Diseases of Animals Bill, 1965: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
I do not know whether the matter I wish to raise should be more appropriately raised on section 11 or on section 12. Section 11 deals with the First Schedule, which sets out the diseases and animals which come within the ambit of the regulations which may be made for the control and eradication of disease. The net point I want to raise is this: we are at present engaged in a campaign for the eradication of warble fly in cattle. Cattle appear in the First Schedule. I want to know from the Minister does the Department intend to supplement the usual procedure for eradication of a pest of this character with a biological attack upon the source of the trouble, with specific reference to warble fly?
We are at present having recourse to a system of dressing cattle with a systemic dressing designed to destroy the warble embryo in the circulation of the cattle, not the blood circulation but the lymphatic circulation of the individual beast. This procedure could be very advantageous if supplemented by a biological attack on the warble fly itself analogous to that which was conducted by the Government of Australia when they were dealing with the greenbottle fly in connection with the elimination of maggots in sheep in Australia. At first glance, it appears that a biological attack on the warble fly over the whole country would appear to be out of the question, but, when the Government of Australia successfully undertook such a campaign for the elimination of the green-bottle fly over the whole sheep-raising area of Australia, I have always felt we should address ourselves to the problem.
When I was Minister for Agriculture, I contemplated an experimental attack of this kind on a restricted area. At that time, prior to 1957, we had not at our disposal the drugs now available for dealing with this problem. We had to grapple with it by the methods then available. It was finally considered that, in view of the very restricted effectiveness of the remedy at our disposal at that time, it was, perhaps, premature to adopt the biological attack. Now that we have a very much more efficient systemic dressing for this complaint, I should be glad to know from the Minister if any corresponding attack is to be made on the problem by a systemic biological attack on the warble fly itself.
To be quite crude and plain about it, the procedure for the biological attack on a pest of this kind, which was so successfully inaugurated and operated by the Australian Government, was that they captured a number of male flies which they irradiated, thereby rendering them infertile. These were released and—in the nature of things— this kind of parasites only mate once, then lay infertile eggs and the fly population begins to dwindle. The consequence has been for that variety of fly to disappear altogether. This is, in a highly simplified form, the nature of the biological assault on parasites of that kind.
As Deputy Dillon has mentioned, this new process of the systemic dressing represents a breakthrough in this particular field. We are advised that systemic dressing on a national scale, such as we are undertaking, would be about 95 per cent effective. As I understand the position, that should suffice to ensure the effective eradication of the warble fly. We have not got all the figures in as yet but we think that by now we should have dressed somewhere in the region of four million cattle. This, I think, represents success. It may be that when we come to evaluating the situation, as a result of the national eradication campaign this year, some form of biological attack, such as Deputy Dillon has mentioned, may be necessary. At the moment we do not think it will be but, if it is, it will be undertaken.
I thank the Minister for his reassurance. In the meantime perhaps the Minister would consider examining the practicability of the biological procedure in connection with this particular type of pest in case, in the future, it should become desirable to embark upon it.
I should like to ask the Minister several questions in relation to the warble fly eradication scheme at present in action. First of all, does he not consider that up to the 1st December—that is tomorrow— is a very short period in which to allow farmers to operate the scheme? Would he enlighten the House as to whether it is mandatory on farmers to have all beasts treated by this, or whether they are allowed to have treated only such animals as they wish to present for marketing? If all beasts have to be treated does he not consider it imposes a good deal of hardship on farmers, in present circumstances, in the light of the fact that it is an extra charge, even though it is a charge of only 3/- per beast? It so happens that, perhaps, the marketing conditions for livestock at the moment are worse than they have been in the past three years.
Does the Minister not consider that the charge of 3/-, in the event of all beasts in a herd having to be treated, is too great, when it is considered that a farmer has to pay 3/- for a suck calf to be treated for this and 3/- for a bullock as well? Have the operators carrying out this particular treatment any specialised training whatsoever, or are they simply told to buy the stuff, appoint it for the area, charge 3/- per beast and stamp the cards? I understand that a special card is being issued for this particular treatment. Does the Minister not consider that this is extremely unreasonable in the light of the fact that the ordinary small farmer has not got book-keeping facilities or files available to him, which means he will have an extra card? He already has the difficulty of the blue card. He very often has to read three or four numbers on the ear before he gets the right one. As well as that, he is likely to have a third card for brucellosis. Would the Minister, therefore, not reconsider the whole question of the registration of this treatment so that it could be stamped on the already existing bovine tuberculosis card and thus save a lot of trouble? I asked the Minister enough questions but I have something further to say later on on this particular treatment.
First of all I do not think that 1st December is too early a date at all. We must finish in or around 1st December because veterinary advice is to the effect that every day one goes beyond the 1st December increases the risk. We inaugurated the campaign at the end of the summer and there was ample time for everybody to have their herds dressed.
I personally received the form in relation to it only approximately one month ago.
In a national scheme of this sort, there will be individual discrepancies here and there. The campaign was launched on a national basis at the beginning of September and even if any particular herd owner received notification only a month ago, he still had a month to get in touch with the local operative to have his cattle dressed. I do not think a charge of 3/- per animal is excessive.
In reply to Deputy Dillon's interjection in relation to the cost charge, I would say that, apart altogether from any benefit accruing to the hide trade, there is no doubt that the elimination of warble fly brings enormous benefit to the herd owners. Apart from the damage by warble fly to the hide itself, infestation with warbles has a very serious effect on the way in which cattle thrive, if they are store beasts, and it also affects the milk yields, if they are dairy herds. The warble fly does all those things, apart from the damage it does to the herd itself. There is no particular skill necessary to dress animals. I think the best way I can illustrate this point is by telling the Deputy that I have dressed cattle myself.
We saw the Minister in The Farmers' Journal.
I think this is proof positive that there is no particular skill attached to this dressing.
Does that mean that any fool can do it? Is that what the Minister is implying?
We gave a lot of thought to the system of records necessary and it seemed to us the simplest way of doing it was to issue a very simple certificate related to the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme. Indeed, the simplest thing for the herd owner to do is to attach the warble certificate to his blue card. No bookkeeping of any sort is necessary. It simply means that the blue card and the warble fly certificate now accompany the animal everywhere it goes.
And the brucellosis certificate as well?
There is just one small matter I should like to refer to. It is not of very great importance but it is of some importance. There are individual instances where farmers had a stock of ruline which I understand is the proper drug.
The position apparently is that the herd owner is at a loss of approximately 1/6d. The return of this drug would be accepted from him or the operator will use the drug but a charge of 1/6d. can be made. This means a loss to the herd owner of 1/6d. I should like to know from the Minister if he can do anything about this? I have had complaints in my constituency about this matter.
I have not heard this particular complaint. Is the Deputy referring to herd owners who, in past years, for the purpose of good stockmanship, had stocks of this drug on hands but of which they do not get the benefit this year? He is charged 1/6d. by the operator. I doubt very much if we can do anything about this but I shall look into it.
The circular issued to farmers and herd owners states that the drug is eliminated from the system in six hours. I think I am correct in that interpretation. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this. As far as I can make out, having read the official record, if an animal which has been treated for this warble fly treatment dies, provided the veterinary surgeon is called within 24 hours to see the carcase of the animal, compensation can be paid. I was not here when the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the debate but that is what I understand he said. I want clarification on this point. It should be made absolutely clear here where the herd owner stands. If the Minister and his advisers maintain that treatment is excreted out of the system in six hours, what is to prevent them saying, if my animal or anybody else's animal dies, within a day or so: "That drug is excreted from the system in six hours and we are not liable?"
I should like to reassure the Deputy and others on this matter. This insurance scheme was introduced with a view to making sure that nobody was at a loss under this campaign. We endeavoured to build certain conditions into the scheme to make sure that we would not be called on to pay compensation for deaths which resulted from some entirely different cause. If we are to administer the scheme in a reasonable fashion— fortunately the number of deaths has been very small in proportion to the number of cattle treated—some conditions must be attached to it. If any Deputy knows of any hardship cases or cases in which some herd owner has been harshly dealt with, he should bring them to our notice and we will try to have the matter rectified.
As I say, this is a national scheme and we are endeavouring to deal with somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 head of cattle. We had to introduce some conditions. It is not our intention that any single herd owner should be at a loss because of his participation in the scheme.
I am thankful for the liberal attitude of the Minister but it does not quite answer my question. Supposing a herd owner loses an animal. Supposing the animal dies a week after it has been treated and the veterinary surgeon is sent for and comes along and says: "This animal did not die because of the dressing; it had no effect on it at all." What redress has the herd owner then got? The Minister can stand on this legally if we accept the six hours. Remember that we are legislating for the future and I cannot see anything in this Bill to safeguard the herd owner if his animal dies later than six hours after treatment. There is nothing to stop anybody coming along and saying that the Minister is not responsible. The herd owner will not get any compensation then.
I have heard of two cases in my county. I have not seen the animals, but shortly after being treated, the calf was lost and some time afterwards, the cow died. I do not know if compensation was paid in this case. It was applied for. It seems to me there is no real legal coverage in this case, and I am not alone in this view.
I am glad to hear the Minister saying that the Department will adopt a reasonable attitude in cases of this kind. I know of a woman living in an isolated area whose cattle were treated. The animals were put out on grass some distance from the house. One died after dressing. The beast was found dead some time later on. It was more than 24 hours before notification was given to a veterinary surgeon. I am glad to hear the Minister will take a very liberal view of cases of this kind.
I think the Deputies who have spoken have highlighted the difficulty. The Minister said that the Department are quite reasonable and that in any case of hardship the matter could be brought to his notice. Unfortunately, the scheme does not indicate that there is any question of leniency with regard to notification within 24 hours. It is true that losses are not very great, but it is also true that there are small herd owners who go to work in the mornings and if an animal dies before they return in the evening, it may not be possible in isolated areas to get to a veterinary surgeon within 24 hours. That has happened in two cases I know of and the people concerned feel they are going to lose the cost of the beast which they cannot afford. Why was 24 hours selected? Surely it should have been possible to have made it a little longer than 24 hours, in view of the fact that leniency can be shown, as the Minister said? That has reassured these people who feel there is a danger of losing some of their stock if they get them dressed because they might not be able to meet this deadline. Perhaps the Minister will consider this.
I will consider it but I feel this discussion is to some extent academic because the campaign is over. The 1st December is with us tomorrow and we are now talking in terms of next year.
Does that mean that no one can sell his cattle until next year if he has not got them done?
After tomorrow, you cannot legally expose cattle for sale which have not been dressed.
That means they are locked up for a year.
If they are not dressed. This has been brought specifically to everyone's notice, and our operatives have been combing the countryside, as many Deputies know, getting in touch with herd owners and urging them to have their cattle dressed. If anyone has not had his cattle dressed by now, I am afraid it is his own fault.
Surely the Minister does not suggest that it was necessary for the herd owner to look for the person appointed to the area and get him to come to dress his cattle before 1st December? I think he will find that in areas where these people were supposed to be, they did not turn up before 1st December. Am I to take it that anyone who did not have his cattle done before 1st December is locked up until December 12 months.
That is ridiculous. I got my cattle done only yesterday by sending an urgent message to the man who was to do them. There are quite a number of people in my area who did not get their cattle done. There is something wrong with this scheme.
I part from the Minister when he says this argument is entirely academic in relation to the question of compensation where notification is not received within 24 hours. The Minister should consider the case of the lady whose beast was out in a field away from the house when it died and, in fact, it was not possible to notify within 24 hours. Surely that is not an academic case. That is a case which has to be decided upon now.
I meant that the assurance is to some extent academic.
I accept that, but the question of compensation and notification within 24 hours is not academic. Even though happily the Minister can assure us that very few fatalities occur, at the same time it is not academic, and it is something which Deputies might have reason to raise with the Minister within the next few months, or the next few weeks.
I cannot understand the Minister's reasoning on this at all. He seems to think it is universally known throughout the country by everyone that they should have their cattle dressed. I think his information is wrong. I knew nothing about it, and no one in my area knew anything about it, until three weeks ago.
Every herd owner was notified.
Did the Minister send them Christmas cards yet?
The Minister can write it on the back of the cards.
I can assure the Deputy that was not prejudice.
No one in my area got it.
Every herd owner should have been notified from the BT Office. Furthermore—probably people do not listen very much to the speeches I make—within the past three months in every speech I made I mentioned this particularly. I availed of the willing and enthusiastic co-operation of the farmers' organisations to do everything they could to impress on herd owners the necessity of doing this job. Every farmers' programme on radio, television and in the technical press again and again during the past three months underlined the necessity for doing this job. I find it difficult to understand how any herd owner could have been unaware of the necessity for doing it.
There is a similar mix up about sheep dipping. Are people expected to dip their sheep in this weather when they would freeze? It is most ridiculous to expect a second dipping.
If the Minister is introducing a mandatory scheme like this, it is not good enough to say that the farmers' organisations have been told, that he made speeches and that sort of thing, and that a circular was sent out to farmers. I want to state with all the authority I can command that I did not get that circular and that no one in my area—Gorey, which is a considerable area—got that circular until a couple of weeks ago.
Until a couple of weeks ago?
Yes, three weeks ago. In effect, everyone in that area is now closed up so far as marketing is concerned, unless the cattle were done by 1st December. If that is considered national efficiency, I want to say I think it is most inefficient and most unfair to the farming community.
How long does the Deputy want to get cattle dressed?
The Minister is introducing a mandatory scheme. This is a democratic Parliament and I have the right to object to the way in which the scheme is being introduced. I am saying that we in the Gorey area —I cannot speak for other areas but I intend to make inquiries—were not notified until three weeks ago that we should have our cattle dressed by 1st December. Now if we did not have them dressed, we are locked up and cannot sell our cattle. It is hard enough to sell cattle at the moment and prices are bad, but on top of that, if they are not dressed, we have to keep them next summer as well. This shows inefficiency on the part of the Minister and the Department, or whoever was responsible.
I deny that. It is irresponsible to suggest that we were in any way inefficient about this scheme. This scheme was well organised and put into operation on a national basis. We have succeeded in dressing 4,000,000 cattle this year. In fact, we have achieved success. I have not got the records at hand now, but I doubt very much if herd owners in Gorey got only three weeks notification of the scheme. Even if they did, it takes only one day to dress the cattle.
Without mitigating this, is it not perfectly manifest that the Minister should not commit himself deeply on this. If there has been an oversight, or if there has been some administrative bottleneck which resulted in the people in the Gorey area getting notification only three weeks ago, surely that is not sufficient notice?
What was the weather like?
In our part of the country we have an AI station and other facilities of that kind, and when we got the notification, we gave reasonable notice to the station to come and dress the cattle. That passed the buck to them. The ball was in their court. We simply sat back and, in due course, they came. Consider the position if you are in an area where there are not AI stations, and so on. Consider the position if, for instance, everybody in the Gorey area had to rush off to get a veterinary surgeon——
Gorey is in an AI station area.
——to get it done: it is physically impossible. I cannot say this categorically but my recollection is that I notified the AI station in our area. I do not think anybody came to us for at least six weeks afterwards. However, we had got notification in the middle of summer, I think.
I felt quite easy in my mind. Once I told the AI station I was ready and willing to have the cattle assembled, they had the ball in their court. In practice, I do not think they came for six weeks but everybody applied at the same time and they reached us as soon as they could. Surely the Minister should not too radically commit himself that he has given the people in the Gorey area adequate notice if it was a case of only three weeks before the final date? Surely there is powerful force in Deputy Esmonde's submission that if a person did not succeed in getting it done before 1st December because, for instance, he considered it was dangerous to the health of the cattle, for the purpose of destroying the fly passing through the system of the cow——
It is a desperate thing to say to a man that if, for any reason, he has not done it by 1st December, he may not sell his cattle for 12 months. Taking the whole country at large, the problems of the relatively few farmers in the restricted area of County Wexford may be very small but it is an intolerable situation for an individual farmer to say that he must carry his cattle for 12 months——
Even if you were within the area——
I am not accepting that the herd owners in Gorey were notified only three weeks ago. They may have got a reminder three weeks ago: we shall ascertain that before the debate proceeds much further. Three weeks is quite adequate. Our officers, particularly in County Wexford, have been combing the area, going around to herd owners, pestering them to have it done whereas, in an area such as that Deputy Dillon talked about, where the matter got under way quickly, efficiently and well, the AI station dealt with it in their own way, area after area, as suited them. It may have been six weeks or even two months from the original notification before they came round to the herd owner. However, County Wexford was a slow area from the point of view of the scheme as a whole and we were combing the area and sending the officer time and time again to try to persuade people to have their cattle dressed so there was no question of the herd owners in that particular area having their backs to the wall. We were trying to persuade them to come in and to get the job done.
There is no use in everybody's taking up a rigid position with consequential hardship on any individual. There is a practical way out of it. I think that if people have failed to get the treatment done before 1st December the Minister might consider, in this first year of the scheme, such persons applying to the Department to have it done on the next practicable occasion, giving them interim cards to permit traffic in the area. No great harm can be done as it will arise only in a very limited area. Would the Minister consider giving such a licence to sell during the next 12 months if they get their cattle dressed on the first available date in the new year? That may cause some warble flies to be born into this world alive that otherwise would not be——
Some illegitimate warble flies.
Some illegitimate warble flies may materialise but, if they do itself, that will not wreck the country. I do press on the Minister the desirability of reconsidering the position of an individual farmer here who has failed to get his cattle done. We should not, if possible, allow that situation to arise. I would agree with the Minister if he said that the exclusion of one individual from this scheme would jeopardise the success of the whole scheme over the country. I would be inclined to say that this is very unfortunate, that we cannot wreck the whole elimination scheme in order to meet the problem of one individual farmer and that we must look at it from the angle of compensation, and so on, but that we have to stand firm. Here is a case in which I do not think it is necessary to stand firm and rigid.
My experience of the Department of Agriculture has been that the more you can meet the farmer and communicate with him, the more you understand his difficulties. Even if they were not as fast off the mark as one might expect them to be, various problems arise which make that impossible. Therefore, I would ask the Minister not to commit himself to be unable to do anything to meet this special problem mentioned by Deputy Esmonde which may turn up in other areas. There is a way out of it without doing irrevocable harm. If these farmers were given some form of permission to sell their cattle, if they wish to sell them, during the ensuing 12 months, they could reasonably be called upon to make a corresponding undertaking that they would have their cattle dressed for the purpose of the elimination of warble fly on the first available occasion.
May I ask a question? Was this a compulsory scheme?
No, it was not a compulsory scheme.
Has the Minister power under the legislation to prevent any man from selling his cattle at any time whether dressed or not?
It was not compulsory to have their cattle dressed but there was this element of compulsion in it that we said that if they did not have their cattle dressed, it would be illegal to expose them for sale after 1st December.
But a farmer could sell his cattle on his home farm?
He could, but he could not expose them for sale.
In effect, it means that all the cattle not dressed, because 95 per cent over all the country——
Let us take it that ten per cent of the cattle will be breeding illegitimate warble flies within the next 12 months. To that extent, the system as devised by the Minister and his Department for the total eradication of the warble fly has been a failure. Taking it from there, if you are going to go on in the coming year with the same type of system, without compulsion, will you then arrive at the stage where you will have no warble flies in the country? I am saying this because, as a member of a county committee of agriculture, I was always in favour of compulsion for the reason that I felt there was no other means of totally eradicating the warble fly and I am still of that opinion now.
The number of farmer Deputies who want to compel farmers and to introduce compulsion amazes me. Deputy Dillon says quite rightly that the way to get farmers to do anything is to get their co-operation, to explain what you are trying to do, to show the benefits that will accrue. You will then get their whole-hearted and enthusiastic co-operation and you will achieve far more, I think, than you will ever achieve by compulsion.
The warble fly eradication scheme began last year on a voluntary basis. About 2,000,000 cattle were treated on an entirely voluntary basis by voluntary organisations. That was a tremendous indication of what can be done.
But it has to be totalled.
It will be totalled. We have gone a step further and we will have treated somewhere in the region of 4,000,000 out of 5,000,000 head of cattle, and this represents almost total success. According to the veterinary surgeons, it indicates that this warble fly is well on its way towards eradication. When we get our records and our figures we shall evaluate this year's campaign and decide what we shall do next year.
I think Deputy Dillon was pretty close to the mark when he said there would be some sort of reprieve given to those who would carry out the arrangements laid down. However, the Minister might bear some of the blame because we are now passing through this House a Bill which deals in a specific way with this problem.
But it does confirm certain things. If it did not, we would not be in order in discussing it here.
The Minister has put the figure at 80 per cent of our 5,000,000 cattle.
Give or take a couple of hundred thousand. That would mean there would be 20 per cent still untreated. We must remember, however, that whether they are sold or not sold at the present time, the legitimate warble fly will arrive. From 1st December the owners must wait until the next season starts. Deputy Dillon's suggestion that it may be done at the first reasonable date is the solution to it. Not alone are there the people to whom Deputy Esmonde referred who did not receive notice until it was too late but there are the people who did receive notice but who for one reason or another did not dress the cattle. I am sure every Deputy is aware of people who no matter what advice they got, did not dress the cattle, and it would be unfair to say now: "If you try to sell them in the open fair or market, you will be prosecuted." The Minister will not be losing anything if he says: "For this year there may be some arrangement made, but this is the last year it may be done." Then nobody can ever claim he did not get adequate notice.
Deputy Lyons made a point about compulsion. While the Minister may say he does not like compelling the farmers, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain hard core in this country who no matter what warnings they get, will not ultimately do it until they are compelled. Possibly Deputy Lyons is nearer the mark than the Minister might think.
I am surprised to hear Deputies saying that farmers have not been notified in this respect. In my own area they were all notified. If farmers are interested in their stock, they will have this job done without any necessity for the Minister to fix a date or to have it made compulsory. If a man is unable to sell his cattle, surely it is in his interest to have them dressed in time? The whole thing about this scheme is that it cannot be a success unless everybody concerned participates in it. It is a waste of time for me to have my cattle treated if my neighbour does not do likewise. Therefore it was necessary for the Minister to fix a date in this regard.
Will the Minister look into the proposal?
Deputy Dillon knows enough about administration to know that there will have to be in any scheme of this nature provision for the exceptional case. I am reluctant to say so at this stage, but there will of necessity be such provision.
Provided they ask to have it done on the first available occasion next year, they will get a licence to sell?
We have been talking only about the systemic dressing. It is open to any farmer to have it done under the old system.
Will the Minister accept that?
Yes, I will. Every case will have to be considered on its merits, and if it can be shown that a farmer or other person is completely blameless in this matter, then we shall certainly endeavour to ensure that he is not penalised.
The Minister should go further. If he does not, he will rule out quite a number of people.
If anyone carries out the derris treatment, will that meet the requirements for sale? I gather also that the derris treatment is not limited to any season or period?
The derris treatment can be done at any time.
That is too sweeping a statement.
If anyone carries out the derris treatment, will the Minister license him to sell, or is it necessary to carry out the systemic treatment in order to sell a herd in the open market?
Unless a person has a certificate as issued by us, it will be illegal for him to expose these animals for sale. If the herd owner is blameless and says: "I am suffering hardship; I am being penalised through no fault of my own", then we shall consider his position. It may be that we shall say to him: "Very well; provided you have your cattle treated with the derris dressing, we shall authorise you to expose them for sale." However, we have not taken a decision on that yet.
There are certain people, conscientious objectors, who prefer to carry out the derris treatment. They do not like this new treatment.
I do not think we should pander to them.
There is a conflict of veterinary opinion in this regard. There are people in the veterinary profession who believe the systemic treatment is dangerous to cattle. Deputy Dillon might not agree with that but that belief does exist. I do not hold it myself. If anybody has carried out the derris treatment consistently over the years, will the Minister give a licence for the sale of the cattle?
There is one point I should like to be clear on. Supposing a person has not been able to have his cattle dressed but he intends to have them dressed next time. Is it not the buyer then who must have them dressed? They will be sold by a person who has not had them dressed.
He cannot sell them unless they are dressed. If the cattle are not dressed, he cannot offer them for sale. If they have not been done by the systemic method by 1st September, they cannot be offered for sale.
Deputy Meaney took it that Deputy Esmonde's suggestion was that if a man said: "I give an undertaking that I will have them dressed," the man would be allowed to sell them. If that had been Deputy Esmonde's suggestion, there would have been no sense in it because it is the buyer who would have to give effect to the undertaking given by the vendor. In a scheme of this sort, all we can do is go as far as we can. There will always be exceptions and special cases in respect of which we must provide and we intend to provide for them in this instance as well. Our problem was to ensure that no herd owner would be encouraged to adopt the attitude that this is just another scheme and "It does not matter whether I have my cattle dressed; it is just a pious wish of the Minister and his Department." We want everybody to understand that we are in earnest about this and that if anybody wilfully neglects to have his cattle done by 1st December, he will leave himself open to a criminal prosecution if he offers them for sale publicly.
Deputy Meaney has taken me up wrongly. What I asked was if a person has dressed with the derris treatment and has done so consistently over the years, will the Minister license him to sell. If, for some other reason, people have not received notification of the treatment and they are outside the required date, instead of having the cattle locked up until September next, when the systemic treatment starts again, will they be licensed to sell? Do I make myself clear?
The Deputy has made himself clear. My position is that if somebody has had the opportunity of having his animals dressed before 30th November and has neglected to do so, I do not see why the scheme should not be applied fully in his case. If there are exceptional cases here and there throughout the country where persons are entirely blameless, it is not our intention that they should be penalised. I do not think any Deputy should press me to go further at this stage.
I should like him to go further. If there are a million cattle undressed in the country, the position will be serious if the Minister does not go further. The Minister has told us that four million out of five million have been dressed.
Of that million, or whatever the figure is, one can visualise the numerous cattle which need not be dressed.
I quite agree. We can leave out the 200,000 or so cattle the Minister and myself have been speaking about, but we will have a big number of cattle undressed and a substantial number of people will consequently suffer hardship. It is all right for the Minister to say the herd owners were told all about this and should have known it, but this is the first year in which it has been compulsory and I think the Minister might give a second bite to the dog in the circumstances.
And make a joke of ourselves.
I suggest the Minister is in danger now of committing himself to a position which I believe he will subsequently regret. We are not dealing with foot and mouth disease——
——or tuberculosis or with a widely communicable situation. If you let one warble fly loose in the country, he can affect several cows but we are not here dealing with a very urgent situation. However, it is a situation with which we must deal effectively. Would the Minister remind me what is the minimum age below which you do not dress cattle? Is it six months?
Therefore, any cattle more than three months old require to be dressed. That leaves out about 250,000 cattle.
There are inter-farm sales and there are dairy herds.
The important thing is to ensure that if for any reason, whether it be malice or indolence or ignorance, a farmer has not got his cattle dressed in the systemic scheme this year, we should exact from him an undertaking that he will get them dressed next year. Deputy Meaney foresees the possibility that the undertaking to dress would be given by the purchaser instead of by the vendor and in that I think he underestimates the position. If a couple of cattle have the warble fly in their systems which will eventually come out on their backs, it does not matter a damn. The thing to ensure is that the fellow who is cantakerous will do it and that the simple person or the indolent fellow who has not done it because he did not bother to do it will give an effective undertaking that he will do it next year.
In order to get leave to sell any of his cattle in the open market, such a person must apply to the Minister for a special ticket, instead of a certificate that he has dressed his cattle, but the formal application must contain either a request to have his cattle dressed or an undertaking to dress them at the first acceptable date in the new dressing year. If we put it that way, we shall catch every beast and leave nobody out, not even the crooked chap who says he will not dress them. If that obtains, I agree with Deputy Fanning that if we get somebody who sat tight and said: "I will not do it," we may have to go a step further and introduce compulsory powers. I think the Minister is right, despite the cynical people who go around advocating compulsion—of course I do not include Deputy Donegan in that. The Minister should establish every possible means of getting voluntary effort and co-operation before undertaking the final step. In the heel of the hunt, he will get substantial compliance. I know Deputy Esmonde will be cross with me, but I do not think we should encourage retention of the derris dressing. I do not believe it was ever worth a damn. You had to get it and you had to rub it into the warble and it made the warble a damn sight worse than it otherwise would be. I think a great many warble flies survive the experience.
And therefore the entire Swedish nation was wrong.
Frequently, they are. Do not draw me on Sweden. If I began talking about Sweden, I should say things I should subsequently regret. I advise the Minister to adopt the suggestion I made. I think he would get substantially 100 per cent success if he did. That is all I shall say.
I should like to say to the Minister that a situation will develop whereby 20 per cent of our cattle, minus the number under three months, will be in the position of not being permitted to be sold in the open market. In such a case the Minister, I think, must back down. That may be the wrong word: "liberalise" is probably a nicer word and I agree with Deputy Esmonde on that. This must happen and I am sure the Minister will take a decision in his own good time and he will have to liberalise. It would not be possible to contemplate a situation in which 25 per cent of our cattle could not be sold.
The other point is that as far as I am concerned, and I think this side of the House, we want to see warble flies completely and finally exterminated. We think the Minister was right to introduce a degree of suggestive compulsion, shall we say, in the first year but the Minister could, perhaps, by being a little extra lenient succeed better in getting the cattle dressed than if he pressed this too far. I am reminded of a line in a play of Shaw's which said that the undeserving poor are just as badly off as the deserving poor and if a fellow by his own indolence, perhaps, fails to have the cattle dressed, with a little bit of luck, he could get away with it.
I might say "Just you wait."
The Minister is implying a rather feminine strain—"My Fair Lady".
While Deputies have the time to go to the Ambassador or wherever it is, I think that the Minister should not operate on the basis of compulsion. He has to face up to this on the basis of leading the Irish farmers——
No, you are going to freeze 25 per cent of the cattle population. Nobody could do that.
The Minister said one thing which is wrong. I do not believe it is just farmers to whom this would apply. He said he believed in co-operation in a matter like this but that they must do it——
If he says "ultimately", it is all right. If he says that it must be done this year, he will have compulsion. If he is a bit lenient this year, I think everybody will agree.
Would the Minister mind answering the question: if, for one reason or another, whether because of misfortune, misunderstanding or something else, a person has not dressed his cattle by the systemic method, which the Minister wants, and the date having gone by and it now being impossible for him to do so, his cattle will be locked up until 1st September next, would the Minister agree if this person does employ some other methods and proves this to the local agricultural adviser, whoever the Minister likes to nominate, will the Minister permit them to be sold again? That seems a fair question and I think the Minister should answer it.
I have just got word that all the farmers in County Wexford received preliminary notice about the scheme within the first three weeks of September so that it is difficult to understand how they could apparently have been taken unawares. However, this is not very relevant any more.
It is very easy for the Minister to say that some official or other says that everybody got notice. Once an official says so, it is good enough for the Minister.
I am sure the Deputy could not take an oath that he did not get notice.
The notice I got had no date whatsoever of when it was sent. I got it three weeks ago.
The fact that it will be illegal from tomorrow to dispose of cattle for sale that have not the certificate does not mean that one million cattle are going to be put into a sort of limbo until this time next year because, first, there are many cattle that do not need treatment and secondly, a large percentage of dairy cows will not be sold and then there will be farm to farm sales——
And the remainder are in trouble.
There would not be a very considerable number. At the start of this campaign, we estimated that if we got four million cattle dressed, we would have won, we would have got all the cattle dressed that we needed.
Dairy farmers sell cattle also.
It will take 12 months to get this Bill through instead of 12 minutes.
I am trying to be as helpful as possible. I assure the House I am not trying to be difficult.
The Minister has not said anything very helpful up to this.
That may be the Deputy's opinion. I have indicated that any farmer not in possession of a certificate for an animal he wishes to sell will have to apply to me or the Department in respect of that animal and we shall have to consider the position. That is as far as I can go at the moment.
And the Minister will think it over between now and Report Stage?
I am afraid my question is still unanswered. I shall put it again. If a person's cattle, for some reason, have not been dressed by the method the Minister wants, the systemic method, will the Minister give a licence, provided the person uses some other treatment and proves that he did so before the local agricultural advisory officer, or whoever he may name?
Not necessarily. Deputy Dillon has put forward an alternative.
In that case the Minister is locking up funds. There may be certain farmers who have animals to sell and, for some reason or other, they may not have got sufficient notice, despite the fact that the Minister got back word on the telephone from the person who was supposed to send out the notices in County Wexford. I say it is untrue there was sufficient notice in my area and I believe it is extremely likely it was insufficient in other areas. Will the Minister meet the farmers generally? If not, he is imposing compulsion and is not willing to compromise. I could go on talking about this Bill and the Minister might be sitting here until Christmas Day if he is not prepared to take the proper attitude.
I do not agree and I would ask the Minister to answer my question.
The Deputy has put this question on three occasions and that is repetition.
No, Sir, if I do not get an answer. The question is a very simple one. If some cattle are untreated for some reason or another and the herd owner wishes to sell those cattle, are they to be locked up until 1st September next or is the Minister prepared to consider allowing him to treat them by some other method? I am asking the Minister to answer that question.
I submit this does not arise on section 11. The present warble fly eradication scheme is under another piece of legislation and has nothing to do with section 11. I do not think Deputy Esmonde should be entitled to hold up the section on this point. All I can say to him, and I have tried to make it as clear as I can, is that any case which arises where a farmer has animals for sale which have not been treated will have to be considered on its merits. I cannot go any further than that.
Would the Minister mind indicating what he means by merits? If an animal is not dressed, is it not quite obvious the legislation the Minister is asking us to pass means that he cannot sell the animal until 1st of September next? If a farmer says that he has not had sufficient notice or that the people who were appointed to dress the cattle did not come to do the job, is that sufficient evidence for the Minister to issue a certificate? If the Minister does not like to answer that question specifically, would he indicate what circumstances would justify him in refusing to issue a certificate?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Is this the section dealing with the guarantee in relation to the warble fly treatment?
No, it has nothing to do with it.
Oddly enough, it does deal with the warble fly. It confers powers on the Minister to make infestation by warble fly a notifiable disease. It gives him powers in respect of all animals and poultry. It gives him power to describe the persons by whom the notice is to be given and the authority to whom and the manner in which it is to be given. That does not annoy me, but I would like the Minister to know the meaning of his own Bill.
Infestation of warble would be a disease.
Is warble fly a disease or not?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister explain the purpose of this section?
It empowers the Minister to make, for the purpose of the prevention or checking or eradication of disease, orders for all or any of the purposes set out in the Second Schedule.
You two fellows are getting into one another's wool and the net result will be you will hold up the business of the House unnecessarily.
I had trouble about two years ago with the Health Act and I held them up for three months.
The Second Schedule is on page 27. It sets out all the things about which you can make orders.
If we are here for three months, it will be the next warble fly dressing period before we are finished.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Would this not cover the warble fly? It gives the Minister power to impose the obligation on people not to sell cattle unless they have carried out the systemic treatment?
No, I do not think so. This section deals with the purposes for which the Minister may make orders in relation to infected places or areas. When the Minister makes an order making a disease notifiable, he can make another order covering the infected places or areas.
There is a matter the Minister might consider on this section. Some time ago there was an outbreak of fowl pest and a number of people were required to kill fowl and burn them. The question of clothing arose. It turned out that a number of the people concerned—ordinary workmen working for a day's wages— were at a considerable loss because they could not pin on anybody the responsibility for replacing clothing which had to be destroyed.
Surely they were never allowed to be at a loss?
It happened. If it did not, it would not have been brought to my notice. Eventually, boots were supplied but there was no question of clothing. Would the Minister say if there is anywhere in this Bill a provision to compensate such people?
We have full powers of compensation. That is one of the purposes of the Bill—to enable us to make compensation in various cases.
The Minister appreciates what I am talking about? This is the case of people taken from their normal work and put on this necessary work of destroying the fowl. They did not get protective clothing. Although this concerns their ordinary work clothes, which might not be considered much, they were valuable to the people concerned. Those clothes had to be destroyed because an order was made that anything in contact with the fowl had to be destroyed?
If the Deputy sends me particulars, I shall look into it.
Will the compensation be decided on the same basis as the bovine TB scheme, with an assessor?
We will be coming to that later. There are various complex provisions about compensation in later sections. Briefly, we pay compensation, but we can withhold it where a person's own negligence or fault contributes to the outbreak of the disease. But, if we withhold compensation, there is provision for arbitration.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
This is a very wide power. My experience leads me to believe it is a power which the Minister exercised in the past. It must be in some of the other Diseases of Animals Acts. All I want to say is that it is a power which ought to be used with great circumspection. In the country to say to the sister-in-law or brother-in-law of a small farmer that he or she is to be prevented by the Gardaí going to visit a place which they habitually frequent can be a matter of considerable circumstance. I have never known of a case in which such an order has not been tactfully implemented. It is an express power which, on the whole, the Minister must have, but it is one to be exercised with great discretion.
Section 16 really authorises the owner or person in charge to exclude others.
Which means the Garda. It means the officers of the Department supported by the Garda forbidding persons to enter a farm where there is foot and mouth, fowl pest or anthrax and precautionary measures are taken.
Does it in fact mean the Garda?
Personally, until Deputy Dillon raised the point, I did not take it to mean that. I took it to mean it was the owner himself or his agent.
It would be at their request that the order would be affixed. I do not think the Garda would come into it.
Has the Minister power to make such an order or erect such notices under this section?
Whether under this section or not, Deputy Dillon's point is still valid.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section dealing with compensation? Will the same system apply as applies at present under the bovine TB scheme?
I do not know whether this would be appropriate to this section or section 58. What is the position in relation to pedigree cattle that have a more real value in the open market, or to any customer, than they would have from the point of view of either their flesh value or their production of milk value?
It is their real value, their market value.
And into account would be taken their pedigree, if they were pedigree animals?
Who would be the assessors?
There is a special provision.
Who appoints the arbitrator?
There is new machinery. In this legislation the Minister's powers are limited. Up to now there was no provision for arbitration in these cases. We are introducing it here for the first time. A person may be entitled to compensation; the Minister may decide that person contributed to the outbreak himself and his compensation should, therefore, be reduced. If the Minister so decides, that matter can be taken to arbitration by the aggrieved person.
There is only one point we want clearly established and perhaps the Minister could clarify the position for us. There is a certain apprehension abroad—wholly unfounded, in my judgement—that if you have a pedigree herd of Aberdeen Angus cattle and the Minister directs the destruction of that herd in order to avoid the spread of a disease with which that herd has become infected, the Minister will take the ten pedigree cattle in that herd and say they are to be valued as butchers' beasts, whereas the herd owner says they are pedigree cows for which he paid anything from £200 to £500 per beast. My recollection is that where we had to destroy a pedigree herd to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, we paid the owner the true market value of each pedigree beast. I thought that, if we could not reach agreement on valuation, there was some machinery by which arbitration could be set up to determine the value. However, I may be wrong in that, but certain it is that the Minister for Agriculture considered himself bound to pay the herd owner the true value of the pedigree cattle and not to compensate him on the presumption that the pedigree cattle were no more than butchers' beasts.
Or on their milk yield. They were treated as pedigree cattle and valued accordingly. Is that not correct?
Yes. There is a long and complicated history. The 1894 Act set out rates of compensation for different diseases. The modern Acts in both Britain and Northern Ireland followed more or less the same procedure and set down the rates——
——and the methods for compensation. Now, what we propose to do is to make an order controlling the disease. In each such order the compensation provisions will be stated and the House will have an opportunity of seeing the order and deciding whether the compensation is or is not relevant. It would certainly be our intention that the full market value would be paid for any animal slaughtered and we would, therefore, necessarily have to have regard as to whether or not the animal was a pedigree animal.
I take it that there is embodied in this Bill some form of arbitration.
It has a somewhat different connotation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill".
Subsection (3) states:
If the owner of an animal or bird slaughtered under this Act at the direction of the Minister or a local authority, has an insurance on the animal or bird, the amount of compensation awarded to him under this Act or any order made thereunder may be deducted by the insurers from the amount of the money payable under the insurance before they make any payment in respect thereof.
I wonder how that comes in. Surely if an animal is insured, that insurance should be paid rather than have the State subsidising insurance companies. That is what this amounts to. It seems to me a most unreasonable provision.
I want to give notice to the House that I shall be looking at the wording of subsections (2) and (3) again. I may have an amendment to subsection (2) on Report Stage.
It is section 18 we are dealing with now. What is suggested here is that the State should pay and the insurance company should not have to pay the difference. To me that means a subsidy being paid by the State to an insurance company. If insurance is payable, I see no reason why the State should pay money which should really be paid by an insurance company.
Here the State is intervening and coming in to direct that an animal or bird be slaughtered. I imagine it is the State should have the primary responsibility.
If the State did not come in, the insurance company would have to pay.
Not for slaughtering the beast.
No, but I am sure the insurance companies will not pay unless they are liable. I think the wording is faulty. I am sure the Minister meant something else; he meant where animals not affected by insurance were slaughtered. Why he should include animals on which insurance is rightfully due is something I cannot understand. Why should the State pay if the insurance companies do not have to pay?
Who insures beasts against an emergency?
It is down here in the section.
After all, the insurance company is not someone remote. It is really the persons themselves. The Deputy and I pay premiums to protect us against some disaster but, in reality, it is our own money the insurance companies pay out again. The insurance companies are not in this business for fun.
I do not notice that in my car insurance.
If insurance companies were made liable for all sorts of things, up would go the premiums.
That is the point I was getting at.
Here we have the Minister coming along directing that an animal be slaughtered; surely the primary responsibility for compensation is on the Minister directing that this be done. The insurance company might say: "Let him live. We do not want to slaughter him."
I said "where the money is rightfully due". I was under the impression that the State would also be paid. Perhaps the Minister has a little machine which helps him to make money, but I was under the impression that it was our own money. This is money for beasts which are insured and on which insurance is due. Others do not come into it. It is only those beasts on which insurance companies would normally pay the amount due. For some extraordinary reason the Minister suggests that if £100 is due on a beast and if the State pays £80, all that the insurance company has to pay is £20, although it has been collecting premiums on the basis that it would pay £100. I think that is wrong.
If the Deputy takes that £80 off the shoulders of the State and places it on the insurance company, he is really placing it on the owners of the animals.
He is, because insurance companies have no secret fund from which they can get this money.
They get premiums and base their payments on the premiums.
If we put this £80 Deputy Tully is talking about on to the insurance company, the premiums will go up.
Do they not make profits?
I find myself in complete agreement with the Minister on this.
Because you are the same class and have the same ideas as the Minister.
I do not know whether to take that as praise or otherwise but we will not go into that matter. Let us take an analogy. I have been looking up a few costs of insurance such as the cost of insuring under workmen's compensation, plus common law. A worker on a building site would cost an employer in workmen's compensation plus common law, £8 2s 6d., whereas a worker in a footwear factory will cost the employer £1 15s. 9d. That is the great difference. If you increase the risk for an insurance company, the premium will go up. I could not agree more with the Minister. I think he is right. At first, he did not know what the section meant. Whoever put it in was right.
If what Deputy Donegan and the Minister are suggesting is right, the rates for insuring stock will be reduced if the State carries this.
Not at all; they will be increased.
At present the State carries a certain amount of responsibility. What is suggested now is that the State should carry, not alone its normal responsibility, but the responsibility for the insured animal also and Deputy Donegan and the Minister are saying that unless this is done, premiums will go up. If that is correct, it follows that if it is not included and if we include subsection (3) as put down, premiums should be reduced. We all know that is poppycock.
Premiums would be increased.
There is an aspect of this which may have escaped Deputy Tully's mind but which certainly escaped my own. I cannot square subsection (3) with what I understood the Minister to say, that was, that the Department accepted the liability to pay the value of pedigree cattle, because subsection (3) of this section seems to suggest to me that the Department expects hereafter that owners of pedigree herds will insure the difference between the real value of the pedigree beast, which may be 200 guineas, and the value set out in the Minister's order, which may be a flat rate for commercial cattle of £80 a beast actually slaughtered and if the pedigree owner comes to the Minister and says: "In respect of my ten cattle, I paid over 200 guineas a beast" and the Minister will say: "That is your funeral. All you get under my order is £80 compensation for each beast slaughtered. It was your responsibility to insure them with an insurance company against foot and mouth disease or any other bovine disease in respect of which a slaughter order might be made for any sum you liked and if you wanted to cover them for 200 guineas, you should have covered them for 200 guineas, less whatever the Minister will in his order pay."
Surely Deputy Tully will face this fact, that if you have to insure your beast for 200 guineas, your premium will be higher than if you only insure for 120 guineas. The purpose of the Minister's order, as I understand it, will be to see that ordinary commercial farmers will be fully compensated by the Minister if he slaughters their cattle but farmers or breeders of pedigree cattle carry a liability hereafter to insure the difference between commercial value and pedigree value. That is the meaning of subsection (3).
I think that is a new principle and it is a dangerous principle.
And if it is not, I am right.
I think that is the principle and I think the Minister ought to look at it.
I think the simple principle is defensible. If the State in the interests of the community orders slaughter, then it should take on as the agent of the community the responsibility for that. Whether we like insurance companies or not, premiums, by and large, reflect the calls made upon them within some guide lines. If we are to load on to insurance companies the compensation in cases like this, all we are doing is putting this type of insurance out of the reach of the ordinary farmer because it will become too expensive. My Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out to me that very often in this type of case we would slaughter animals which would not be affected at all, which might be on neighbouring farms or which would not have incurred any disease or risk of disease.
They would have incurred risk of disease but they would be completely free of disease. Why should you ask the owner of those cattle to pay through his insurance company the compensation for those animals?
The insurance company will not pay that.
I beg of the Minister to say that he will look into this matter between now and Report Stage. He is barking up the wrong tree.
I will certainly look into it. My mind is clear. If the State goes in and orders destruction or slaughter, then the State should pay.
You have your rabbit by the wrong leg.
The State should not slip out of the responsibility because the man happened to have his animal insured. If you put this on to insurance companies, all you are doing is ultimately placing it back on the farmers in the form of increased premiums in some shape or form. Deputy Dillon says this is a sinister section——
I am not saying it is sinister.
——because it indicates that we do not intend to pay the full value of pedigree cattle. I want to rebut that and to say that it would be our intention, if we come to make orders under this section, to provide for full compensation on a market value basis.
I strenuously advise you to say you will look into this before Report Stage.
We will provide full compensation on a market value basis. I do not think under the Constitution you can do anything else. I think you cannot do anything else in this country when you take a man's property from him in any shape or form except give him full market value compensation. I do not think we can attempt to do it. It could be that a man, a very prudent type of man, would have a special type of insurance. As Deputies know, in business there is a type of insurance whereby you can not alone insure your property for its full value but for loss of profits arising out of that property. There might be something equivalent that a farmer could do in his business and whereas we would pay him full market value for his animal there might be some additional benefit for which he could insure himself and which the insurance company would pay even though we were still paying full market value. I will look into it.
For different reasons, the Minister will look into it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to give notice that I will be having an amendment on this section on Report Stage. It is not of any great significance. It is to improve the wording.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill".
Will the Minister tell us, under section 22—which is subject to the provisions of section 58—what is the procedure in the case of a dispute between the Minister and the owner of a beast as to the real value of the beast for the purpose of paying compensation?
May we leave this over to section 58? Compensation is fully dealt with in section 58.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 23 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
For the record I should mention that these sections are passing relatively without comment because the House will note they relate to the making of orders by the Minister. There is provision in section 4 governing all orders made under this Bill by the Minister which requires that they be laid before the House and are available for discussion in the House within 21 days of their being made. In the event of the House cancelling them they cease to have legislative effect.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill".
This regulation is having a very crippling effect on the small farmers in the West where there is a reactor in a herd and the whole herd has to be frozen for about six weeks. The farmers are finding it a great hardship to tide themselves over that period with fodder and, possibly, grass. In many cases small farmers are working on a hand to mouth basis. Where this hardship exists, I wonder could the Minister suggest any form of compensation to carry the farmer over that period where it can be proven that it is a hardship on him. This is something to which I think the Minister should give some thought. I have heard many complaints about it and I feel something should be done. As far as the small farmers in the West are concerned it is a crippling regulation.
We will see if we can effect any easement in the situation. That hardship will become less as the bovine tuberculosis recedes.
At the moment it is very hard on these farmers who must get their prices when they are trying to pay their rates during this freezing period and they had been counting on getting their price.
Some of them are not very anxious to pay their rates at the moment.
As far as my constituency in the West is concerned, the farmers there will be put in the position that they will not be able to pay them.
We would now welcome a discussion on the question of rates.
The Minister is aware that the country has gone into liquidation in every sense of the word and the situation is grave.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 28 and 29 agreed to.
Both those sections are governed by section 4.
SECTION 30.
Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."
I merely want to say I have arrived at a hobby horse and to remind the House of the long and many years that the late Deputy McMenamin sought the free importation of game birds so that the degree of inbreeding there was in this country could be, to some extent, alleviated. Deputy McMenamin, the Lord rest his soul, had to go to his grave without that situation being remedied. It is good to see now that some remedy has been brought about in the shape of a quarantine station which was opened by my colleague in Louth, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Gaeltacht.
Deputy Faulkner, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Gaeltacht.
We had a quarantine station for fowl before Deputy Faulkner had left his cradle.
I saw him opening it myself on Telefís Éireann.
The Minister for Agriculture opens things that were open for the past five years.
You must admit he does it with élan.
He does it with the maximum publicity anyway.
No matter how many times he opens it, it is opened anyway.
I should like to say something on which I know Deputy Dillon will not agree with me. When the Minister says he represents the veterinary section of his Department, he represents a most conservative body of men, men who have to be undoubtedly but who, as well, depend entirely for their success on so being. I do not want to make any attack upon them, but I do say the Minister, in his administration of this section in relation to such things as the innocent importation of pheasant eggs which was prohibited, would want to have a second thought. When the Minister goes to seek their wisdom, which they will give him with all good heart, he has got to think first of their conservatism.
The fact remains that every fair breeze blowing from Scotland can be rotten with fowl pest. They would need to test all the snipe that arrive and they will discover that half of them are ridden with fowl pest. It is all right making orders but there is nothing like a politician in between who can see things clearly. I do not want this to be regarded by me as an expression of hard criticism of any section of the Department. From the time I arrived in this House, there was nothing irritated me so much as this ridiculous degree of veto on the importation of birds and the birds kept in quarantine afterwards. I leave it entirely to Deputy McMenamin's memory and his work. The Minister will see how hard that man worked if he looks up the records. It was rectified only after he had departed.
I do not want to pursue this topic raised by Deputy Donegan. It seems to be bringing in white turkeys to a quarantine station since 1955 when we could not bring pheasants in but indeed we were never asked to do so. Deputy Donegan, whose voice must be heard with respect and will be listened to with respect, fairly charges the veterinary section of the Department with being conservative. I know Deputy Donegan will agree with me that anybody who is responsible for the entire livestock population needs to be conservative. There are a great many adventurers as well in this country but when the devil gets out of the bag, you cannot catch him. They vanish in a cloud. Unfortunately, the veterinary surgeon of the Department of Agriculture carries the bag and closes the front door which they so triumphantly opened and then abandoned. Sometimes I think the Minister is perhaps a little too liberal in some of his quarantine procedures. I think, when his predecessor, Deputy Smith, established the quarantine station at Spike Island, it was not a prudent thing to do. I have never been satisfied that it was.
I bet the Minister did. On the whole, it is necessary for the veterinary advisers of any Minister for Agriculture to err on the side of conservatism because all the pressures that operate on the Minister for Agriculture will be on the side of liberality and unless he has some anchorage to swing on he will be forced into a course which will seriously jeopardise the whole livestock industry of this country.
I want to refer particularly to subsection (1), paragraph (b) of the section which refers to the disinfection of persons entering the State, their clothing and baggage and the giving of such information concerning their occupation and previous movements as the Minister may reasonably require. I fully recognise the difficulty that exists if men dealing in cattle come in wearing rubber boots off a boat or an aeroplane. Their boots are covered with mud which may have been picked up on an infected farm in an infected area in Great Britain. I am also acutely conscious of the impact on tourists of large notices threatening them to wash their boots and clothes at every airport they come into. When we come into our own airport and read menacing notices warning us to wash ourselves from head to foot if we have been in contact with livestock abroad we know damn well we will do no such thing at all. Despite this there are notices at Dublin Airport calling on us to report to the agricultural office at Dublin Airport, which is all cod because nobody reports there. Nobody's boots are washed.
The regulations, I suppose, were made during some foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain. The regulations are still in operation and the notices are still hanging there at Dublin Airport. I suppose there are similar notices at Limerick and at Cork. We have got to consider very carefully whether it is sensible to go on with regulations of that kind. Motor cars may pass through infected areas when they come into this country. They arrive here without having their undercarriages washed at all. I doubt very much if anybody will bring in on their boots any serious contamination that would spread disease.
I am certain that this kind of precautions should not be a perennial feature of our system having regard to the importance of the tourist industry. It may be that if there is any dangerous, virulent outbreak of some disease in a confined area of Great Britain it would be reasonable to take such precautions for a strictly limited time. The Minister, in administering regulations to be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 30, ought to take a fresh look at their impact on tourist points of entry into this country. If I were visiting France, Belgium or Spain, and were suddenly challenged in a language I did not understand to prove to a representative, not of the customs or of the passport officials but of the local Ministry of Agriculture, that I should have my boots washed, it would cause me an amount of dismay which would certainly be inconsistent with the promotion of the tourist interests of that particular country. I would suggest that the Minister for Agriculture should have a further look at this procedure as I think it is simply being allowed to tick over unnecessarily because nobody is particularly concerned with its control.
I shall have a talk with the veterinary people about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 31 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
This section refers to the prevention of sheep scab and it requires a man to have his sheep dipped twice a year.
It only gives power to make orders.
I understand this is one of the orders. A man has to double dip his sheep before he can expose them for sale at a public mart. In widespread areas in County Galway it is a grave hardship on small farmers who have to travel long distances to comply with this order. It is a very grave hardship that sheep should be dipped at this period of the year. I understand that there is a dip on the market which only requires one application and this is effective for the whole year. It is ridiculous that the sheep should have to be dipped twice. Apart from the hardship, you could have the SPCA on your back in enforcing this.
I should like the Minister to have a look at this regulation. It is a grave hardship over a wide area in my county. The facilities are not so readily available for sheep dipping especially where there are small sheep owners. They have to travel long distances to comply with this order and this imposes a grave hardship on them. The Minister should look into this matter. There should be one dipping with the proper type of dip. That view is held by the County Galway Committee in relation to sheep dipping.
The Deputy will appreciate that the section only gives power to make orders prescribing when sheep will be dipped and so on. It will be open to the Deputy to raise this matter in regard to any particular order. I do not want to argue the technicalities of the matter but my information is that, theoretically, one dipping would suffice but that in practice it has been found that it takes two dippings to be effective. Perhaps the Deputy would like to argue this matter with my technical advisers.
They will not come to this House for that purpose.
We could bring the Deputy over to them.
Will the Minister examine the possibility of having a single dip with proper dip which I understand on fairly good authority would suffice?
May I write to the Deputy?
I should be glad if the Minister would. We have the second highest population——
The time of the second dip is wrong.
Discussions about the time are going on at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."
There is a queer departure here. I have drawn attention to the fact that several of the previous sections are governed by section 4, which has enabled the House to pass them very readily, but there is a queer feature of section 38 which provides:
The Minister may issue such directions or make such orders as he thinks fit authorising a local authority to make regulations for any of the purposes of this Act or of an order thereunder.
What does "issue such directions" mean? Laying an order gives statutory effect to anything done, but what does issuing a direction mean?
This is an exact replica of section 31, subsection (2), of the 1894 Act.
I agree, but Deputy Dillon operated under the Act of 1894.
I did not profess to consolidate and bring up to date all the Acts which the Minister is now consolidating in this Bill. However, the fact is that the Minister took a section out of a previous Act. Would he have a look and see if, in the light of section 4 of his own Bill, it might not be advantageous to strike out "issue such direction or" and leave it: "The Minister may make such orders as he thinks fit authorising a local authority to make regulations for any of the purposes of this Act or of an order thereunder." I do not give a fiddle-de-dee whether he does it or not, but for his own convenience, would he have a look at the drafting between now and Report Stage?
If he drops those words, he will bring this section under section 4.
We might wish to issue a direction to a local authority without making a statutory order.
The Minister should look at it. I think he should delete those words and leave this section like other sections to the overriding authority of section 4.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."
There is no direction in section 39.
"... may make orders directing ..."
"... may make orders ..." That is the whole thing. That brings it under section 4.
It strikes me, for instance, that we might ask the local authority to provide sheep dipping tanks or facilities. There are various things which we do by order which are mandatory on the local authority, but directions would not have the same legality.
You do not require statutory power to give them.
The Minister could go down to a luncheon and make recommendations, or he could go down and address the county committee of agriculture.
An order might provide "Thou shalt do something" and a direction might apply to the manner in which it should be done, for instance, that a sheep dipping tank should be here as distinct from there.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 40 and 41 agreed to.
Part III will add a bit to the rates.
SECTION 42.
Question proposed: "That section 42 stand part of the Bill."
Deputy Sweetman raised a point on this section on Second Reading which we are prepared to meet.
Deputy Sweetman suggested that if an inspector comes in to a farm or any other place, he should produce his appointment, or he should identify himself. The Garda are required to show their authority. He suggested we should have some similar provision for the inspector. I think it is probably desirable that he should do so.
Under the terms of subsection (1), an inspector of the Department of Agriculture "shall have, for the purposes of this Act, all the powers which a member of the Garda Síochána has under this Act in the place where the inspector is acting." Surely the Minister does not propose to confer on an inspector of the Department of Agriculture powers to arrest and detain?
He always had it. It might be necessary.
To arrest and detain without invoking the assistance of the Garda?
Offences against the State.
Surely the power to arrest and detain——
Only for the purposes of this Act.
——should be confined to the police force and not given to an official of the Department. I know some officials of the Department who are excellent men, and who would arrest the Archbishop of Canterbury at the drop of a hat, but that is not their job. They are not trained for it.
Can you see one of them trying to arrest a farmer?
It is not manifest to the House that the exercise of the power to arrest and detain is therefore——
We have to assume the power would be reasonably used. There could be cases where it would be necessary.
Surely not. Again, let us not get involved in one another's wool. In the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it is necessary to see to it that people do not go on to an infected farm or, if they do, that they do not come off it. Suppose some fellow gets cantankerous and says he blooming well is coming off it. Do you envisage a Department inspector, who may weigh 15 stone and have a waistline of 44, laying violent hands on the man in question and rolling in the dirt, or do you envisage him saying: "You cannot come across that fence. If you do, I will have to call the Garda. I am accompanied by the Garda." If he proceeds across the fence, I envisage the Department inspector going to the sergeant and saying: "That fellow must be stopped or he may spread this disease," whereupon the sergeant, never running, and never appearing to hurry, proceeds in the general direction of the potential offender and remonstrates with him prudently, ultimately saying: "If you will not do what has to be done, you impose upon me the necessity to bring you to the barracks. Surely a man like you does not want to be brought to the barracks."
Supposing the Department inspector seizes him, what does he do with him? Does he bring him to the Department of Agriculture and incarcerate him there? Surely the Minister must see that the situation is grotesque? If this kind of situation arises, an inspector of the Department ought to be accompanied by a Garda, or preferably a sergeant or an inspector who can call the Garda to enforce reasonable regulations made by the Minister. I urge the Minister to look at this again and to ask himself this question : "What will my inspector do if the unlikely situation arises in which it will become his duty to arrest and apprehend a man?" What would the Minister look like if the inspector arrived with a prisoner in the back of the van and deposited him in the Department of Agriculture?
The Minister would probably bring him out to dinner.
This is a serious matter. You should not give the powers of arrest to anybody except to a member of the Garda Síochána.
If the Deputy reads the section properly he will note that it merely says an inspector shall have——
——which a member of the Garda Síochána has under this Act. I presume that means power of arrest, all right: I am not sure.
I suggest that this is a power which ought to be reserved to the Garda Síochána.
Is the section agreed to?
Subject to the Minister's undertaking to examine that point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Question proposed: "That section 44 stand part of the Bill".
This will enable the Minister to dispose of the whale.
I do not know under what circumstances the Minister for Transport and Power would come into it and decide when an animal would be buried. I know of cases where the most dreadful situations have developed. Dead animals have been washed alongside the seashore and, after some days, local residents had the most dreadful duty of burying the animals on the seashore which were sometimes in a very advanced state of decomposition. If we notice these dead animals, for instance, a beast thrown off a plane or a boat, will it be the position that the Minister for Transport and Power will enter into the matter and that the local authority will bury the animal?
In County Meath, if an animal is washed ashore there is a standing order that anybody can bury the animal. Provided they get certification from a responsible person, they can be paid a certain figure.
What is the figure for a whale?
Whales have not so far been included.
The section says that the expenses shall be the responsibility of the local authority. If the animal is thrown overboard a vessel, the local authority may recover from the owner of the vessel.
But if the animal, by any other means, arrives on the seashore?
How the hell would you know the name of the vessel?
Suppose nobody knows where the animal came from. Suppose you have a dead cow lying on the seashore.
If it has "s.s. Something" on it.
The local authority must pay the cost: that is what we are saying.
What do we do? Do we report it to the local authority and tell them they must pay the costs? Is that the position in law? Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That section 45 stand part of the Bill".
Shades of the previous Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 46.
Question proposed : "That section 46 stand part of the Bill."
Now you see, under subsection (2), the powers of the Gardaí—"may without warrant arrest".
And the Minister will consider whether these powers are much wider than we ought to confer on persons other than members of the Garda Síochána?
Question put and agreed to.
Section 47 agreed to.
SECTION 48.
Question proposed: "That section 48 stand part of the Bill."
I should like possibly to improve the wording of this section a bit. I may bring in an amendment on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Question proposed: "That section 49 stand part of the Bill."
The same remarks apply to this section as applied to the last section.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 50 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 54.
Question proposed: "That section 54 stand part of the Bill."
This is a section of very considerable importance. We are going to authorise the Minister to make it a statutory offence under this section to sell, offer or expose for sale or export any horned cattle. That is going a long way. Personally, I dishorned all my cattle many years ago. I accepted this particular philosophy as wise. I wanted to avoid cattle hurting one another in sheds. But it is, nonetheless, true that, in the west of Ireland, if you want to sell a two-year old or a 20 months old heifer for the bull, the shorthorn heifer with horns is worth £7 to £8 more than the same heifer without horns. The people may grow out of that over the years but that is certainly true today. Personally, although that is true, I have habitually dishorned all my cattle in the calf stage. However, I think it is going a long way to forbid people to expose for sale cattle with horns.
I do not underestimate the Minister's dilemma. I think he is probably trying to take a Draconian decision, to force it through and to get the trouble over. I think it is one of these things he will not be able to achieve in the near future: I think he is going too far. I would be prepared to go so far with him as to say that you could not sell for export cattle with horns but I see the Minister's difficulty. He may ask, in reply: How am I to get them dishorned? It is a veterinary operation after six months of age, and a relatively expensive operation, whereas, if all cattle are dishorned in the calf stage, it could be done by the farmer himself at practically no cost. I think all that is true but I would remind the House that we are dealing with the livestock industry.
I want to hear from the Minister his justification for a sudden decision to direct that all cattle in this country must be dishorned. Is there any precedent for it? Is there any other country in the world that has done it? Manifestly, the Minister will exclude from this provision pedigree cattle of the shorthorn breed and of other breeds that have horns characteristic of the beast. However, I certainly would want to hear from the Minister his justification for so sweeping a proposal as is enshrined in section 54.
Deputy Dillon, I think, to some extent has answered his own question in so far as he tells us he has always had this done.
That I had to do it myself does not justify my requiring anybody else to do it.
I shall add to Deputy Dillon's weight in this matter the fact that the NFA and the ICMSA both unanimously agreed that this is desirable. I think that the benefits that will flow from it will be very considerable. These horns serve no useful purpose whatsoever. They can be responsible for a great deal of damage not alone, as Deputy Dillon mentions, in sheds but also in transport. It is much more expensive to transport horned cattle. They take up much more room and do more damage. All in all, I think it would be a very sensible and progressive step to take. We do not intend to do this overnight. We would propose to give very adequate notice —two or three years. As the Deputy also knows, there is now a very cheap and effective preparation available to enable the growth of horns to be inhibited. All in all, this is something that is fairly easily done and well worth doing. We do intend to co-ordinate our activities in this regard with the authorities in the North of Ireland. Naturally we would have to because of the nature of the trade between the two areas, and we would hope that both jurisdictions would agree on a date when this would be put into operation.
I do not know that that is so essential at all. It would appear to me to be better if we were to have dishorned our cattle here by a certain date and let the other fellows do what they like. However, the Minister will discuss it with the livestock exporters, the pedigree breeders, and so forth?
I hope the Minister will do this. Like Deputy Dillon, I know there are certain people who still wish to see the horn on the shorthorn heifer and there are others who wish to see the horn on the whiteheaded bullock. However, we can see the Minister's argument. What I would wish to see is that the Minister and his Department would engage in a campaign, through the local committees of agriculture, to educate people into a realisation of the advantage of dishorning their cattle at the calf stage. If they are let go to the stage where it is necessary to give an anaesthetic and have the dishorning done by a veterinary surgeon, then it is more expensive and we should probably fail to get it done.
I remember in my twenties I undertook the dishorning of cattle and I would do anything from 100 to 150 a day without any anaesthetic. I did that with the neighbours' cattle for as many as eight years, taking plenty of skull, so that the skull would be shaped right away. While you would not have as nice a head, you could do it as Deputy Dillon said, by using the appliance when they are small calves. However, I would suggest to the Minister that in providing an appointed day, he should, first of all, have a period of, say, two years for a campaign, as Deputy Dillon had in regard to tuberculosis, and as the Minister has had in regard to the warble fly. In having this campaign he should enlist the aid of the societies he suggested and try to get the thinking right before he hurts anyone. If you go down to the fair in Ballinamore or Ballaghaderreen, there will still be those who prefer the shorthorn heifer with the horns on.
We shall certainly do as the Deputy suggests.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 55 and 56 agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Question proposed: "That section 57 stand part of the Bill".
As regards those creameries that have not yet bought pasteurisation plants, will there still be grants available to provide the machinery?
This section is simply a repeat of section 4 of the Bovine Tuberculosis Act, 1957, but I am sorry I did not get the Deputy's question.
Grants have been available for providing machinery for pasteurising plants at creameries so that we do not give back the TB germs from one virulent TB cow whose skimmed milk would infect a whole parish. I want to know will grants be available in the case of certain creameries which may not as yet have pasteurising plants, if there are such. I do not think there are.
I do not know that there are. Foras Tionscal give grants for re-equipping creameries.
There were special grants, but it was before the Minister's time.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 58.
Question proposed: "That section 58 stand part of the Bill".
This is a compensation section. What happens if there is a difference between the Minister and the owner as to the true value of the beast?
In each case the order will prescribe all the conditions governing compensation, the appointment of valuers, payment of compensation, and so forth. Therefore, the safeguard the Deputy has already referred to, namely, that these orders have to come before the House, will apply in each case. The compensation provisions will have to be set out in each order.
Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) says:
... by a valuer appointed by agreement between the applicant and the Minister or, in default of such agreement, by a valuer appointed by the Minister.
That is very tempting. If somebody is insisting on a particular point, the Minister can always say: "Take it or leave it."
There would still have to be a valuer.
But the Minister will appoint the valuer. If the person who is involved is not prepared to accept——
We must have some finality. The provision is that the valuer should be appointed by agreement? In the event of no agreement, he is appointed by the Minister.
I would prefer if he were appointed by a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court. I do not know what Deputy Tully's experience has been but my experience as a member of a local authority has been that while valuers act probably according to their consciences, there is a fear among valuers who are selected by county managers that, if they do not give an award that is agreeable to the mind of the county manager, there is an extreme likelihood that they will never get another job. From that point of view, I would prefer if, instead of the Minister appointing the valuer, it were left to somebody remote from the affair, a judge in the courts.
This is going to the devil and holding the court in hell. The Minister may say there has to be finality and the valuer will be fair. I am quite sure that, according to his lights, he will be fair, but it means dissatisfied customers. If a person who applies for a valuer is not satisfied by the first valuer suggested by the Minister, the Minister can say: "I will appoint one myself", and there is no right of appeal. I would agree with Deputy Donegan it would be better for the person who requires the valuer to know what the alternative was.
This section merely empowers the Minister to do these things by order so that when we come to any particular case the House may look at the order and decide. Apart from the aspect that this section in itself is not doing anything, I want to point out that it enables the Minister to do this: first of all, compensation can be arrived at by agreement. If the amount of compensation cannot be arrived at by agreement, a valuer shall be appointed by agreement. If there is no agreement on the amount of compensation set by the valuer, only then does the Minister say: "I will appoint a valuer." Even still at this point if the valuer appointed by the Minister does not give satisfaction to the customer, then the person concerned can go to arbitration under the Arbitration Act of 1955.
Which, I think, on the whole is reasonable.
I missed the point that we had this last resort.
Question put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
I regard myself as being reasonably au fait with the livestock of this country—cattle, goats, cats and all other feline animals, dogs and all other canine animals, horses and all other equine animals, sheep, all other ruminating animals, swine—but I cannot grapple with agoutis, capybara——
Did the Deputy say Katty Barry?
I am prepared to agree that fitches are some breed of feline animal.
We all know about chinchillas.
——but agoutis and capybara are beyond me. I should also like to know what is a jerboa.
I thought every Deputy knew what an agouti is. It is, of course, a Grecian rodent.
We are worried about keeping them out. They may invade us.
This is not a zoological encyclopaedia.
We might all wake up some morning and find the Irish Sea full of agoutis.
Even the vets do not know.
It is the jerboas I am worried about.
I always thought it was a large bottle of champagne.
The same effect—it jumps.
There must be some explanation for this. I am led to believe there are no lunatics abroad in the corridors of the Department, though there may be some eccentrics, but the step of inserting the names of animals never heard of or likely to be heard of in this country is something I had not associated with this Department.
First of all, ships come from parts of the world and God only knows what they may have in their holds. Secondly, people today adopt very peculiar animals as pets.
I agree. Perhaps the Minister would communicate to the House on Report Stage a short note on agoutis, capybara and jerboas.
Before we leave the First Schedule, it has Parts II and III.
Did the Deputy find some other queer animal?
Class A in Part III lists diseases of animals and poultry. Why does it state "fowl pest in any of its forms, including Newcastle disease and fowl plague"? Are the last mentioned diseases not covered in the words "fowl pest"?
I am making assurance doubly sure.
It seems the latter words are not necessary.
I understand that in some universities there is sharp division and conflict of opinion between rival veterinary and medical schools as to whether Newcastle disease and fowl plague could properly be called fowl pest. This puts the matter beyond doubt.
We cannot doubt the Minister's word.
Class B of Part III lists four animal diseases. Would the Minister not add a fifth one?
Question put and agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
I should very much like to get the Report Stage now, on the understanding that the points made by Deputies will be considered between now and the Seanad debate. We are anxious to go ahead with this brucellosis eradication.
I think it a dangerous doctrine to treat the Report Stage in this House as if it were not a Stage at all. The Minister has undertaken to examine certain points and is it not reasonable to ask that he should come back to the House and tell us about them?
He is also to put down certain drafting amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 14th December, 1965.
