asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether he is aware that 700 head of cattle shipped from Waterford to Norwich, England, via Bristol and Birmingham—which latter place was an area infected by foot and mouth disease at the time— were held up by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company at Birmingham because two beasts were down in one of the waggons; that, as a result of the unloading of these two beasts at Birmingham by the railway company, the British Department of Agriculture ordered the detention of all the cattle for a period of fourteen days; whether his Department has made any representations to the railway company or the British Department of Agriculture with a view to compensation being made to the owners, and, if so, with what result.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - IRISH CATTLE HELD UP AT BIRMINGHAM.
The facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question, except that the number of cattle held up in Birmingham was much less than 700. I understand 167 was the actual number of cattle consigned from Bristol which were held up in Birmingham on 12th January last in consequence of some beasts being removed from the railway trucks. The movement of these cattle to Norwich entailed, however, the detention there of some 700 cattle in all. On 10th February last my attention was drawn to the matter by the Cattle Exporters' Association who had been in correspondence with the Town Clerk of Norwich and with the railway companies concerned; and I then, having had inquiries made from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, caused the railway company to be approached with a view to an amicable settlement of the matter.
At the end of April last there appeared to be a fair prospect of the matter being so settled, but I cannot say how it stands at present. As far as the British Ministry are concerned I am satisfied that there was no alternative to the detention, not only of the cattle arriving at Norwich from Birmingham, but also of the cattle already at Norwich with which they came in contact. The 167 cattle from Bristol were free to pass through the foot and mouth disease infected area about Birmingham, provided they were not untrucked in the area; but being untrucked they became subject to the suspicion attaching to all animals in the area, a suspicion which naturally involved all animals with which they became associated when—contrary to law—they were moved to Norwich. In this country in similar circumstances precisely similar action in regard to detention of the animals concerned would be taken by the Department of Agriculture.
As the owners of this particular consignment of cattle have suffered a huge loss. I would like to know from the Minister if there is any possible chance of their being compensated in any way?
Mr. HOGAN
I do not know whether the owners of the cattle have an action against the railway company in England concerned or not. That is a matter, of course, on which they would want to get legal opinion. If any action lies it is against the railway company, and the owners of the cattle are in the same position as anybody else whose rights, whether they exist under contract or not, have been violated. We do not come into it, and the English Ministry of Agriculture does not come into it.