Vol. 315 No. 16
The Chair would point out that, as there are errors in the green sheet of amendments to this Bill, the Chair has caused a corrected stencilled version to be issued, which is a white sheet, and this is the one we shall use.
Amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy, is related to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and the three amendments may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 29 to 31, to delete all words from and including "the amount" in line 29 down to and including "so prescribed," in line 31.
The Bill with which we are dealing introduces a levy of £3 per head per animal slaughtered and .5p per gallon of milk processed to raise £10 million for disease eradication. This is one of many levies being imposed on the farming community. If taken in isolation it might not be objectionable but, taken in conjunction with the other levies being imposed, it is most certainly objectionable.
The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the levy which is being introduced at the figures I have mentioned being increased in future by order, and the Minister does have power in the Bill to introduce an increased levy by order. We wish that this would not be possible and, if a new and higher levy is introduced, that it be required that the Minister bring in legislation here in the normal way. In effect it is possible for this levy to become nothing more than another form of taxation. If the Minister for Finance, in introducing taxation, wishes to increase it, he must bring a Bill before the Houses which must go through five stages of consideration in both Houses. However, under this Bill, if this amendment is not accepted, the Minister for Agriculture is taking the power to increase taxation without that process, but simply by order which must be accepted by a single resolution which will be debated here once without the necessity of going through the stages I mentioned or any possibility of amendments being introduced; the resolution is introduced and the order must be accepted in toto, with no possibility of amendment. That is an unsatisfactory procedure. The Minister for Finance—if he is introducing taxation—must go through the process of introducing a Bill. I believe that if the Minister for Agriculture is going to increase the taxation contained in this Bill he, too, should have to introduce legislation.
We had a rather exhaustive discussion on this subject on the Second Reading. I attempted to point out, evidently without much success, first of all, the urgency of the disease eradication problem and the consequent requirement of very large sums of money which, in the context of the expenditure of moneys on disease eradication, most likely will go up, for the time being at any rate until the real results being to make themselves felt.
It is not correct, nor can it be contended, that this is some kind of sinister or underhand device by which the Minister for Agriculture can arrogate to himself the functions of the Minister for Finance and use this legislation whose stated and specific purpose is to collect money for the eradication of bovine disease alone as an ordinary method of tax collection. That simply is not the case. For a Minister for Agriculture, as they come and go, to be unduly hamstrung by having to introduce the measures recommended by Deputy Bruton and his colleagues would be to render the disease eradication programme thus far ineffective or, at any rate, reduce its effectiveness. There is no valid, positive reason for so doing, having taken the unpleasant decision to levy cattle and milk sales for this specific purpose, for the benefit of the cattle herd, the owners of which as I have already pointed out are the farmers themselves.
It is true that our cattle herd is probably the biggest, single economic factor in our whole economic structure. It is true also that this enormous national asset is owned by our farmers. It is unassailable that they have a particular interest—for their well-being—in the rapid eradication of disease, that this will require constant fuelling with money; that the eradication army, no more than any other army, will not march without the sinews of the disease war, which is money also. It would be better were there some other source for raising the necessary money. Unfortunately there is not. But there is a case that can be made—which I have made already during the discussion of this Bill —that the people who will be the first beneficiaries of its good results and of the very expenditure itself—in that sense it is an investment in their own future—will be our farmers. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendments proposed by Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy.
The Minister has not really answered the case. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent this levy being increased beyond the amount of money necessary for the financing of disease eradication. There is no statutory guarantee that that may not be done at some time in the future. Therefore, this Bill could become one of general taxation. Amendments introduced by me on Committee Stage to prevent that happening were not accepted. Therefore the position remains unchanged.
The Minister, in seeking to speak of the urgency of disease eradication in this context, in my view, is not stating the facts as they are; the introduction of this levy does not help to accelerate disease eradication. Indeed it creates temptations for farmers to seek illicit means of disposing of their stock and produce to avoid the levy, to dispose of them through channels where perhaps this levy is not being collected, to send cattle to butchers who are not registered, to have animals got rid of in ways in which it will not be possible to collect the levy. In so doing they would not alone be engaging in activities which are illegal but which would also make the tracing of disease more difficult than would be the case if the animals were disposed of through regular channels where, unfortunately now, a levy will have to be paid where it was not in the past. Therefore the introduction of the levy could work against rather than in favour of disease eradication.
Those are some of the reasons I must insist that this matter be put. I believe the Minister should not have the power to increase this levy at will without seeking amending legislation.
Amendment No. 4 has already been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
There shall be established a fund to be known as the Disease Eradication Fund. The expenditure of all moneys in the fund shall be as authorised by the trustees of the fund for the purpose of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis and for no other purpose. The trustees of the fund shall be appointed by the Minister on the following basis:
(a) two persons appointed by the Minister one of whom shall be an officer of the Minister;
(b) three persons who shall represent the producers of bovine animals shall be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of such organisations as the Minister considers to be representative of such producers and
(c) one person who shall represent the members of the veterinary profession on the nomination of such organisation as the Minister considers to be representative of such profession.
The purpose of this amendment is to require that all money raised by the levy be paid into a fund to be known as the Disease Eradication Fund which will be administered jointly by the Minister for Agriculture, representatives of the farming organisations and the veterinary profession and would be capable of being used only for the purpose of disease eradication. The Minister has said, in the course of his contribution here today and previously that it is the intention that this money be used only for that purpose. If that is the case it should be seen to be so, and a mechanism such as the payment of the levy into this fund should be instituted so that there will be a statutory guarantee that that money will be used for disease eradication and for no other purpose.
The levy will be an effective means of securing the disease eradication only if it has the support of the farming community and if the disease eradication programme itself has the support of that community. The setting up of this fund into which the levy would be paid would contribute towards getting farmers' support for disease eradication because the farmers, having half of the total number of seats on the board of trustees of the fund, would, through the mechanism of this fund, have a direct say in the disease eradication programme, which they do not have at present. Farmers will accept that they have to pay the levy if it is to be used in a way over which they have some control. Therefore, I ask the Minister to agree that the levy will be paid into such a fund to ensure, first, that it is used for disease eradication, and secondly that farmers have a say in the way in which it is used.
I do not recommend this amendment to the House, nor do I look with any great approval on the suggestion that the group of trustees, presumably from the farmers of the country, be set up to ride hard on the Minister whose democratic job it is to see that these funds are used correctly for the eradication of disease. The political responsibility is his. The suggestion that what Deputy Bruton called farmer control over this national Government scheme is needed is not acceptable to a democratic Government operating on democratic lines. It would introduce proliferation of Parkinsonian dimensions and it would be impossible to manage if you had to get the agreement of a group of trustees to particular spending of a particular fund of money in a particular sector of the disease eradication scheme. That should be the responsibility of the Government through the Minister for Agriculture, whoever he may be at the time in question.
There is no question but that the disease eradication programme has the support of farmers and will continue to have that support. I am glad to say that our own efforts in this regard over the last couple of years have borne a very remarkable improvement in that the herd-owners of the country, the more lackadaisical especially, have finally been alerted to the difficulties and dangers that lie in any laissez-faire attitude towards disease eradication and to the breach of the disease regulations. For instance, Deputy Bruton's suggestion when he was speaking to his former amendment, was tantamount to suggesting that farmers will readily break the law and that to do so will on the whole, be an attractive proposition, made attractive by the imposition of the levy. The vast majority of farmers, well over 95 per cent I would imagine, realise that any illicit movement of cattle between herds, apart from the the risk of very severe legal punishment, is a highly dangerous thing to do and a dangerous risk for a farmer to put his own herd at. Therefore, the question does not arise. Possibly Deputy Bruton misunderstands the present mind of farmers in the matter of disease eradication. It would be well if the Deputy would give the programme his whole-hearted support in saying to farmers, as I say to them, that this is not an easy job, it is going to hurt in spots and may hurt very severely but it has to be done, and no amount of soft talk or plámás, bodies of trustees or committees of farmers set up to do this, that, or the other will ease the job. In fact they will encumber the job.
The Minister has invited me to give my support to the disease eradication scheme. I have already done so on a number of occasions both inside and outside this House. I endorse fully the efforts that have been made to bring about the eradication of these dangerous diseases. I have stressed on numerous occasions in this House, with far greater frequency than has the Minister who has largely ignored the subject, the fact that these diseases are a danger not only to the economic wellbeing of farmers but also an imminent danger to human health. Brucellosis and tuberculosis can spread from animals to humans. I have made this point on numerous occasions and in so doing I have made it quite clear how urgent I regard the eradication of these two diseases. I hope that that is as clear to the public as it is in my mind.
The Minister denigrated the idea that the farmers should be involved in the control of funds being raised from them on their animals and being expended on disease eradication. He seems to have a very low opinion of the contributions that farmers would make when he would regard them as making some sort of Parkinsonian contribution in being members of a disease eradication board of trustees if such were set up. If farmers were involved directly in administration of those funds, then the farmers would have a very practical contribution to make in terms of advice to those making the decisions. I am referring only to those funds raised from the farmers by means of levy to assist in the eradication of disease, not to other funds which might be derived from another source. By virtue of the farmers having a partial say in the use of the levy they would be able to back up that advice with real power.
In that context the farmers' contribution would be very valuable and a lot of the mistakes that have been made in the past in the eradication of disease by various Ministers could and would be avoided if farmers were involved more intimately in disease eradication. In part it is in order to provide for such farmer involvement that this amendment was moved. I am surprised that the Minister adopted the attitude which he has towards this amendment. The other value of this amendment is that it would ensure that the money raised in the levy would be used for disease eradication and for no other purpose. In other words, it would be prevented from becoming a general measure of taxation. For those two reasons, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I ask you to put the amendment to the House.
Amendment No. 6 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 7 is in the names of Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy. These two amendments may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, line 31, to delete "or otherwise" and substitute "or on other veterinary grounds".
The reason for this is to go part of the way, I hope sufficiently far, to Deputy Bruton's recommendation, which I believe has a reasonable basis. This amendment recommends the substitution of the words "adequate" and "reasonable". I suggest that the words "adequate" and "reasonable" are very difficult of legal definition and I have a fear that if they should ever become the subject matter of litigation in court—which might well happen—the precise definition of such words as "adequate" and "reasonable" would lead to complications. It is better to fine it down to "veterinary grounds" because we are talking about animal diseases. If there are veterinary reasons that should go a long way to meet Deputy Bruton's suggestion.
I believe the Minister's amendment meets in full the point I was making. I am very glad that he has introduced this amendment.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, between lines 45 and 46 to insert:
"(3) Wherever a notice of inspection is issued the local health authority shall be so informed.".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, where it has come to the notice of the Department of Agriculture that a herd is infected with either brucellosis or TB and a notice is to be served on the herd owner and on the people buying milk for processing from that herd owner that that man's herd is infected with brucellosis or TB and people should be wary about it, this information should also be conveyed to the local health board. It is not enough that this information is simply conveyed from the Department officials to the creameries. The Health Board should also be made aware that this herd is infected with brucellosis or TB.
Milk sold from a herd infected with those diseases is a danger to the health of humans. I had a question down today to the Minister for Health for written reply and in the reply I was told that 35 per cent of all milk produced in the country for human consumption is consumed in a raw state without having been pasteurised. I said in this debate that the figure was 25 per cent and I was quite alarmed to discover that the situation is even worse than I thought. The Minister for Health in the course of his reply to my question said that the consumption of raw milk by human beings was a serious threat to human health as it raised the possibility of human beings being infected with brucellosis and also non-respiratory tuberculosis and other enteric diseases. It is the view of the Minister for Health that the consumption of raw milk is a grave danger to the health of humans.
We must also be aware that there are many herds throughout the country which are infected with those diseases. It is not necessary in law at the moment that milk from those herds be pasteurised before it is consumed by humans. It is not necessary in any part of the country that it be pasteurised before it is sold. In many cases a farmer producing milk from an infected herd will continue to consume that milk in the household. Milk from an infected herd is not only a danger to them but it is a danger to anybody who uses that milk without it being pasteurised. I believe that where a herd is found to be infected there should be an automatic procedure whereby the health board are informed so that they can take whatever preventive measures are necessary to ensure that this disease does not spread to humans by consuming milk in an unpasteurised form.
I believe the reason that brucellosis and non-respiratory TB in humans are on the increase here is because adequate preventive measures are not being taken to prevent their spread. Those measures are not being taken because of inadequate liaison between the officials of the Department of Agriculture, who have the information, and the officials in the Department of Health, who have the legal power to do something to prevent human health being endangered. I believe that this amendment, which will require by law that the information be given to the health board, will make a valuable contribution towards the elimination of those two diseases as far as they affect humans. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
There is a great deal in what Deputy Bruton says about the passage of infection from bovine sources to human beings in the case of TB and brucellosis. I believe that Deputy Bruton's amendment possibly confuses two separate and important matters, one of which is animal disease eradication which has among other possibilities human health considerations as an objective. It confuses the measure to some extent to introduce into a purely bovine disease eradication measure a measure which is designed more for the protection of human health. This is not to say that the measures that are at present in operation for the protection of human beings from contaminated food from any source are not improvable. I am quite sure they are improvable.
The incidence of human brucellosis in recent times seems to have been going up. Its diagnosis is certainly going up. It is a very serious and debilitating disease in humans. There is no dispute about that. I believe this amendment seeks to amalgamate those two important things to the detriment of one and not to the improvement of the other. I do not see that the protection of human subjects from infection by bovine sources would be greatly enhanced by the adoption of Deputy Bruton's amendment.
I recall that when Deputy Bruton's party were in office I addressed questions on this subject to the then Minister for Health, Deputy Corish, and the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Clinton, and I got nowhere. There was a reluctance even to admit that the subject was extremely important and that human health was definitely concerned. I have no hesitation in admitting that because that is the truth. My concern in this Bill is to get the best measure possible for the eradication of the bovine source of those diseases. This is in no way to the detriment of the argument that Deputy Bruton has advanced: the question of the sale of infected milk and other food substances. Unpasteurised milk and other products can be a very dangerous source of infection. This is a public health matter. It concerns public health. Obviously if ameliorative measures were contemplated it is under public health legislation that they should be enshrined.
There is always in these debates a degree of political position taking. Naturally enough one tends to express ritual disappointment with a Minister when he does not accept an amendment which an Opposition Deputy hopes he will. I wish to preface what I am about to say by saying that I accept that as part of the parliamentary game. However, without any political motivation. I can only say that I deeply regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the amendment. It is an amendment which would be of much benefit and which would not in any way harm the measure. Its purpose is to ensure that where officials of the Department of Agriculture become aware of the breaking out of a disease in a herd they would be required by law to pass that information by way of letter to the health authorities. My reason for suggesting this is because of the likelihood of the spread of disease from a herd to humans unless the appropriate precautionary measures are taken.
The Minister said that acceptance of the amendment would lead to confusion regarding this measure, that my suggestion was a public health matter and he suggested that the appropriate time for me to introduce an amendment on those lines would be on the occasion of some Health Bill going through the House. However, if I were to do that I am sure that the Minister for Health would tell me that the matter was one for the Department of Agriculture and that consequently he could not interfere. That Minister would pass the matter back to the Minister for Agriculture, who is now trying to pass it to the Minister for Health. This is an example of what is happening in relation to the spread of brucellosis and TB in humans. One Minister is passing the buck to the other.
I am sorry to hear the Minister admit that, when he in oppostion raised this matter with the then Ministers for Agriculture and Health, he got no response. But, despite the fact that both he and the present Minister for Health have been in office for two years, there has not been any move in the matter to make the situation any better than was the position when the Minister questioned his predecessor in this regard.
I am convinced that the Minister should accept this amendment. It would not interfere in any way with his legislation. It entails merely legislation requiring officials of the Department to notify the health board concerned that there was an outbreak of disease in a certain herd and that the farmer concerned should be notified to give him an opportunity of deciding what course to take to prevent the disease spreading to members of his family or to anybody else consuming the milk from his farm. After that the matter would be entirely one for the health board. There would not be any cost involved and nothing but good could come from accepting the amendment. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to take a risk and accept the amendment. I am sure he would not regret his decision.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 9, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"(5) No inspector may enter any premises unless he has been issued with a search warrant specifying the premises to be inspected and the purpose of the inspection by the Minister for Agriculture. Such warrant shall be produced by the inspector to any person affected by it on request."
I am not accepting this amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, where an inspector enters a premises to search for information relating to the payment of a levy, he should be required to have a search warrant as is the position in respect of gardai entering a premises in pursuit of a criminal offence. Inspectors of the Revenue Commissioners should not have power in respect of entering premises that gardai do not have, especially since Revenue Commissioner inspectors would be pursuing offences that would be much less serious than offences that gardai might be pursuing.
