This is a very small section as a saver, but it raises the question of the implementation of the Act throughout the remainder of the country in areas other than the intensive areas. It says:—
"Nothing in this Act or any Order made by virtue of this Act shall affect any Orders made before the passing of this Act under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1954."
Therefore, this Bovine Tuberculosis Order, 1926, still remains in force. I referred to that in the discussion on the Second Reading yesterday. There is a problem here which requires clarification also. As I understand it, the areas awaiting intensive eradication will have very little attack on the disease other than what is to be done under that Order. There is £100,000 designated now to augment the work being done under the Order. I do not follow how it can be done without amending the 1926 Order.
It is explained in the explanatory memorandum we had yesterday that compensation under the Order is payable on a certain scale — the owner gets a quarter of the value if it is an advanced case and three-quarters of the value in a non-advanced case and would get full compensation and £1 over, if the veterinary officer made a mistake and slaughtered an animal in the wrong. The intention here is that no matter what amount of disease is in the animal slaughtered, the full compensation will be paid. I do not know how that can be done without altering the Order which is in existence.
Besides that, there are several other sections of the 1926 Order which, to make that £100,000 effective, should be amended. One clause requires that if you take an animal under the Order, it must be one which is suffering from "definite clinical symptoms and chronic cough." This money must be spent under that Order, which exists because there is no provision for amendment. When the animal is slaughtered, full compensation will be paid, but here the man is debarred from dealing with obviously affected animals because they do not comply with the 1926 Order.
This has given us trouble all along, because we say: "What is the most definite clinical symptom of tuberculosis but the chronic cough?" You have other causes, as I mentioned yesterday — enlarged glands which, in 99 cases out of 100, are tubercular. There are such things as Hodgkin's disease which will give enlarged glands also. These cases of discharging tubercular glands quite obviously could not be taken up to the present under the Order because it does not apply to such cases. Therefore, I want the Minister to get this to work.
We hope this work will be done in other than intensive areas or pre-intensive areas — otherwise, the Limerick, Cork and Kerry areas where the incidence of tuberculosis is, we know, the highest. It is in abeyance for the present and I would emphasise that abeyance is a bad business at any time. We may not have enough money to attack it where the incidence is greatest, but we must do our utmost to see that the £100,00 being spent will be spent to the best effect, to get rid of animals other than those which are covered by the present Bovine Tuberculosis Order of 1926, which the Bill now says is to remain and which is not interfered with.
I hope the line the Minister will follow, besides paying full compensation for animals taken under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order, will be to amplify, extend and expand the provisions of that Order so that a greater number of animals can be taken and the dangerous open cases can be taken. The memorandum refers to open cases, but the Bovine Tuberculosis Order does not provide for all open cases. I need not go into detail of the cases covered, but they are not wide enough to do effective work in those areas where nothing else will be done except the accredited herd scheme for the individuals. In the areas where the greatest amount of tuberculosis exists, nothing will be done except what is done voluntarily and what will be done by this £100,000 to clear out cases which come under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order. Under the present definition, not enough cases come under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order. There are many open cases that cannot be dealt with.
The point I want to make is that we should immediately extend and amplify the provisions of the Order to cover a greater number of cases. If this £100,000 can be voted without amendment of the Order, I presume that must be legal, because it has already been announced and the £100,000 is being spent, but it is not sufficient to do good work in the areas where it is impossible to eradicate the disease quickly.