Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Oct 1956

Vol. 160 No. 1

National Loan, 1956. - Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill, 1956—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. Since the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, was passed nearly 80 years ago, special legislative provision has existed for the supervision and control in the interests of public health of the methods of production and distribution of milk for human consumption. It has been recognised that not only should milk when drawn from the cow be of a high standard of quality and free from disease organisms harmful to human beings but also that sufficient precautions should be taken at subsequent stages until the milk reaches the consumer to ensure that its quality will not be impaired by unhygienic methods of handling and distribution.

The Milk and Dairies Act, 1935, revised and improved the system of control of the quality of milk for liquid consumption. That Act has now been in operation for 21 years and it is a tribute to the local sanitary authorities whose onerous function it is to operate most of the provisions of the Act that the general quality of our liquid milk has greatly improved throughout those years. While the Act has been operating pretty smoothly, experience has shown that some improvements are desirable and that we should strive to make what seems good even better. This Bill is accordingly designed to amend the Milk and Dairies Act, 1935, with a view to improving the control system and also, to facilitate the operation of the system by removing some administrative difficulties.

These are two categories of producers of milk intended for liquid consumption who have not hitherto been required to conform to the standards of hygienic production laid down in the 1935 Act and the regulations made thereunder.

As regards the first category, creameries engaged in the pasteurisation of milk for the liquid trade are at present free to obtain their milk supplies for this trade from unregistered sources.

The increasing demand throughout the country for pasteurised milk is encouraging more and more creameries to enter into this business and it is only right that such creameries should now be required to obtain from registered producers that portion of their milk intake which is utilised for the liquid trade. This means that the milk so used by creameries will have to be obtained from producers whose animals are not suffering from any disease which would be liable to contaminate the milk and that the producers must conform to the requirements as to standard of cowsheds and dairies, that they must register as dairymen with their local sanitary authority and that their premises and milk supplies will be subject to inspection. As, however, isolated instances may arise from time to time of local temporary shortages of milk from registered dairymen, it is necessary to retain the power to enable such shortages to be met at short notice by creameries. In substitution, therefore, for the general exemption now being withdrawn by Section 3 of this Bill, it is proposed under Section 12 to give the Minister for Agriculture the power to exempt by declaration creamery milk suppliers in specific cases for short periods where supplies of milk are required from creameries to meet emergency shortages.

I wish to make it clear, however, that all the foregoing remarks do not relate to the ordinary farmer who supplies milk to creameries for the manufacture of butter and other milk products: they are not governed in any way by the Act of 1935 or by this Bill, the purity and freshness of their milk being subject to control by inspection on the creamery platform under the Dairy Produce Acts.

The other category of milk producers which have been exempt from the provisions of the 1935 Act are those who sell not more than two gallons per day in rural areas. The same type of exemption also exists in regard to creameries whose sales of liquid milk in rural areas do not exceed five gallons per day. These two exemptions were operated by means of the Emergency Powers (No. 95) Order, 1941, and, in the past 15 years in which that Order has been in use, have occasionally proved a boon to consumers in remote areas who could not obtain their small requirements of milk from registered sources. It is now intended to replace this Emergency Powers Order by a slightly different type of exemption as provided in Section 11 of this Bill. The new exemption will not, as heretofore, be of general application but can be given by the Minister for Agriculture after consultation with the local sanitary authority concerned, in any particular rural area where the exemption is needed to avoid hardship to consumers.

The requirements in relation to the bottling of milk for sale under special designations, such as Highest Grade Milk and Pasteurised Milk, are stringent and well known. The bottling of milk for sale under such general designations as "milk", "new milk", or "fresh milk" has not hitherto been subject to regulation for the reason that the bottling of such milk was not commonly practised. It has, however, in recent times increased to such an extent that it is now essential that sanitary authorities should be enabled to supervise effectively such activities and ensure that the dairymen involved are equipped with proper bottle-sterilising and other necessary equipment. As the process of bottling milk, unless done in accordance with strict hygienic methods, may only increase the risk of contamination, it is important that sanitary authorities should be empowered to exercise a greater measure of control over this branch of the business.

Another provision of the Bill, to which I wish to direct special attention, is that relating to milk used in hotels, restaurants, hospitals, sanatoria, schools and other similar establishments. The present law relating to the sale of milk is not specific enough to cover milk used at such premises because of the doubt whether milk consumed on such premises can legally be regarded as having been sold. Also, proprietors of such premises who have their own herds which supply the requirements of the premises are not at present obliged to have their dairies registerd and so are not bound by the various regulations designed to ensure the hygienic production of the milk.

This is now being rectified in this Bill by requiring that all milk used on those premises must be obtained from registered sources. The relevant provision of the Bill follows the lines of a similar provision which is contained in the Health Act, 1947, relating to food of any kind consumed in those establishments.

The Bill also contains a provision which will have the effect of preventing registered dairymen from supplementing their milk supplies from unregistered sources. While the need for stopping such a practice is obvious the 1935 Act did not quite achieve its object in this respect.

Another provision which I should mention is that relating to the disposal of milk obtained from animals which have been found suffering from disease. The Act of 1935 already contains the essential provision enabling the sale of such milk to be prevented, but the specific reference in the Act to "sale" did not go far enough. It is now proposed to empower veterinary inspectors of sanitary authorities not only to prohibit the sale of milk from a diseased cow but also to direct the manner in which the milk should be disposed of.

The experience gained in the working of the 1935 Act has revealed that one of its provisions, which at the outset seemed to be quite desirable, has operated unduly harshly on some dairymen. This is the requirement under which it is obligatory on a sanitary authority to cancel a dairy-man's registration, thereby putting him out of business, if he is convicted in any five-year period of three offences under the Act and the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. For example, where a shopkeeper is convicted of the offence of selling milk deficient in its fat or milk solids content, even though it has not been proved that the deficiency was due to adulteration, the sanitary authority has no option but to cancel the shopkeeper's registration as a dairyman following three such convictions within five years. It is now proposed to remove this provision of the 1935 Act but to retain the very necessary provision of that Act which gives discretion to the sanitary authority, provided that the consent of the Minister for Agriculture is obtained, to cancel the registration of a dairyman convicted under the Acts mentioned. I may say that the latter power is rarely exercised and only in cases where it is fully established that it is in the interests of the public to do so.

Another important matter covered in the Bill is the proposal to incorporate in permanent legislation, with some modifications, the provisions at present contained in the Emergency Powers (No. 145) Order, 1952. That Order was made for the purpose of meeting the situation which arose out of the occasional inadequacy of the supply of milk to the Dublin area from registered sources. The Order provides for the grant of special temporary licences to creameries not in possession of the type of pasteurising plant normally required under the Milk and Dairies (Special Designations) Regulations, 1938, so as to permit such a creamery to supply pasteurised milk to Dublin. Experience has shown that it is essential that the powers contained in this Emergency Powers Order should be retained and incorporated in permanent legislation so as to ensure that the supply of milk to Dublin can be supplemented, when necessary, at short notice.

For example, in the year 1955, it was found necessary to utilise the provisions of the Order on nine occasions. Although no need presented itself for such special licences this year, it cannot be assumed that the facility will not again be needed in the future. As it may also happen that temporary shortages of milk may arise in areas outside Dublin which cannot conveniently be met at short notice from registered sources, it is only prudent in order to enable those shortages to be met by creameries, that the Minister for Agriculture should be empowered to grant temporary licences for areas outside Dublin.

All the other provisions of the Bill are in the nature of relatively minor amendments of the provisions of the 1935 Act which experience has revealed as necessary for the efficient administration of the Act.

In these days of advancement in the field of hygiene and public health, the problem of ensuring as far as is humanly possible a supply of wholesome milk is particuarly worthy of our most careful attention and it is, therefore, with a view to strengthening some weak links in our chain of armour against the spread of disease through contaminated milk that I place this measure before the House for its consideration.

This is a very long Bill of 31 sections and it is entirely a Bill by reference. Therefore, practically every single section in this Bill amends some section in a former Act. I think Deputies will realise that it is very difficult for an ordinary Deputy to study the implications of a Bill of this kind. It has been the practice in this House to supply an explanatory memorandum when a Bill like this is circulated and I would ask the Minister if it could be possible to supply that explanatory memorandum before the Committee Stage is considered.

I spent some few hours on this Bill and I did not get very far. One would take some days to go through the whole Bill and find out exactly what each clause means. You would have to read the original clause in the principal Act, write it out and then put in the amendment, read it again and then see what it means. I do not think it would be right for me to take down a statute in one of the rooms here and write the amendments into it because you would injure public property. One must take down the clause, write it out, put in an amendment and see how the new clause reads. It is a very slow job for ordinary Deputies. The Minister should have given us an explanatory memorandum telling us the meaning. It would be necessary for the Minister to do what I had to do myself in order to ascertain what any of the sections mean. You are amending an original section which meant so-and-so and now means something else.

I think an explanatory memorandum would be very helpful, when we are dealing with the Committee Stage. The Bill is really a Committee Bill because, as far as I can see, every single section deals with a different matter. No very big principle is involved that we could discuss on Second Reading and it is not necessary, therefore, that we should have Second Reading speeches, as far as I am concerned anyhow.

Would it meet the Deputy's point if I sent him a few copies of such a memorandum?

Yes. As far as I am concerned, that is all right. I think no more than half a dozen Deputies would be interested in it.

I shall endeavour to do that.

I want to make another observation. I do not know exactly how we stand on this but I remember, first of all, in 1935, when I was Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health brought in a Milk Bill. It took a long number of consultations between the two Departments to try to work out what the Minister for Local Government and Public Health was concerned with and what the Minister for Agriculture was concerned with. There was another Bill before I left the Department of Agriculture.

I met the officials of the two Departments on that occasion and I found myself within a few months in the Department of Health. I had to meet them again but, strange to say, I was able to hold the same views when I became Minister for Health. Roughly, the division I thought should be made was that the Minister for Agriculture was the Minister on the economic side, on the production of milk. It is the function of the Minister for Agriculture to see that milk is produced economically, in a healthy state as far as the animals are concerned. The animals should be healthy. But the handling of the milk and the exposure for sale should be the function of the Minister for Health.

That is a rough division. I know that, when you come down to details, it is sometimes inconvenient to make the division at that particular spot. It may be more convenient to let the Minister for Agriculture go a little bit further or permit the Minister for Health to start a little bit back from that particular division. It appears to me that in this Bill the Minister for Agriculture is taking over more of the business of milk production and the exposure of the milk in a clean and healthy condition for sale than had been the case up to this. I think that is wrong.

However, I am not too sure of that, because the Bill is very hard to understand and study and I may be wrong in my assumption. There are, as the Minister explained, in this Bill clauses which make permanent powers that were already taken under the Emergency Powers Orders. As far as I can study that matter, too, I think the Minister is right in the course he has taken. Take the case of rural areas, for instance. A farmer is permitted by Emergency Powers up to this to sell up to two gallons per day to his neighbours. I think that should remain—at least for the present. We may reach the stage sometime or other—I am afraid it will be a long time—when we will be in a position to compel everybody who sells milk to bring his cow byre or dairy up to the standards that we expect for those who at the moment supply the city.

It is obvious that if you compel the farmer in a rural area to go to considerable expense in order that he might be registered to sell milk to an amount of not less than two gallons, he would say he would go out of business and that it would not pay him to go to that expense.

The same, I understand, applies to creameries, whether central creameries or auxiliary creameries. In their case, the sale permitted is five gallons. These matters, which were embodied in Emergency Powers Orders up to now and which are now going to be permanent legislation, appear to me to be right and proper, but I find it hard to discuss this Bill to any extent on Second Reading. I think it is a Bill we will have to settle down to discuss in more detail when the Committee Stage arrives.

I had hoped, when I heard the Minister was bringing in a Milk and Dairies Bill, that he was going to take some steps to increase the price of milk in view of the increased cost of production to the farmers. Instead of that, I find legislation to impose further difficulties on the farmers. I entirely endorse what Deputy Dr. Ryan has just said. It has been cusomary to issue an explanatory statement with each new measure brought into this House. We ordinary Deputies always found that rather useful. However, it has not been done in this case.

I had hoped that when the Minister introduced an improvement of this type, he would take into consideration a growing practice amongst the larger farmers who are now dealing in milk, particularly liquid milk for cities and hospitals. We all know that the average butter fat content in milk is about 3.5 per cent. Some time ago, a storekeeper in one of our hospitals asked me if I ever heard of cows that, for six consecutive months, were producing milk at never higher than 3.1 per cent. butter fat, and I said I never heard of such a thing. However, I told him that if he looked on at the manipulation in regard to the milk, he would find out what was happening.

Large purveyors of milk usually sell a lot of cream. By separating the milk and adding so many gallons of separated milk to the milk produced, they are able to bring the butter fat down to 3.05 per cent. which passes the test, but deprives the people of the butter fat in the milk. Those people are under-cutting farmers, who are the usual contractors to hospitals and places of that description and who supply milk as it comes from the cow, 3.5 per cent. to 4 per cent. butter fat, by 1d. or 2d. a gallon. They have succeeded in driving the ordinary farmer out of the market with an article which, in actual value, is four to five points per gallon less in butter fat. If the Minister is so active in dealing with this matter, I wonder if he would get knowledge of that difficulty that has now arisen and take steps accordingly.

As chairman of our board of assistance, which is concerned with hospitals, I have endeavoured to have certain tests taken from time to time. I found that the statement made to me by the storekeeper was correct. Those people are not supplying ordinary milk of 3.5 to 4 per cent. butter fat content. The milk they are supplying might be pasteurised: I think "pauperised" is nearer the mark because it is generally not more than 3.1 per cent. butter fat in content. That is not milk that is ordinarily delivered by the farmer to any pasteurising plant. I should like the Minister to take that aspect of the question into consideration when introducing a Bill of this description and to see if he can get rid of that type of pauperised milk.

I do not know whether or not the practice of reconstituting milk is general here, but if there is any evidence that it is, then I think the Minister should have the matter examined. My concern is to know just what the impact of this Bill will be on creameries supplying hospitals. At the moment, there is a practice whereby the county managers, on the advice of the health authority, in the main insist on the supply of pasteurised milk to hospitals. The creamery itself sends in the tender for pasteurised milk and supplies it to the hospital. Obviously, when this Bill becomes law, these contacts will no longer be effective, for the simple reason that the suppliers to the creamery will not, in my opinion, go to the expense which this Bill will impose on them by way of making arrangements in the matter of cowsheds and dairies. Therefore, the creamery will not be able to have a sufficient number of suppliers to provide that quantity of milk as prescribed in the Act for the supply of the contracts which they now have. I can see that difficulty. Before we come to the Committee Stage of this Bill, I would ask the Minister to get some idea from the Department of Health of the commitments in that direction and of the possible impact which this Bill will have when it is enacted.

Again, there is the restriction on the supplier of milk to a town or village. As far as we know, at least as far as my knowledge of the milk-producing areas goes, the milk produced is mainly summer milk. The supplier of milk to towns and villages must go at a certain time of the year to neighbouring farmers who have cows calved early to supplement his milk supply. Under the provisions of this Bill, he may not now do that because the supplier of a milk vendor or the man who supplies milk to a town may not now purchase milk from farmers to supplement his supply in the lean period unless those farmers have put their premises——

Registered.

They will not do that. I can see difficulties arising in respect of the supply at a certain time of the year. I can even see a shortage of milk in certain towns at that time.

I think there is a provision that such a supplier of milk may go to the creameries and supplement the supply there. I cannot see much sense in preventing a farmer adjoining a town from sending ten or 15 gallons of milk to the usual supplier of that town and then allowing him to purchase the milk at the creamery where he may purchase a mixture of milk provided by a number of suppliers. The risk of infection from milk purchased at a creamery is much greater than from milk purchased through an individual farmer adjoining a town.

Another important question that arises is: what will be the impact of the Act in regard to the provisions of the T.B. testing scheme? The Minister is aware that all over the dairying areas in the South and elsewhere many farmers know, after a test, that they have a number of reactor cows in their herd. As far as we know generally, there is no provision made for the elimination of these cows. So far as this Act is concerned, the supply of any milk from known reactors is, in fact, milk within the terms of this Act. Will the Minister argue that milk from a reactor cow may not contain tuberculin bacilli?

May not?

In 80 per cent. of the cases.

There is the possibility that it might?

Undoubtedly.

The aim of the Bill is the immediate attestation of all cows supplying milk covered by the provisions of the Act?

No. I wish it were.

The Minister to reply.

I wish I were in a position to say to Deputy Moher that this Bill was designed to provide for a situation arising out of the immediate attestation of every cow in Ireland. God speed that day. Under His Providence, I hope to make whatever modest contribution towards the expedition and the realisation of that aim that I can. I certainly do not want any Deputy to believe that this Bill is designed to persuade Dáil Éireann that any such event is around the corner and I think we will find on the Committee Stage that Deputy Moher's interpretation of the Bill is unduly optimistic.

Perhaps the House will allow me to go back and follow as best I can the points raised in the debate. Deputy Dr. Ryan said he wondered if the functions and duties of the Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture were properly segregated in regard to legislation in relation to milk and dairies. By a strange chance, there was open before me on the desk "Statutory Rules and Orders 1947, No. 417, Agriculture and Health. Transfer of Departmental administration and Ministerial Functions Order, 1947. Transfer to the Minister for Agriculture of Certain Functions of the Minister for Health." Who do you think signed the Order? Would you ever guess? It was not Deputy Dr. Ryan; it was not Deputy Smith. It was Eamon de Valera, the Taoiseach, given under his official seal of the Government on the 19th day of December, 1947. Now, is it not a mercy that Deputy de Valera is not here to shake his gory locks at me and rebuke me for carrying out the functions that he transferred to me under his seal and signature on the 19th day of December, 1947? If the poor man were here, it would result in his embarrassment three times in one day and I would not wish even him that trial.

It was thought well at that time to transfer certain functions from the Department of Health to the Department of Agriculture, and I remember in February, 1948, when I took up office, that the transfer was actually in progress. But the Minister for Health still has considerable functions in connection with this matter and when I furnish Deputies with the note that Deputy Dr. Ryan asked for, by way of elucidation of the sections of the Bill, I will indicate the sections in which the Minister for Health is concerned, in which the Minister for Agriculture is concerned and in which both Ministers are concerned.

I do not want to strike any peculiarly controversial note and I am very happy indeed to oblige Deputy Dr. Ryan and his colleagues by preparing the kind of explanatory note he seeks, but it is preposterous for Deputy Corry to say it was the invariable practice of the House to provide such a note. Nothing is further from the truth and I am obliged to confess that frequently from the Opposition Benches I made the same representation as Deputy Dr. Ryan made to-day. Whenever I made it, I was brushed off by an indignant Minister who rebuked me for being too lazy to look up the references myself. Now that the Opposition makes that representation to me, I will be glad to meet it to the limit of my resources in good time for the Committee Stage.

Deputy Moher knew well the significance of Deputy Corry's outspoken and disinterested contribution to this debate. He was trying to say, under parliamentary privilege, what he was afraid to say in public.

That is like Deputy James Dillon.

If he wants to make these observations, let him go down to Cork and get up there and make them in public. Deputy Corry describes himself as being the chairman of a public health authority and he can go down to Cork and say in public there what he is trying to say here, by innuendo, under parliamentary privilege. If he has any complaint or allegation to make, he should be man enough to go and make it where people are in a position to challenge him and nail his ear to the post, if he is slandering them, as I believe he is. He says he is the chairman of the public health authority and he says he knows that the poor, for whom he professes to be responsible, are being unjustly treated. It is his duty to see that they are properly treated and if he is afraid to do his duty, he ought not come slinking in here to make allegations by innuendo.

I understand the anxieties that Deputy Moher mentioned and I see the point when he asked why should you prohibit a man supplementing his milk supply from a neighbour, if you allow him to go to a creamery. I would agree with that.

The general aim all the way since 1935 has been to try and build up the level. Be that as it may, Deputy Dr. Ryan said it was necessary at one time to give a general exemption in respect of the farmer who sold less than two gallons a day. The furthest we are going in this Bill is to cancel general exemption and to put a duty on the Minister for Agriculture to satisfy himself that, unless he gave exemption in a particular area, there would not be milk available from any other sources of supply. I think we ought to try and reach the aim and persuade everybody who wants to sell milk for human consumption to avail of the farm buildings grant and to build his cowshed up to the very modest standard that the local authority requires to register him as a milk supplier.

It is not a very high standard. I dare to say that it is almost the minimum, and it is not harshly enforced. Everything is done to help a fellow improve his cowshed. He need not build a new cowshed and very often can get a reconstruction grant if he does want to build a new one that will enable him to bring up his existing cowshed to the minimum standard required.

I do not think there is substance in Deputy Moher's apprehension that creameries at present under contract to supply hospitals and institutions will find themselves unable to do so under the provisions of this Act. Certainly I would wish to have—and I am sure in fact I will have—power to avoid creating a situation in which creameries would be obliged to break their contracts or to leave institutions without milk. I do think the time has come when we ought to say to creameries who wish to set up a separate business of bottling pasteurised milk for human consumption that they ought to take that milk in on a separate platform, that they ought to take it from suppliers who have brought up their cowsheds to the standard fixed by the local authority and that the milk should be treated quite separately from the ordinary commercial creamery milk which, as the Deputy says, may suffer contamination owing to the supply being mixed without regard to what farm it may have come from.

So far as I know, no serious objection has been offered to this reform by the dairying industry. I do not mean to imply that some people have not regarded it with some apprehension, but in fact two or three creameries have applied to me for facilities to set up pasteurising and bottling plant to distribute liquid milk for human consumption, and I have availed of every such application to say to them: "This Bill is coming before Dáil Éireann and if the Dáil approves this Bill and the Oireachtas passes it, you would be required to have a separate receiving platform, separate premises and the kind of equipment that the Bill will provide, if you are to continue with this pasteurised bottle milk business." Any creamery which has discussed this matter with me, however, has readily accepted that and has taken steps to that end, so that I do not think it will create any insuperable difficulty for any creamery that intends permanently to get into this business.

I agree with the Deputies who have spoken that this is largely a Committee Stage Bill. I do not believe we should find in it any matter of a controversial character — certainly no matter of high principle—which we should not be able to settle by our common counsel but I shall certainly put in the hands of Deputies a memorandum which will explain the various sections to them and, armed with that, we should be able to have a more informative discussion on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

This day fortnight.

When could the Minister circulate the memorandum?

Early next week. We will put it down for this day fortnight.

Provisionally.

Yes, it does not matter.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 7th November.
Barr
Roinn