The first Bill on this subject was passed in 1928 and dealt with the compensation payable for animals slaughtered at British landing places as a result of foot and mouth disease. Another Act was passed in 1932 to extend the provisions covering compensation in respect of detention, lairage and feeding charges due to foot and mouth disease in Great Britain. This Bill goes further and deals with the depreciation of live stock detained owing to an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I presume Deputies are aware that the fund is made up of a levy, collected by the Cattle Traders' Association, on exported animals. It is managed by trustees appointed by the cattle trade. When this Bill is passed it is proposed that it should be retrospective to October, 1936.
Committee on Finance. - Slaughtered and Detained Animals (Compensation) (No. 2) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.
Is this an agreed measure brought in at the request of the cattle trade?
Yes.
And agreed with the Cattle Exporters' Association?
Yes.
There is no snag whereunder the scope of the existing scheme is being extended beyond what was agreed with the Cattle Exporters' Association?
No.
I put a question to the Minister when this Bill was previously before us as to whether it would not be advisable to continue to collect this money. £40,000 is a very small sum. It really amounts to £2,000 or £3,000 a year. A visitation of this disease would, if it came to us —and it is very close to us—be very serious.
This Bill passed its Second Reading in the last Dáil and I stated then that the cattle trade believed that £40,000 was quite sufficient.
Assuming you have no visitation, it is, but we have had such visitations a couple of times. It is very close to us at present and they are very concerned in England as to the reason for the periodic outbreaks there. They are attributed sometimes to birds and at other times to travellers. The collection of the sum of money in hands at present did not impose any great liability on anybody. To my mind, it is a great mistake not to build the fund up to about £250,000. That would put us in an absolutely unassailable position. If we found that it was not necessary to employ the fund in that way, there are many other ways by which it could be used with the consent and approval of the cattle trade.
The Deputy is quite right in saying that the levy imposes no great burden on those concerned. It is only 2½d. on each head of cattle, ½d. on each sheep and 1d. on each pig. This Bill has nothing to do with that matter. I am prepared to discuss that question with the cattle trade.