be strippers; the compensation allowed would mean very little to the owners. If a man had to start business anew and go to the market to buy a dairy herd, he would buy first-class springers. Such animals are fetching very high prices at present. I think double the present prices, as Deputy Belton suggested, would hardly be enough where a dairy herd is wiped out. There should be some special scheme of compensation for restocking lands on which there was disease. There might be a scheme of long-term loans to enable a man to restock. With the present scale of compensation a man could not buy a half dozen cows, where he would want 50 or 60. It would be an act of Christian charity to help people to overcome the present visitation. It is the duty of the State and of all concerned to see that owners who have suffered as a result of this outbreak amongst stock are assisted to start anew.
With regard to a reward for detection of the disease, I think that is a very good idea, because we have in this country a large number of irresponsible people. We have always had them and I suppose we always will. I know we have some irresponsible and, I might say, ignorant cattle dealers who spread the disease. If they knew what they were doing they would have stayed at home. Instead of that they went poking around where they should not be, with the result that they spread the disease. We have also an ignorant type of people on farms who tried to cover up this disease instead of reporting the matter. The only way to prevent that kind of thing is to give ample compensation and a handsome reward to any man who detects the disease, especially in its earlier stages. If we could detect the disease immediately we could save whole herds by having the infected animals killed immediately. When an infected animal is allowed to go around for two or three days it is nearly impossible to stamp out the disease in the district. There is no inducement at present to people to try to detect the disease on their own farms or on neighbours' farms. A reward of £500 or even £1,000 would be a small one if it enabled the disease to be got under control. We may have to spend £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 before this disease is stamped out.
I am not blaming the Government for not having stamped out the disease long ago, because some of the biggest countries in Europe have not been able to do it. We have been immune from it for 20 years, and that immunity perhaps left us a bit slack at the commencement of the disease. We hardly believed at first that it was foot-and-mouth disease at all. We could not bring ourselves to believe that it was contracted here. We thought it was got by contact with animals on the other side. However, the disease is here now, and our duty is to stamp it out as quickly as possible, no matter what the expense may be. If any man were found trying to cure cattle which have this disease, I would give him at least ten years' imprisonment; I would put him out of the cattle business altogether. It is that type of man who is responsible for the spread of the disease.
As I said, I have full confidence in the staff of the Department. I was in contact with them when we had a dangerous outbreak of anthrax at Dunboyne, and I can certainly say that they handled it very well. I know that the unfortunate man on whose farm the outbreak took place suffered a severe loss. He was given £1,100 as compensation for the live animals that were inspected, but before that 20 or 30 of his best cows had died and he had to suffer the loss of them. The same thing will happen in connection with this outbreak if we do not prevent the disease spreading further. On the border of County Meath and County Dublin we have many fine dairy herds which are supplying the best of milk to the people of Dublin. The owners of these farms have gone to huge expense to stock them. They are very enterprising, industrious, and successful business people. To-day herd after herd is being wiped out, and all the compensation they get for one of these animals is the price of an old stripper. That certainly is not fair; it is a poor inducement to men who have spent their lives and money in building up this industry to supply the people of Dublin with milk which they could not get otherwise. They certainly deserve more consideration than they are getting.
Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to declare a definite state of emergency and call off all horse-racing and dog-racing meetings, football matches, etc. Those taking part in such meetings should realise that when other people's means of livelihood is being wiped out they should not be going all over the country with horses and dogs. They should take the matter seriously, and stay at home and mind their business. If the races on Saturday next are allowed to be held, I think it will be a crime and a calamity, because they are being held just outside Dublin where, as the Minister stated yesterday, the disease is not yet under control.
If the Minister allows that meeting to take place, then I say it is the duty of the people to call upon him to resign. I say that in all seriousness because, as we have been told by Deputy Hughes, one of the men who went down to the coursing meeting at Clonmel last week left his own infected farm to go there. Was not that a terrible state of affairs? It was just as bad as the cattle dealer who went to Prussia Street to watch the veterinary staff doing their work there and then went down to Meath to buy cattle and was the means of bringing the disease down there. That man should be severely dealt with. As I said before, if the disease spreads in the County Meath it will be a very hard job to stamp it out because of the large herds of cattle in that county which supply a large part of our cattle exports to Great Britain and at the present time our fat cattle and store cattle export is the only one which is worth while.
I am convinced that there was a certain amount of slackness in connection with this disease in the beginning, but I cannot very well blame the Department for the slackness on the first day or two, because it is 20 years or more since we had an outbreak and we were not expecting one. There is no use in saying that the Department's inspectors are not competent as we know they are. I believe, however, that there was some slackness somewhere. Not alone would I have rounded up all the cattle in the Prussia Street area, but every cattle dealer and drover who had been in that district, and I would have held them there for three or four weeks. That would probably have saved the country millions of pounds. At present there is a state of alarm in the districts which are affected. Men who have built up herds of cattle at a huge cost to themselves feel that if everything possible is not done they will be wiped out of business.
We know that the Civic Guards are doing their duty and also the Local Security Force. But we know also that there are irresponsible men in our counties who will do anything to save themselves and who do not think about saving their neighbours or the nation. These are the people whom the Minister should get after. He knows them as well as I do. They have been in the cattle trade for a long time, travelling all over the country and the North of Ireland and Great Britain. If at all possible, they will go on to any man's land to buy even one beast.
These people should be compelled to stay at home, even though it may interfere with their business. Interference with their business is a small thing compared with putting the whole country in jeopardy. If they were dealt with properly at the start, we would not have such a huge problem now in stamping out the disease. There is no use putting wire netting around farms to prevent dogs and other animals from entering them, if these people are allowed to go around the country unchecked. If they are prevented from travelling around the country, we may be able to stamp out the disease.
We have read a lot recently in the papers, and heard from some Deputies here, about the possibility of curing foot-and-mouth disease. We have a veterinary establishment at Ballsbridge, and I have never heard of any cattle being brought to that institution for treatment. I have heard of lame and sick horses and dogs being brought there to see what could be done for them, but I never heard of a cow being brought there. Would it not be feasible to bring in a few of these infected animals and see what can be done with them? They could be isolated there while the slaughter of the other infected animals was being carried out. I do not for one moment advocate that slaughtering should not be carried out. Perhaps something might be done by way of having an inquiry into the origin of the disease. The old people tell us that when there were outbreaks many years ago a cure was found for it. Perhaps if an inquiry was set on foot now, a cure might also be found. It is a type of research work that the veterinary college at Ballsbridge might very well undertake. Would the Minister tell us how he came to select the four or five men who have been appointed to buy cattle and distribute the meat? Were they prominent members of the different trades? I wonder if the Minister had asked the different trades to nominate representatives, would they have selected the individuals he has appointed? The committee has been at work for some weeks, and with that experience behind him, does the Minister think that he has formed the best committee he could possibly get to do this work? I do not think he has. I think if he had taken a committee from the cattle salesmen of Dublin, he would have got a much more effective body. These salesmen enjoy the confidence of the people of the country. The firms they are connected with have been in existence for generations.
A committee selected from their number would be able to give better advice to the Minister than the one he has appointed. Another point in favour of the cattle salesmen is that they have been in the habit of giving credit to victuallers. In turn, the latter have to give credit to their customers. The position with many people to-day is that they are not able to make their purchases of meat until Saturday night when the bread-winner gets paid. The committee engaged in buying the cattle and in distributing the beef insist on getting paid immediately. Unless the butcher is able to put down the money he cannot get the meat.
I should like to know from the Minister if the butchers have the right to select the meat they require, or must they just take what is offered to them. The maximum price which the committee will pay for cattle is 55/- per cwt. It does not say that they are going to give that for all the cattle they buy. I imagine they would not pay more than 40/- or 45/- per cwt. for advanced store cattle, and yet the trade has to pay 10½d. per lb. for the beef.
No—only for choice beef.
Would the Minister tell us how those four or five gentlemen are paid? If they are able to make, on an average, a profit of £4 a head on the 700 cattle which the Dublin butchers require each week, they certainly have a very fine salary. I think the bulk of that profit should go to the farmers. The amount in question must run into thousands of pounds per week. Can we be told if one or two of these gentlemen get the major part of the profit, or how is this money divided? I think the Minister should do something about this, so that the gentlemen in question would get a salary for the work they do instead of the present arrangement.
I would like to know if it is correct to say that there were only two yards closed in Dublin on the first Thursday that the disease was notified in Dublin. Is it true that people had access to these two yards and could buy there whatever they wanted? I am told that although the two yards were closed, the people went into them, purchased what they wanted and took it away. I admit, of course, they did so under licence.
At any rate, it is a strange thing that there should be free access to those two yards that were closed, that people could purchase cattle in them and take them away. I wonder, when the disease was discovered in Prussia Street, why all the yards were not closed. Why should two be closed and all the rest left open? I understood the Minister to say last night that all the cattle in the vicinity of Prussia Street had been got rid of. Would he be surprised to know that there were 140 head of cattle in a yard in Prussia Street this morning? If the cattle that came into Prussia Street three weeks ago had been slaughtered instead of being allowed to hang around there in the interval, I suggest that the disease would have been got rid of at least three weeks earlier in that district. Is the Minister aware that a man from Dunboyne came up to a Dublin cattle yard about the first week that the disease was notified in Dublin, purchased cattle there and brought them down to Dunboyne?
That is not right.
I was told this morning that it was a fact. The Minister is in a better position to know, but that is what I was told. If that did happen, it was the means of spreading the disease in that district, one of the richest in the County Meath. I agree with what other Deputies have said, that due precautions should be taken with regard to the valuing of stock. Take the case of a man with a cow and two calves. At the present time the cow may be miserable looking, but in six months time she might be in good condition and bring a handsome price. Suppose there was an outbreak in the owner's area, would the cow be valued according to her condition to-day, or would any consideration be given to the price she might bring later in the year?
The question would be an important one for the unfortunate owner if the cow had to be destroyed. A certain amount of latitude should be given in the case of these valuations. What I have said about the cow would also apply to small cattle. They are being kept in houses at the present time and, on account of the shortage of meal, may not be looking too well, but in a few months' time, when they have been out on grass, they will be very different animals. Should the disease break out in the owner's place, one may take it that the valuer will give very small compensation for those cattle if he is to value them on their present appearance.
It is unfortunate for us that the fair in Cavan is fixed for Tuesday next. Owing to the order in force, a number of farmers who were expecting to sell their cattle and other stock there will be unable to do so. Will that be taken into account in the case of those people who have not paid their land annuities? They were expecting to be able to do so this month when they sold their stock. They had given a promise to the Land Commission to pay during the spring months. It is probably not a question for the Minister for Agriculture, but he might bring it before the Minister for Lands, and see whether some consideration can be given to those farmers. Of course, as he said yesterday, the question of rates is one for the county council, but some serious consideration should be given it.
Leaving the question of this unfortunate disease, I should like to refer to another matter. The Minister for Agriculture has been advertising yellow meal in place of oats. As he knows, the bull sale has been adjourned for some time. A lot of those people who had been feeding bull calves for the last six months find it impossible to get any meal now. Will he see to it that those people get a certain amount of the meal which is available? If he will, he will be meeting them in a reasonable and just way.
There are one or two items in this Estimate to which I should like to refer, and one of them is the farm improvement scheme. I understood the Minister to say last night that a sum of approximately £180,000 would be voted for the scheme. What I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is that there is a feeling among those farmers who intend to take advantage of this scheme that it would be essential, if they are to reap the full benefits of the scheme, that the work should be finished within the financial year. I have been speaking to several of those farmers, and they are rather slow in taking on this work for that reason. I took the liberty of telling them that I thought it possible that the time would be extended. I think it would be well if the Minister would make a public statement to that effect, especially in view of the fact that at present the whole time of those farmers is taken up with the tillage scheme, trying to sow as much oats and wheat as possible for this year, in order to carry out the intentions of the Department. There are very many of those small farmers who would find it absolutely impossible to finish within the specified time the work they contemplate doing under this improvements scheme.
The other item to which I should like to refer—the matter has been mentioned over and over again in this House—is the great difference that there is between the prices paid per cwt. to the owners of pigs of practically the same age, which have received the same treatment and are sold on the same day. I came across an extraordinary case recently where ten pigs were sold at a factory, and two of them were graded A, for which the owner received 100/- per cwt., while two more were graded B, for which the owner received 95/- per cwt. Of course, it is only natural to assume that the largest number were bound to be graded C, for which only 80/- per cwt. was paid, that is a difference of £1 per cwt. between grade A and grade C. I am sure the Minister and any Deputy in this House will agree that when that bacon is cured, and is being sent to the retailer, there certainly will not be a difference of £1 in the price charged to the retailer, or, incidentally, in the price charged to the consumer.
It seems to me to be wholesale robbery that a man should be paid £1 a cwt. less for pigs which will yield much the same bacon, or bacon with only a very slight difference. That is a grievance which has been endured by the farmers of this country since this Pigs and Bacon Act was passed. I think the time has now arrived when the Minister should take serious notice of the great discrepancies in the price paid to the people who have to send their pigs to the factory now in the absence of the markets in which they had been accustomed to dispose of those pigs in former years. I refer now to the markets along the Border.
Coming to the question of this unfortunate outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, so much has been said about it that possibly there is no use in wearying the House any further. Still, as one representing a county where many of the farmers engage very largely in the cattle industry, and are looking forward to something being done, I think it is only right that I should say that, while I agree with the Minister that he is doing all that is humanly possible to stamp out this disease, in conjunction with the chief of his veterinary department, I think something more could be done to ease the situation in regard to the disposal of fat cattle which at the moment enjoy a clean bill of health. In County Louth, as far as I am aware, there has been no trace of the disease found, and it is a well-known fact that at the moment there are large numbers of fat cattle there, which would have been exported during the past three or four weeks were it not for those outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. I want to ask the Minister now could he not formulate some plan whereby those cattle could be bought and slaughtered while they are healthy, instead of waiting for the time when perhaps the disease will spread to that county, and the Minister will perforce slaughter the cattle and compensate the owners. I think that is a common-sense suggestion. In fact, I am surprised that arrangements have not been made during the past few weeks to get rid of those cattle now while they are free from this disease. I have been making inquiries, and some of the men who put up the proposition to me stated that they would be in a position to slaughter those cattle and export them as dead meat to the British market.
During a previous outbreak of this disease very many years ago, I myself remember that in the slaughterhouse in Dundalk thousands and thousands of cattle were slaughtered. That slaughterhouse is there yet, and I would respectfully suggest that something should be done on those lines again. Remember, I am not asking the Minister's Department to do anything which would interfere with the measures taken to prevent the spread of this disease—I want to make myself perfectly clear on that—but if, without running any risk, such a scheme could be put into operation, I think it would ease the situation so far as the cattle industry is concerned in counties like Louth and other counties which at the moment have a clean bill of health. As far as I know, the present procedure is that those buyers in Dublin, whether they are three or four or five or whatever the number is, buy so many cattle each week. It takes about 700 head of cattle to supply the needs of the City of Dublin. At the moment, I do not know whether those 700 cattle are taken from the County Dublin or whether the purchases are distributed over other counties. If they are not, I think it would be well that they should be, in addition to those other facilities being given to the owners of cattle in County Louth at the present time.
There is one other little matter which I should like to mention to the Minister, too. I mentioned it to Deputy Dillon and he referred to it yesterday in the course of his speech. It was brought to my notice by an extensive cattle breeder in the county. He pointed out that it was curious that while the Department made a standstill order with regard to the movement of cattle and individuals to and from farms, there seemed to be no notice taken of the people known as tinkers who travel around the country with their caravans and who are generally escorted by herds of goats, asses, dogs and other animals. As a matter of fact, one such caravan is encamped right against the ditch of one of the largest farms in the county. These people may have come a distance of 25 or 30 miles, possibly from an infected area. I do not know if the Guards have any official notification from the Department to look after these people. I think it would be well to do something about them, to keep an eye on them and see that they are not allowed to move about the country. It would seem to be silly to prevent people moving cattle if persons of that type are permitted to travel quite freely all over the country.
I wish the Minister and his officials the best of luck in their efforts to stamp out the disease. There is no use in getting panicky. The people of this country are an impatient people; whether or not that is due to tradition I cannot say. We have not been very subject to discipline, but we have got a little bit of it now and we must put up with some inconvenience and obey the orders issued by the Department. Getting panicky will not be any use, and spending large sums uselessly should be avoided. We must have patience and hope for the best.
I see the Minister is employing 2,000 men. I hope they have been given some advice in connection with their duties —how important their functions are and how serious is the general situation. They should be given to understand that they are engaged on a work on which depends the very life of the nation. They are looking after matters connected with the country's chief industry, the cattle industry. No matter what views we may have had before this, I am sure everyone will now agree that it is one of our greatest industries. It should be clearly conveyed to those people engaged on the work of eradicating this disease that it is not merely a matter of turning out to get 7/6 a day. They should be made to realise that they are doing a great national work, work of vital importance to the people, and that it should be carried out fearlessly and relentlessly.
Last night the Minister promised Deputy Byrne, Senior, that the Prussia Street area would be rapidly cleared. I understand that up to five o'clock this evening the position there was just as bad as it was yesterday, and there are still large numbers of cattle in that district.
I should like to endorse the remarks made by Deputy Belton, that, while everything possible should be done to eradicate this disease, careful investigation should be made in order to ascertain if it is possible to find a cure or find some means of immunising cattle and other animals against the disease. We have in this country experts who are investigating whether it is possible to cure the disease. If, in the realm of veterinary science, it is thought sufficient progress is not being made in this direction, it should not be considered undesirable to call in members of the medical profession to assist in the endeavour to locate the cause of this disease and establish a cure.
In some of the districts outside the infected areas the precautions taken are exceedingly drastic, and rightly so, but I feel that while people are allowed to frequent race meetings and other public assemblies, where there is great danger of spreading the disease, it seems a little bit harsh that small-holders and others should be prevented from allowing their cattle to cross the roads, and are compelled to keep the cattle housed night and day, not even permitting them out to drink. That seems to be almost too drastic. It strikes me that if there is the possibility of infection being carried by vehicles on the public roads, there is one precaution which should have been taken at the outset, and that is to spray some form of disinfectant on the roads. That could be done by saturating any type of material, sawdust or litter, and spreading it across the road. That would tend to prevent the spread of the infection. If that were done it would be possible to allow people to cross the roads with their stock and they would not be penalised to the extent to which they are penalised at the present time.
Having regard to the seriousness of the infection, I think the Minister should take steps to suspend the operations of warble fly inspectors in all counties where there is a possibility of introducing the disease. He might also indicate to the Department of Justice that there is danger of spreading the infection by allowing the officials of that Department, particularly the officials I referred to to-day —the flying squad or the special unit established for the collection of land annuities—to visit farmhouses and inspect the stock. These people do examine stock very closely, and for that reason they might become a great source of infection. The Minister should advise the Department of Justice of the danger which such a practice involves.
I think the Minister should also pay special attention to the plea made to-day for compensation, not only for full compensation for live stock, but also for loss of business through the slaughter of the stock. If that were done it would get over all possibility of people endeavouring to cloak the disease or attempting to cure it on their own premises. The Minister should certainly hold out that inducement. He should also offer a special reward for information, although I am disinclined to go as far as Deputy Belton in that matter. I would be inclined to think that if the reward was too great it might be a temptation to some person to spread the infection, to initiate it by some means in order to secure the reward.
Have investigations been carried on in the laboratories of the veterinary section of the Department, or in veterinary colleges, in relation to this disease? If they have, has the bacteria of that disease always been available in these laboratories, and has the Minister considered the possibility of the disease being spread from these laboratories to the areas at present affected? I think the Minister should consider that aspect, because it is possible that the infection may not have been brought from outside, but may have been spread from the laboratories in the various colleges. Every possible step should be taken to discover from what source the disease originated, particularly in Counties Leix and Offaly, which were, I believe, the first counties in the southern part of the country affected.
There has been an outbreak of this disease in my constituency, and some things have been said to which I must take exception. The first thing I want to take exception to is the statement by the Minister last night—whether meant literally or not—that he was completely in the hands of the veterinary staff in dealing with this matter. If he meant it in its literal sense, I want to protest, in the name of the House, against that statement, because it means that this thing will not be dealt with at all; and, if the Civil Service is completely responsible, this House has no responsibility, and is wasting its time in discussing it. I should like the Minister to clear that matter up, because he is responsible to the House, and he and we are responsible to the country for dealing with this problem. There are clear and definite functions which fall on the veterinary department. So far as we know, they are discharging these functions very well, but it would be fatal for the House to throw off the primary responsibility which rests upon it, and particularly on the Minister.
It was stated here last night, and again to-day, that around the City of Dublin men can walk, and are walking, in dozens across fields. If that is so, it is a shocking position. Notices were published in the daily and evening papers, under huge headlines, setting out that it was illegal for anybody, other than those who had business on the lands, to enter upon the lands of any person. Surely, everybody knows the law well enough to know that if anybody enters on land, and there is no policeman or anybody in authority about, every citizen is a policeman. I hope that if any laxity has obtained up to this in that respect it will not obtain any longer, and that any person who puts his foot on another person's land will be dealt with, and that if he cannot be dealt with easily, he will be dealt with roughly. I was amazed to hear that, in face of these notices, men have been wandering wholesale—because that is the allegation—over lands. I do not know whether it is true or not.
It is absolutely true. I saw cases of it this morning.
I myself keep a couple of dogs but I would not let them loose in the city. All this leads up to the point of urging the Minister to take drastic action. Speaking for my constituency, where there is an outbreak, I can assure the Minister that the people there will support him in any action he takes and, in this connection, again, he will see the fallacy of shelving his responsibility and leaving the matter in the hands of the veterinary department, because the Guards and the Local Security Force come into this matter, in relation to the movement of people and of dogs, horses and so on. That is a matter for the Guards and, so far as my constituency is concerned, the Guards have been very active and efficient in that respect. The outbreak had not been discovered a week before men were brought before the courts and summoned for having moved animals. The Minister must ask for the active assistance of the Guards in the matter.
A proposal has been made here, which I consider highly vicious, that rewards should be given for notification of the disease. It looks a very plausible proposal but, when you examine it, you realise how dangerous it is, because the greater the reward, the greater the inclination of mischief-makers, who have, if you like, no interest in this country other than to get money and to get it quickly—and there are such people—to get quick money. This proposal would open the door for them. The law is there. Can we not all obey the law and report these cases? Is it not shocking that it should be suggested that we lack a sense of citizenship to such an extent and is it not a shocking reflection upon us?
How is it a vicious suggestion?
It is a vicious suggestion because it opens the door to people who want to get handy money by spreading the disease.
You cannot spread it if you have not got the germs here.
I know nothing about the germs and I do not propose to enter into the technicalities of this question. There are huge laboratories in Slough, England, where hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent on research work into the diseases affecting animals. The best minds that can be procured are at work there and they have not yet found a highly effective remedy for this disease, which shows how difficult the problem is. One thing I would say to the Minister is: Do not give any rewards in my constituency to anybody for notifying this disease.
It started up there.
The Deputy may be a great farmer, but I am taking that responsibility on myself, and I know something about farming, too. It has been stated here that certain men appointed by the Minister are getting £4 a head on the purchase of cattle. I know nothing about that, but, if that statement is true, I should like the Minister to take it by the neck at once and put an end to it. It represents £2,700 for a few men in a week. There will be an outery in this city within a week, and the people will be looking for the scalp of the Minister and the scalps of these men, if this money is coming into their hands because of the present crisis. I do not think that any body of men should accept that sum of money in these circumstances. I am sure that Deputy Belton merely intended to urge the prosecution of research work into this disease, but I think that when we are in the middle of a stream, we must go to one bank or the other. We cannot make for both, because, if we do, we shall be washed down the stream. If the disease were endemic in this country, one might, in the desperate circumstances then existing, hold the view that we might as well go on and see if the cattle would live or not, but we know that it is not, and Deputy Belton will pardon me for reminding him that he said we had the disease in this country for over 30 years—as much as to say that the disease prevailed in this country regularly off and on for 30 years.
This country, and Britain.
I am not concerned with Britain at all.
The two countries are very closely interwoven in the cattle trade. That is my statement, anyway.
It is not fair that such a statement should be allowed to go abroad, and that people should hear that the disease has been in this country for the last 30 years.
That is my statement.
I am not hairsplitting at all about the matter, but, to sum up, I want the Minister to accept his responsibility, assuming that he meant literally what he said last night. Secondly, I want an assurance that the men appointed to buy these cattle are not going to make £4 a head on 700 cattle a week, and that we are not going to have a "racket" like that in regard to pigs and bacon.
I would ask him, so far as my constituency is concerned, to make no offer or reward for giving notice of this disease. Further, I would ask him to be as drastic as he possibly can with regard to the stand-still order. Some people may not approve of that. It may cause serious inconvenience in places but if we are going to make a success of our efforts to stamp out the disease, that can only be achieved by a rigid stand-still order.
Mr. Broderick
I did not intend to take part in this debate were it not for the closing portions of Deputy McMenamin's statement with reference to allegations that we have had this disease in this country and in Britain for 30 years. What is the necessity for dragging in Britain?
I did not say that it was in Britain.
Mr. Broderick
I am dealing with statements made here in the House. No more dangerous or sinister statement could be made. In former years we had accusations of a somewhat similar character in the British Parliament. These statements are calculated to injure and to bring discredit on the cattle trade industry. I should like the Minister, in replying, fortified by the evidence of his veterinary officers, to repudiate that statement as strongly as he possibly can. We are aware that an outbreak of this disease occurred in this country approximately about the year 1912. It was an extraordinary thing that when a great European conflict was looming ahead, Britain's food supply should be endangered by an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease here. It seems even more extraordinary now, when she is waging another great war and when our foodstuffs are so essential to her, that we should have another outbreak of this disease. I am not, however, so much concerned with that aspect of the matter as with the credit of the cattle trade of this country. Every Deputy here, no matter what his avocation, realises the extent to which the welfare and the security of this country depend on the prosperity of our cattle trade. Anything that tends to injure that trade, that causes suspicion amongst those to whom our cattle are exported or that impairs the confidence which they have always felt in the cattle industry in this country, is going to affect tremendously the future welfare of the country.
I do not believe the Deputy who made use of this statement had any desire to discredit the cattle trade but I do know we have plenty of competitors outside this country and that the greatest possible use is likely to be made of that statement by such competitors outside the country. It is therefore incumbent on the Minister in the interests of the State and in order to preserve the good name of the trade, that he should repudiate that statement and produce whatever evidence he can before this House to show that there is no foundation for this statement.
As I have intervened in the debate, I might take this opportunity to say that in the opinion of men closely associated with the cattle trade the Minister did not take sufficiently drastic steps to control the disease when the first outbreak was reported. He was possibly too lenient at first. Possibly things were allowed which should not have been allowed if we had a higher sense of responsibility. Now, however, that the disease has developed and spread to many other districts, I think the Department is inclined to be a little bit hysterical in enforcing regulations where there is no necessity for their drastic enforcement. Where there is the slightest danger of the spread of infection, I thoroughly agree that the Minister should be as drastic as possible. If he and his Department will observe how outbreaks of this disease are handled on the other side by people who have been accustomed to handling it, they will notice that when an outbreak is notified, a stand-still order is drastically enforced and there is a waiting period in the removal of animals until the seat of the outbreak is disclosed. Then the area is scheduled for a radius of 15 miles but outside that 15 miles trade is carried on normally. In the South of Ireland up to the present, thank God, we have a clean bill of health. Cork, Tipperary, Waterford and Wexford are all clean. It is extraordinary that people who have cattle to sell and who live 150 or 160 miles from the seat of an outbreak should be held up and embarrassed in every shape and form because of two things. Firstly, the Minister was too considerate when the first outbreak occurred and now he has quite swung the other way. There is little more that I have to say but there are two points which I wish to impress on the Minister.
Realising that we have imposed upon us the responsibility of preserving our cattle trade, the House, and above all the people outside the House, expect the Minister to produce evidence that there has been no cloaking or concealment of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. Secondly, the Minister should, as far as possible, allow people down the country, who are far removed from the area of outbreak, and who already have been unnecessarily embarrassed, an opportunity of selling their stock.
Mr. Brodrick
Speaking as a Deputy from the West of Ireland, I would appeal to the Minister to do everything he possibly can to see that everything is done to preserve a clean bill of health in any district which has so far escaped the ravages of this disease. At the moment we find that, down the country, veterinary surgeons engaged in the effort to control this disease are allowed only eight gallons of petrol to carry on their work. Is that fair to the country? No man could do that job on eight gallons a month. The matter is terribly serious, and the Minister should take a serious view of it. No matter who may be deprived of the means of transport, one class who should not be deprived of it is the veterinary surgeons in the different counties. I would also ask the Minister, as Deputy Broderick has suggested, to see that the stand-still order is enforced drastically in the affected areas. He should ensure as far as possible that the disease does not spread, and that people travelling through the country do not carry the infection. Throughout the country, everybody is disposed to meet the Minister in the matter. Point-to-point meetings have been abandoned in most places, and in other places they had been postponed. It is now up to the Minister to help the people in the country as far as he can.
I did not like to hear the statement that foot-and-mouth disease has been in existence in this country for the last 30 years. The live-stock trade of this country has been built up at great cost to the people of the country. The people of the country had to pay for it. We have built up that live-stock trade, and, at least, the Government should look back on what it cost the country to build it up, and see that it is kept up to the standard that we have at the present day. I think it is most unfair to say in this House that for 30 years we had foot-and-mouth disease here, that it was in and out. I think that we had not a case of the disease since the spring of 1914. Any Deputy who says that we had—let the Minister correct me if I am wrong—is not a worthy representative, and is not fair to the people he represents, nor to the country.
It may be quite possible, as Deputy William Broderick said, that the Minister was too considerate at the start. I would ask him, as one of the West of Ireland Deputies, to put his foot down. If he does not, it may be 12 months or two years before this disease disappears. If he puts his foot down now, we might have to make a sacrifice and continue making it for some time, but it will be much less than if the Minister does not stand to it now. We know that, at the present time, the people are making great sacrifices. We know perfectly well that people have stock on hands and that there is no food in the country for them. At the same time, if the disease is allowed to spread, it will make matters worse. I appeal to the Minister to give the closest attention to it, to give full liberty to every inspector throughout the country, to give his veterinary surgeons plenty of scope to deal with it, and to give scope to the different forces in the country to quell it.
There is one other matter. I believe that we will be allowed to deal for a moment with the question of manures. The farmers in the West of Ireland, as the Minister knows, have a beet factory; they do a large amount of tillage and do it on very small holdings of from £5 to £10 valuation. There is a good deal of land tilled down there, land which for years and years has been living on artificial manures. As far as I can see now, we are in the position to-day in the West of Ireland that there will be no manure to be got to grow beet even to supply beet to the Tuam factory. I am sorry that such is the case, but the Minister is taking the fertile lands of Meath and Westmeath and the Midlands that have not been tilled for 50 or 60 years and says that they are entitled to the same amount of manure as our farmers in the West of Ireland who have been tilling year in and year out for the past 100 years on the same land. I will appeal to him to give us consideration, to give us a better percentage of manure for the West of Ireland, where there are certainly good workers on the soil and where the land cannot grow any further crops unless the necessary manure is given to them. The Minister should consider that, if he wants more tillage, he can get it, but there is no use in tilling three acres of land to get the percentage of crops which were obtained from one and half acres last year. That would be a waste of time and of money. If the Minister gives this consideration and supplies additional manure for lands on the western and southern seaboards, he will find that the people there will produce the crops.
I should first like to deal with a few small points. Deputy Coburn asked me a question about the farm improvement scheme. It is not necessary that the work be completed before the 31st March. If a case is sanctioned it can be carried on. He also raised the question of the Pigs and Bacon Act. He is right in saying that some time ago there was a difference of £1 per cwt. between class A and class C pigs. That has been reduced now to 10/-. I think there will be very few class C pigs from now on as they are heavy pigs, and I do not think they will be produced.
With regard to manure for the West of Ireland, I have little hope of being able to do anything substantial in the way of directing manure to particular districts, but I am having that question investigated to see if some quantity, however small, could be set aside for cases that are more deserving than those generally in the country. Deputy Coburn asked a question about the investigation of this disease in our laboratories. There may have been some investigation, but certainly we are not carrying any vaccines or serums or anything of that kind, and there is no possibility that the disease has been spread from the laboratories. In fact the germ has never been discovered, because it is ultra-microscopic, and those ultra-microscopic ones are really the most dangerous. I was asked about outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease during the past 30 years. I can speak only from recollection, but I believe there were only two—one fairly widespread in 1914 and one very small outbreak, which never extended beyond two farms, in 1928. I was asked about Prussia Street area. What I said last night was that we had gone beyond what was usual in such cases. Usually, in dealing with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, we slaughtered the animals which were infected, and all the other animals on the same farm or premises. In Prussia Street we went further. We slaughtered all the animals infected and uninfected in the yards where any case was found and in the other yards where there was no infection. In the ordinary course, they would not be infected, but we are departing from the usual course by slaughtering even the cattle in the yards which have not been affected. I said that was being done in Prussia Street and it will be done. I am not sure whether it was done to-day or will be done to-morrow—that is really a matter of space in the abattoir.
Is not the question of space very unsatisfactory?
That is another point which has been giving us some trouble. Naturally, we did not want to spread out the organisation of slaughtering in the city for the present. We are trying to make it better, and may be able to spread it out next week to private slaughterhouses.
I have heard complaints.
Yes; there is great congestion. There were some complaints about unduly drastic precautions. Possibly there is something in that. For instance, Deputy Cogan mentioned the case of a small holder who is a good distance from the active seat of the disease, but who has not been allowed to move cattle across the road, and has to keep them in the house all the time, as his land is all on the other side of the road. These are cases which will be dealt with as soon as possible. Also, a case was raised by Deputy O'Donovan that we are not allowing bull sales and fairs in counties remote from the disease, like Cork and Kerry. We hope to be able to come back to that point also in the near future, and I hope to be able to make an announcement regarding some relaxation in the area outside the scheduled area for the movement of stock, whether it be fairs or bull sales, or movement of stock across the road from one farm to another. I think we may be able to commence to make relaxations of that kind next week. That will not apply to the counties around Dublin that are scheduled.
Deputy Belton complained about compensation. I think it was a pity that Deputies spoke in the way they did about this matter of compensation, because I think that nothing could have made owners of stock more anxious with regard to the question of compensation than the speeches that have been made here—speeches that were made entirely on an uninformed basis. We have had Deputies getting up here and talking about our valuers going out and ordering the slaughter of milch cows, and valuing them as strippers. No such thing happened. The valuer was told that he could be as generous as he thought the circumstances would warrant, and he has been generous. He does not value the stock of the owner concerned in this matter as if that owner were forced to sell, because of the present circumstances.
How many valuers are employed?
One. Well, there is more than one employed when necessary, but one did all the business that was necessary around here. He was told that he could be as generous as he thought circumstances would permit, and I know that he is valuing the stock, keeping in mind what the stock would be worth if, let us say, they were forward stores or half stall-fed, or on the basis of what they would be worth in four or five months' time in the case of cows already in calf. Let us say that a cow in calf might be worth £25 in five months' time. I do not say that the valuer would give that amount of money, but he would keep that in mind, and he would not do what Deputies have suggested here, and that is, value the cow without taking that into consideration.
Should he not give what would be the value of that cow in four or five months' time?
I do not say that he will give the value, but he will keep it in mind.
The Minister says that the valuer would keep it in mind, but does not say that he would give that value.
Let us suppose that any Deputy here had a cow of that kind, and that a person came along to buy the cow from him. If the buyer came along and said: "I will buy that cow from you in five months' time and give you £25 for it", the Deputy concerned would be prepared to take a little less if the money were offered to him at the moment.
Yes, but he cannot restock.
Well, I shall not go into the details now, but the general rule underlying the whole thing is that the valuer is generous in the compensation that he awards, and nobody need be afraid.
That is all we wanted.
I think that every Deputy in the House will agree that, if anybody had a grievance, I would hear all about it.
Yes, but I think the trouble about the grievance is that it has to go to arbitration, and there is a long delay. I think that is the trouble.
Well, as a rule, I think the owner is satisfied.
Does the Minister not think that generous compensation would be wise as an inducement to people to report the disease?
Yes, but I agree with other Deputies who say that this is an awfully dangerous thing. It is very easy to carry this disease, and as we are all only too well aware it is the easiest thing in the world to go from my farm to my neighbour's farm and back again and carry around the disease, and I think it would be very dangerous to permit anything that might allow for what we might call double compensation.
Yes, but I should like to point out to the Minister——
The Minister should be allowed to make his statement without these interruptions.
I only want to draw the Minister's attention, Sir, to the fact that there is consequential loss.
That is so, but consequential loss cannot be covered. As far as I can see, the general tenor of this debate was that every Deputy got up and wanted to find fault with some people or something. Each Deputy got up and said that the veterinary staff did their duty and did it very well, that the police and the military, and the officers of the market did their duty and did it very well. Deputies even got up and said that the Minister did his duty and did it very well. Still, the tenor of their complaints, except in one or two instances, was that things went wrong, but not a Deputy opposite said or gave an instance of what was not done right.
I did.
I said, a few instances. Now, I think that if I were on the opposite bench I could make a very good criticism in regard to this matter, especially when it is over. I could very easily say, when cattle were found to be affected at Birkenhead, "Why not put a stand-still order on the whole country and make the thing effective here?" If I did that, however, and if it were found afterwards that the disease did not spread in Birkenhead at all, I would be told: "Why were you so panicky, why did you put on the stand-still order?" The Minister concerned would be told that he should not be in that position because he should not be so panicky. The Party opposite, as far as my experience goes, are easily the best for telling you what should have been done when the thing is over.
Mr. Brodrick
The Minister said the same thing often enough when he was in opposition.
Yes, of course I did, but I do say that we have been more expeditious in regard to all these orders than ever was the case in this country before, or than ever has been done in any of the neighbouring countries. I defy anybody to contradict that, and, if it can be contradicted, I am very sorry, and can only say that we shall endeavour to improve the position. Still, however, Deputies say that we should be more expeditious. That is an easy thing to say when the crisis has occurred, but we shall try to be so. I and the officers of my Department came to the conclusion in the end that the best thing to do would be to put a stand-still order on the whole of this country. Although some Deputies said here to-day that we put that order on 230 miles away from where the outbreak occurred and that it was not necessary, other Deputies said that we did not do half enough. Actually, however, there was never so much done in this country before in that connection.
You were not sufficiently drastic in the area where the outbreak occurred.
That is what I am told now.
Mr. Brodrick
In the area where it occurred.
What I am told now is that I should have been more ruthless and more drastic, but other Deputies complain because I have been drastic. When an outbreak such as this occurs, and spreads, as this disease, unfortunately, has, and when Deputies read about it in the papers, they come up here and say, after the lapse of a fortnight or three weeks: "Why were you not more ruthless?" It is very easy to say that, and it is also very easy to ask why were you not more wise. The only wise man that I can see is Deputy McGovern, who says that he foresaw all this. I can tell him, at any rate, that there is not a single officer in my Department who foresaw it, and neither did I foresee it. None of us foresaw what would happen, and all we could do was to guess what Deputy McGovern foresaw.
He is able to look over the Border.
Here are some of the things that were stated. First of all, I could not close the Dublin Abattoir. What happened was that a case was discovered and the veterinary officer immediately had the doors locked. Now, we did not know that there was going to be a case on that particular day in Dublin. We did not know or did not foresee it, and the result was that it took a few hours to get the necessary disinfectants, brushes, stirrup pumps and so on, into the abattoir. Besides that, there was a mass of people there—butchers, dealers, labourers, porters, and so on —and all of them very angry because they were not allowed out.
Did they not come over the wall? Personally, I know that they got across the back wall.
That is what Deputy Fagan said, and it was stated yesterday that we did not do anything about locking them in. I say we did lock them in, and complaints were coming to me—I got a few telephone calls about it—saying: "In the name of goodness, have you any authority for imprisoning us here in this place while you are looking for brushes and disinfectants?" That is the sort of thing that was going on, but you would think from Deputies opposite that when the thing was discovered in the abattoir everybody could walk off whenever he liked. They were locked in and kept until they were disinfected. Deputy Fagan says some got over the wall. I did not hear that yesterday, because Deputy Fagan's Party—not perhaps Deputy Fagan himself—tried to give the impression yesterday that we did nothing. Now, when I come along and say they were locked in, he says some of them got over the wall. I will have to go back and investigate that.
Would the Minister say where that beast that was discovered came from?
From the Birr district.
That beast did not come from the North Wall?
No.
Is the Minister positive?
No; it was a comrade.
A comrade of that beast came from the North Wall?
It was a comrade of those that were at the North Wall.
Was the disease in an advanced stage at that time?
It was in these particular ones in the abattoir, yes. That is as far as the Dublin Abattoir is concerned. Many Deputies who talked here last night, and many who talked to-day, were under the impression that things were a bit lax because you had Deputies saying that when we discovered the disease we did nothing about it. The next thing is Naas fair. It was alleged yesterday evening that cattle were exposed at the Naas fair that had been released at Dublin after the disease had been notified.
Not released. That word is absolutely wrong.
Left Dublin?
No one used the word "released".
Came from Dublin after the disease was notified in Dublin. Is not that it?
Yes.
That is the allegation. I will turn to the honest men here behind me. The Naas fair was held on the 19th February, in the morning, as fairs are, and the notification in Dublin was at 4 o'clock that evening, and we are told by Deputy Hughes and Deputies opposite that after the notification of the disease in Dublin cattle were brought from Dublin to the Naas fair, which was held that same morning.
Was not there an outbreak in the North Wall two weeks before?
No there was not. There was no outbreak in Dublin, either at the North Wall or anywhere else.
Is the Minister satisfied that no cattle left the Prussia Street area in Dublin and went to the Naas fair, apart altogether from the market?
No; they could not have left after the notification of the disease. Cattle may often have left Prussia Street and gone to Naas in the last ten years, but not after the notification of the disease.
No one mentioned the notification of the disease.
Oh. Cattle four months ago went to Naas, and now we are blamed for spreading the disease. Why should we stop cattle from going to Naas until there was any disease notified? That talk is ridiculous, and Deputies ought to realise it; but let the Deputies look up the Official Debates, and they will see that in the Official Debates. They said "after the disease was notified", and that is the whole point. There is no point at all in saying cattle went to Naas before the disease was notified, because there were no restrictions, naturally.
There was no market on 11th February.
That was a restriction on account of the discovery of the disease in Birkenhead.
That is the time the cattle left Naas.
They may have that time. That was a different matter altogether.
That is the point.
I will come to the Naas fair again.
Is not the Minister satisfied that the Birr cattle were in Dublin from the previous Tuesday week?
They were in about a week or ten days.
That Thursday they were discovered, and they were there from the previous Tuesday week.
Yes.
What contacts were made in the meantime?
What is the point in this question? Cattle came from Birr fair. There was no suspicion at Birr fair. Cattle were held in Dublin for ten days. Nobody had any suspicion of the disease at all, and then the disease was discovered in the abattoir when they were there for ten or 15 days. I do not see what point is in that. The point anyway is made about the Naas fair. Deputies last night said, after the disease was notified. Deputies now want to say before the disease was notified. They now want to back away from the point of the disease being notified. The Naas fair was held on the 19th February. We have traced every beast that was exposed at the Naas fair, every single one of them, and, as I say, it was held on the morning of the 19th. The disease was notified in Dublin on the evening of the 19th. All the cattle exposed at Naas are now under observation, every one of them, and not a single one of them came from Dublin.
Does that include the calves that were sold there?
Every single one of them. I say the cattle at Naas fair have been traced. They are all under observation. None of them came from Dublin.
We allege the cattle came from Dublin, and were in Dublin during those two weeks.
Would the Minister say has he started to trace the infection?
We have. I want to go back step by step. First of all the Deputy said we had allowed cattle to go to Naas after the disease was notified in Dublin. Then he said we allowed cattle to leave Dublin before they were notified and now he says, allowed cattle from the vicinity of Dublin. How far must I go back for the Deputy? Where does the Deputy want to retreat to?
I do not want to retreat. I say definitely the cattle went to Naas fair from Dublin and were in Dublin two weeks.
No. I say this, that the infection was brought to Naas fair by cattle that were in Birr fair and were not in Dublin.
You know where the infection came from?
I know now. Cattle from Birr fair were brought to the vicinity of Naas, never touching Dublin at all, and it was they that brought the infection to Naas fair. Now we have dealt with the abattoir and dealt with Naas fair. All these charges were made by the Deputies opposite without any foundation whatever but in the hope of attacking something or somebody because it would not do for the Opposition to agree that things are being done as they should be done. They talk about the abattoir and the Naas fair and there is not a single thing in any of their allegations, not a single thing.
Treat the matter seriously.
I am serious and I want to treat the matter seriously and to see this thing is treated seriously in the country. I do not want Deputies opposite coming in to say that they want this thing stopped, that though the veterinary staff is all right, things are not being done as they should be done. The Deputies opposite know it is only bluff for political purposes.
The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself.
Order.
The Minister ought to be ashamed, on a matter like this, to say that. Every member of this House is trying to be helpful.
The interruptions ought to cease anyhow.
We went to the Minister to ask him to make a stand-still order, and he told us that his veterinary department advised that there should be no stand-still order, that they wanted to find out where the disease came from. That was on this day fortnight.
They were right.
The Minister admitted he allowed the thing to go on in order to find where the disease came from.
My veterinary department were right.
A wait and see policy.
The veterinary department were absolutely right in their advice in that matter.
To let the thing go for a fortnight?
They were right, because they have traced all the contacts of the cattle that went to Kilkenny, and in their visitation of the farms concerning that case they found there were cattle concealed, and these cattle, of course, would have been concealed for all time had we made a stand-still order.
The Minister did not make the stand-still order until we went to him.
No.
I do not want to be hard on the Minister.
The Minister is in possession.
I told Deputy Fagan that the reason the veterinary section advised me not to close down was that they believed there was concealment. They were right. There was concealment.
Contact was going on all the time.
We got the contacts in the end. The general attack, if you like to call it such, was that the disease had not been tackled in the proper manner. I deprecate that. Take the veterinary staff. I have seen the reports and I know that every member of the veterinary staff has been working very much more than eight hours, and more than 12 hours a day all the time. They could not possibly do more than they did. They have been working 14 and 16 hours a day. Not only did they work long hours but they made no mistakes. In anything they advised they were found to be right, including the case that Deputy Fagan mentioned now. We got very full cooperation from the Army and from the Guards. They have not insisted on any such thing as hours. The Army has on occasions when digging pits agreed to work all night, or to work very late. They have been most helpful. As far as the higher staff of the Department is concerned they have worked late every night. I have been able to get on to them, on the few nights that I did get home early, at 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. I always found them at work. They have been working hard all the time. It was the same with the other Departments in whatever we asked them to do, whether it was a question of getting more cash or anything else. We have been facilitated wherever we went.
In spite of all that, when every single man in the Department and in the Army and in the Guards is willing to help us, we are told by Deputies on the opposite side that we are not taking this thing seriously. Is that honest criticism? Deputies opposite have practically admitted what I have said, and the veterinary surgeons and the police have worked hard, and everyone has worked well, but still they tell us we are not taking the matter seriously.
What about Clonmel?
I will come to that. What can I say about that except that while Deputies opposite believe that everything is being done that should be done, still they must get in some little words like these at the end: "Of course you are not taking this thing seriously."
I do not think that is fair. I do not think every Deputy on this side said that.
No Deputy has pointed to anything that was not done right.
Am I to take it that the Minister seriously suggests that every Deputy on this side of the House made little of the work of the Department? I repudiate it.
No, I said the opposite. I stated that practically every Deputy had praised the work of the veterinary surgeons and the Department. With regard to the Committee, as I explained yesterday, I was up against a certain difficulty. I had to try to get meat to Dublin. I could not set up a company. That would take a few days. It had to be done in a few hours. I explained that the names suggested to me were those of the chairman of the Victuallers, the chairman of the Cattle Traders and the three biggest men in the dressed beef trade. I said they would do.
The arrangement is only a temporary one. I hope it will be only for one or two weeks. Men in the Department who know something about the relative prices of dead meat and live cattle discussed the prices. They may be getting too much. I do not know. There is no use in saying that they are making £4 on every head of cattle. That was taken as an example of a very good beast that killed out at 64 per cent.
On five or six beasts, first grade.
Why work on that basis?
It is not every beast that would kill at 60 per cent. The majority would not reach 60 per cent. What is the use of talking about an abnormal beast? Deputy Fagan said that we should get 57/- at the present time. I do not think that is the present price.
I have the official figures from Birkenhead.
I was talking to a manager of a co-operative society, which is in the dressed meat trade. He is in the business of buying cattle, killing them on commission and sending the meat away. I asked him what was the return on first quality cattle, and he said from 50/- to 53/- per cwt.
They have food control in England.
I suppose every Deputy knows the co-operative society I am referring to. The manager of that society gave me the figures yesterday. It is only a temporary arrangement. I hope it will be very temporary. If we had time we could set up some sort of non-profit making company. We had not time.
A commission would be the proper way.
If I set up a commission I suppose Deputy Hughes would tell me that was wrong.
I would not.
If Deputy Hughes was in my place, and had to decide in three hours maybe he would have rushed it.
I would not let these fellows "cod" me.
Deputies opposite stated that these people were going to make £3,000. I guarantee that if anybody on the opposite benches offered them £500 net profit for this week they would take it.
If that is published, you will have many taking it.
We will see. This arrangement is attacked as if every beast yielded 54/-, and as if there was no such thing as tuberculosis in cattle, or that buyers had not to go down the country and knock around. All these things have been taken into account. I am not saying that they may not be making too much. We will have it examined.
The Minister should be consistent.
I say that they are not making one-sixth of what was mentioned here.
I did not mention any specific figure.
The Minister is avoiding the important question.
It is easy to criticise if there is a wish for criticism. The next question concerns public functions. Is that the important one?
It was understood that the Taoiseach would take Vote 73 at 6.30. I assume it is the desire of the Committee that the Minister for Agriculture should be allowed to finish Vote 30 first.
I will finish in five minutes. I stated that I was taking public responsibility for anything that has been done, and that was interpreted by Deputies opposite as if I did not take responsibility for what was being done. It is extraordinary what can be done. I saw in one of the morning newspapers—not the Irish Press—that the Minister stated he took full responsibility. Some Deputies here read that as if I do not take responsibility.
That shows how far they can depart from truth in their statements. Practically every Deputy opposite said that I did not take responsibility. I said that I took responsibility for everything that was done. I am making the orders and I take the responsibility. Where the veterinary officers advised me that drastic restrictions were necessary I said that I would not fail them in any way. In other words, I said I would rely on the veterinary surgeons and take their advice and make drastic restrictions. Probably everybody agrees with that. But what they evidently want is that, even though the veterinary surgeon might say to me that he does not see any danger in holding a coursing meeting at Clonmel or a races at Leopardstown, I should say: "I do and I will squash it". It is the more popular thing for Deputies to say: "Look at the way the small farmer is suffering, as he cannot drive his cattle across the road and you are allowing race meetings and coursing meetings". I know it is the popular thing to say. I do not care a jot for that. As I said last night, if my veterinary advisers tell me that they can see no veterinary reason for stopping Leopardstown races I probably will not stop them.
In the middle of an infected area?
Why should we do it? Is it to pander to that sort of propaganda and talk that goes on in the country that because a small farmer is suffering we must make other people suffer too?
That is a misrepresentation of what was said.
What about Clonmel?
Clonmel coursing meeting was held. I take responsibility for it and I say that there would not be half so much trouble about it if one of my colleague's dogs had not won there.
That is a most scandalous statement from the Minister.
I take responsibility for that. No outbreak has occurred as a result of that.
The Minister is proving that everything said from this side of the House was justified. He is utterly irresponsible and unfit to have charge of this Department.
I know Deputy Morrissey's tactics very well. When I prove that everything which was said is false, Deputy Morrissey says the Minister is flippant or something like that. Deputy Morrissey ought to be ashamed to sit with Deputies like Deputy Hughes and Deputy Fagan who made these charges about the Naas fair which were absolutely groundless.
I will substantiate the charges.
The Minister is in possession.
It is easy to say that they are false, but I will prove that they are true.
Deputies will constrain the Chair to ask them to leave the House if they persist in interrupting.
I have only this to say, that I am going to take full responsibility if Leopardstown races are held.
You will lose nothing by taking the responsibility, but the people around Leopardstown will.
I am very sorry for the anxiety that Deputy Hughes and Deputy Belton may feel about it, but it is my look-out, not theirs.
I should like to ask the Minister if any research work has been done or authorised in the matter of the curative treatment of foot-and-mouth disease?
No.
Do you intend to do anything?
No.
Then you are neglecting your business and letting the country down.
That is not a question.
I think the Minister said he was considering the question of facilities for the disposal of fat cattle in non-affected areas.
Yes. We are having these cattle disposed of as quickly as possible.
Has the Minister considered the advisability of having all railway trucks and road lorries, even outside the infected areas, disinfected?
Every railway truck and lorry has been disinfected under the supervision of the Department.
What about private lorries?
As to private lorries, there is an order in force. We have not had time to get down to it in detail yet, but there is an order in force which compels every private owner to disinfect his lorry after carrying live stock. We mean to get it done.
I know of no lorry operating within 15 miles on the south side of Naas which has been disinfected yet.
Perhaps not yet.
Has the Minister come to any decision with regard to Leopardstown races?
At the moment my decision is that they will be held, but something may occur between this and Saturday which will prevent their being held.
The Minister must get a fright before he stops them.
He must get a reason.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- Norton, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Broderick, William J.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John J.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Linehan, Timothy.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Bennett and Linehan.
Question declared carried.
Vote reported and agreed to.