Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Feb 1968

Vol. 232 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Foot and Mouth Disease Precautions.

25.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries how soon an official all-clear may be anticipated regarding the foot and mouth epidemic.

26.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will make a statement on the present position regarding the foot and mouth disease regulations and the possibility of their being further relaxed, especially in relation to fairs and marts.

27.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries when he expects to be in a position to allow store cattle sales to return to normal or, at least, to ease considerably the restrictions imposed as a precaution against foot and mouth disease.

28.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if there have been any further developments since a reply of 8th February regarding the opening of marts for the sale and movement of young cattle; and if he is aware of the grave hardship imposed on small farmers owing to the fact that they cannot sell young cattle at market value.

29.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will make a statement as to when hunting and point-to-point meetings may be resumed.

I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 together.

The incidence of the disease in Britain has been declining in recent weeks, though outbreaks are still occurring.

As regards the special precautions that have been taken in this country, I have the position under continuous review, and, as the Deputies are aware, I have recently modified some of the controls. The timing and nature of further modifications will, of course, be related to the developing situation in Britain. I can assure the Deputies that the present restrictions will be retained for no longer than is absolutely necessary in the national interest.

In what circumstances would the Minister lift the regulations?

It would not be possible to define the circumstances.

I put this to the Minister before. Suppose there were no new cases of foot and mouth disease in Britain for, say, a week to three weeks, does that mean that as soon as Britain lifts her regulations, we in this country will do so as well?

Not necessarily. Early on in this trouble it was the fond belief that it would come to a point where it had declined and some fine day there would be no case and there would continue to be no case for 21 days.

Does the Minister anticipate that if there were no outbreak for 21 days, he would lift the regulations?

In those circumstances they would undoubtedly be lifted. However, the pattern of this disease as it has emerged is a long drawn out dying thing and against the overall background of difficulty brought about for many people the three weeks clear period is not now regarded as absolutely essential.

Twenty-one days would be the minimum?

No. Twenty-one days would be the maximum. If we had 21 days clear, there would be no problem about removing the restrictions. What we must consider is how far inside of that, having regard to the continuing odd outbreak in Britain, we can relax restrictions.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread hardship being caused to small farmers due to the fact that they cannot bring their cattle to marts and get full value for them? Is the Minister further aware that dealers can go from one farmer's house and from one farm to another at the present time and buy cattle under value? In view of the fact that the Minister is allowing horse racing, dog racing and rugby matches to take place, does he not think he should allow the small farmers, who have to meet their rates and other bills, to sell their cattle?

That I take into consideration fully.

Surely the Minister is aware that there were 80 cases in England at the end of November and you were taking no precautions here, buyers were coming over from England to marts here, and it was only when the NFA patrolled the Border, and on 9th or 10th December——

Now we know.

It was only then they awoke to the danger.

While fully appreciating the Minister's anxiety in regard to this very grave matter, does he advert to the exceptional difficulty of farmers living in the congested areas, substantially west of the Shannon, in continuing to be effectively prohibited from access to fairs and to marts because there are so few west of the Shannon, at a period when they know that the whole south of England, the whole of Scotland and part of the North of England are free from all restrictions? If this view is acceptable to the veterinary authorities in Great Britain where there is no sea barrier or no portal frontier, has not the time come to consider seriously whether fairs might not be resumed at least in the west of Ireland, west of the Shannon?

That is being seriously considered. I would also say it is wrong to make a comparison between what is done in England and was is proposed to be done here in that they have the disease in England and we have not got it here. Therefore there is a difference.

I see the difference.

These problems are being seriously considered, and relaxations in the directions suggested by Deputies are being seriously considered at present.

Does it make any sense to the Minister to lift restrictions in the ports on incoming traffic while insisting that farmers have no facilities for selling their cattle? The Minister is aware that there are many small farmers who have no fodder for their cattle, and whose cattle will be coming on the market in a very poor condition if these restrictions are not lifted if they are not necessary any longer?

I do not want to minimise the difficulties that have been created for people, including farmers, big and small, but, at the same time, I am not prepared to go along with any exaggerated views expressed here or elsewhere as to the impact on the farmers in particular. The fodder position this year, thanks to a very mild season so far, is not serious as of now. It could well become so but it is not at the moment. I am aware of all those things and it is no pleasure to me, and neither is it of any assistance to me departmentally or otherwise, to retain these restrictions. I would not wish that any Member of the House on any side would get the idea, or put it abroad, that I as Minister have any ulterior motive in keeping these restrictions.

That is generally believed now.

If the Deputy thinks that, I am taking this opportunity to disabuse his mind of that idea.

The Minister's vindictive attitude——

We could not do enough before Christmas.

I am delighted to have got out of them what is in their minds.

Can the Minister say why he allows horse racing and dog racing and lifts the restrictions on the ports? That in itself makes it more difficult for people to understand.

The Deputy is gliding over the situation that still exists. We have not lifted the regulations at the ports. We have merely relaxed them.

They are a formality now.

Do not get away with that idea. People who come from the land and who have any contact with animals, or who come from places which animals frequent, are still subject to the 21 day restriction and can be and are being prosecuted for any breach of this regulation. There should not go from this House any suggestion that people are as free as the wind to come and go as they like. That is not so, and will not be so for some considerable time. The fact is that neither horse racing nor dog racing has yet taken place.

Tomorrow in Navan.

It has not yet been allowed. That is what Deputies want to get into their heads.

Tomorrow in Navan. Do not split words.

Do not make a case which does not exist. The Deputy is doing his best within his limited capacity to make something out of nothing.

Top
Share