Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Dec 1942

Vol. 89 No. 1

In Committee. - Exported Live Stock (Insurance) Bill, 1942—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:—

To insert between lines 16 and 17 the following:—

the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Agriculture;

This is a formal amendment, dealing merely with the insertion of certain words.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before the section to insert the following new section:—

The Minister may by Order appoint such day as he thinks fit to be the appointed day for the purposes of this Act and the expression "the appointed day" means in this Act the day so appointed.

This also is a formal amendment, dealing with the appointed day.

Amendment agreed to.

The adoption of this amendment involves the deletion of Section 10.

Quite so. I move amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (1), page 2, to delete lines 24 to 27 and substitute the following:—

(1) For the purposes of computing the amount of the levy on animals payable under the Principal Act and Part III of this Act, the board, after consultation with the National Executive shall, before the appointed day, and may thereafter whenever and so often as it thinks fit, by order—.

This amendment arises out of an amendment submitted by Deputy Corry. The amendment is merely a redraft in order to effect the change desired, and it is drafted in what is considered a better way than what was proposed by Deputy Corry.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In sub-section (3), page 3, to delete lines 1 to 4, and substitute the following:—

(3) References in the Principal Act, as amended by Part II of this Act, in the next following section and in Part III of this.

There is a provision in the Bill we are discussing dealing with minimum values, and this is a consequential amendment in order to bring it into line.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:—

At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) In every case where the declared value of an animal exceeds the appointed minimum value the owner shall so inform the board in writing at least 24 hours prior to shipment or delivery in the State to a carrier and the board shall have the option of examining such animal before shipment or delivery to such carrier as aforesaid and ascertaining the value thereof, and the value so ascertained shall be deemed to be the declared value.

We are anxious that there should be something definite in the way of valuation before shipping, if possible. I wonder what is the Minister's opinion in that connection?

What I feel about this amendment is that it would not be workable. I do not think it would be possible to give 24 hours' notice with regard to any shipment of cattle. As we all know, a buyer often purchases cattle at a fair—and this applies especially to the Dublin market—and the cattle are shipped the same evening. He could not give 24 hours' notice as to what cattle he is shipping or what value he is putting upon them.

Mr. Broderick

I agree with the Minister that it would not be possible to give 24 hours' notice, but perhaps the Minister might accept the spirit of the amendment. It would be far more important for the owner to get the cattle shipped rather than to have them held up for 24 hours in order to have the value assessed.

It would not be possible to work this amendment.

I think it would be advisable to allow the minimum value arrangement to work before we try anything else.

Why could not the insurance inspector inspect and value the animals before they leave the port?

That would not be very convenient. Anyone in the cattle trade knows that it would not be possible to do that in the circumstances that prevail.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 7:—

Before the section but in Part I of the Bill to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Whenever a committee of assessors investigating a claim for compensation under Section 18 of the Principal Act or Section 13 (which relates to compensation in respect of lost or damaged live stock exported via Northern Ireland) of this Act disallows, on or after the appointed day, the claim in whole or in part, the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) the board shall serve on the claimant notice in writing of the determination of the said committee of assessors,

(b) if, but only if, the claimant, within seven days after such service, requests the board in writing to refer his claim to the standing referee and deposits with the board a sum (in this sub-section referred to as the appeal fee) equal to £10 or 5 per cent. of the appointed minimum value of each animal to which the claim relates, whichever is the greater, then—

(i) the board shall refer the claim to the standing referee who shall rehear the claim and the determination (both as to the right to the compensation and the amount (if any) thereof) of the standing referee on such rehearing shall be final and conclusive, and

(ii) if on such rehearing the standing referee reverses the determination of the said committee of assessors the board shall refund to the claimant the appeal fee, but otherwise shall retain it and pay it into the Exported Live Stock (Insurance) Fund.

(2) The Minister shall from time to time as occasion requires appoint a person (who shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister) to be the standing referee for the purposes of rehearing claims under sub-section (1) of this section, and there shall be paid by the board to the standing referee out of the Exported Live Stock (Insurance) Fund such fees and allowances for expenses as the Minister may direct.

(3) Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Principal Act shall not apply in respect of any determination of a committee of assessors under the said section made on or after the appointed day.

This is to meet a point raised by Deputy Corry and others on the Second Stage, and raised also in amendments, as to an appeal from the decision of the board of assessors. I consulted the cattle trade about it and they see no objection to there being an appeal. I had thought that it would be preferable if the trade would appoint this appeal referee, but, on consulting the legal authorities, I found that there was considerable difficulty in that respect—there would have to be all sorts of definitions about the person to be appointed—and it is simply put in here that the Minister will appoint him. I did not want the job of appointing this man, but I intend to operate this section by appointing him in consultation with the national executive. I asked the national executive what they thought about it, and their present opinion is that he should not be a man in the trade—that he should be a person knowing something about the business but not a man himself in the export of cattle—and after consultation, I suppose we shall be able to get some suitable person.

Amendment No. 14, in the names of Deputies Corry and Buckley, can be discussed in relation to this amendment.

There is no doubt that the Minister's amendment goes a long way towards meeting some of the objections I had to the Bill, but I do not know whether it goes far enough. This is a compulsory insurance Bill—it compels a man to insure his cattle whether he wishes to do so or not. In respect of any other insurance company, there is a court of arbitration and there is afterwards the open court, if one is not satisfied. Things have happened under the original system which proved that the power given to these people should not be given to any people. I have here a whole bundle of letters in connection with this matter.

From whom?

From shippers of stock, one of whom shipped 76 cattle and paid £39 insurance. Two of the cattle were injured, and, after inspection by the insurance company's "vet", were handed over to the company's agent. For these two cattle, which were valued at £50 apiece, and insured for £50 apiece, the man got a cheque for 25/-.

They were not insured for £50 apiece?

They were insured for a value of £50 apiece and £39 insurance was paid.

Mr. Broderick

Is Deputy Corry quite satisfied that these cattle came within the terms of the insurance?

Absolutely. The point I am making is that as the Act stood when it left this House, that man had no appeal. The decision as to whether he should get his full insurance, £5 insurance or no insurance at all, was left entirely in the hands of these people, and he had no redress whatever. I am glad the Minister has gone so far to meet the point, but, as I say, I do not know if he has gone far enough.

I asked the Deputy to give me the name of the shipper, because I think I am familiar with the case. So far as I know, these cattle were cattle which went to some distant market in England with a number of other cattle. They went to two or three markets and were turned back to the other end of England again, with the result that these two cattle were dead tired. They were not injured and the railway company took them on, but they were salvaged because they were "dead-beat". If the Deputy would give me the name, I could say whether it is the same case, but every case that has been put up to them that I know of has been met fairly and the money paid, and in fact they have paid money for cattle for which insurance was never paid before. If you ship cattle to England and they are insured, you get money if they are bruised. I remember the days, ten or 12 years ago, when I sent cattle to York and other markets in England. These cattle would be left lying for weeks and you never got a penny for them, unless they were dead; but now if they are bruised, this board pays the money. As I say, I heard of the case Deputy Corry mentions, and, from what I know of it, the insurance board was perfectly right in not paying. These cattle were the refuse of a number of cattle which went from market to market, and, if they were injured, why would the railway company take them on?

I am glad we have got the other side of the case, because in all the letters sent in regard, not to that one case, but to 65 others which I have here——

Mr. Broderick

Sixty-five different claimants?

No, but I object to the power, in a Bill of this description, which should be a Private Members Bill introduced in Private Members' time, being given to any body of men to drive an opponent out of business, as they undoubtedly could do under the Act, if they were bad enough. I object to the rights of any man to go into a court of law being taken from him by the House, because I think it is wrong.

What was the position under the old insurance system?

There was the power of suing in open court. I am not concerned with what Deputy Fagan heard, and I am not concerned with the case put up by these people. What I am concerned with is the reply the man got when he applied for the insurance on his cattle. It was:

"In respect to your claim for compensation in respect of four cows (part lot of 78) shipped from Cork to Frome via Fishguard on 27th February, 1942, I am to inform you that the Committee of Assessors who investigated the claim have, by virtue of the powers conferred on them by the above Act, determined that you are not entitled to compensation.”

I have 65 of these here. That man paid on these 78 cattle £39 insurance, on a valuation of £50 apiece. Four of the cattle were injured in transit. These cattle were inspected by the insurance company's veterinary surgeon, and were then taken over by the insurance company's agent and sold by him. For the four cattle, this man received in salvage £24 12s. instead of the sum of somewhere around £200, for which he had insured his cattle. Instead of getting £100 insurance for the two cattle he had insured previously, he got a cheque for 25/-, and so on through the whole of these cases.

Was there any question of salvage in any of the cases?

Yes; he got a cheque, in respect of salvage, of 25/- for two cows and £24 for four cows. The man could salvage his cows without paying any insurance at all. I am glad the Minister has gone this distance to meet the point, and I prefer to wait until we come to the other amendment to deal with the rest.

Progress reported; Committee to sit later.
Top
Share