Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1942

Vol. 89 No. 2

Exported Live Stock (Insurance) Bill, 1942—Committee (Resumed) and Final Stages.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 7.

When dealing with this amendment last night I said I was glad that the Minister at last was going this far to meet the objections that existed in the previous Bill.

Might I interrupt the Deputy to ask whether he is considering his amendment No. 14, in connection with No. 7 on which it arises?

I think so. I think we were taking them together yesterday.

It is Deputy Corry's amendment—No. 14.

I would be inclined even to waive No. 14 if I could get any guarantee from the Minister—and I suggest it would be only fair—that opportunity would be given to bring in cases that occurred before this amending Bill was brought in, that opportunity would be given to anyone who felt aggrieved, as in the cases I indicated last night, of coming before the referee and having their cases considered before him. I think that would meet the principal objections I had in mind in regard to the Bill. The previous Bill, as passed by the House, gave no court of appeal from the assessor. The assessor merely told you: "You are entitled to £50 or £5 or to nothing at all," and there was no court of appeal. This furnishes a court of appeal of some kind and, in view of the cases I quoted last night, I wonder would the Minister be prepared to make this section of the Bill retrospective and allow it to deal with the outstanding cases I mentioned. I think that would meet the principal objection I see to the Bill as it stands.

I could not let this occasion pass without paying very great tribute to Deputy Corry, because, after 15 years' experience in this House, he has at last been converted to what I regard as a very sensible point of view. Ever since he came into this House, on any occasion, mild or rough, there was one section of the community that he always criticised, namely, the legal profession. They were the one people who could do no good for anybody or who were entitled to get no recognition of any sort.

Deputy Corry has gone out of his way on this Bill to introduce an amendment which would permit anybody who had a grievance against the people who operate this fund to bring an appeal to the Circuit Court. Naturally, I am delighted and I regret very much that I cannot adopt his viewpoint. I am delighted to see he has gone so far. I am under the impression that if the Minister accepted this amendment there would probably be compensation claims for the next ten years. It is with great regret I have to say I cannot support his amendment.

As far as I understand, when this Bill first came in, this scheme was operated by people who are representatives of the cattle trade. They are people who are nominated by the cattle traders themselves and, as far as I know, who command the absolute confidence of the cattle trade. Deputy Corry mentioned cases of people who felt they had a grievance about the question of payment and he said at one stage of his address yesterday that he had 65 letters. My information is that out of some hundreds of claims that passed through the particular body dealing with this matter in less than 1 per cent. was any question raised about the amount of compensation paid. When I was first asked about this position I suggested that, in fairness, something should be adopted on the principle of ordinary insurance, where there was a dispute between the insured and the insurance company— which is really what the board is, to a certain extent, that is, that there should be an arbitration. I do not see any reason in the world to object to what the Minister is doing now. If you are going to have an arbitrator, somebody must appoint him and as long as he does his job well, there could be no question of the present system that the Minister suggests.

If, having given this particular method a trial for a year or two, we find it is not working, it would then be open to us to come back to this House—because the Minister is appointing the referee—and criticise the Minister's appointment, or ask the Minister to alter the scheme. I am quite satisfied from what I have heard from the members of the cattle trade, from the way the scheme has already worked, and from the fact that there is a large sum of money, which is not the property of the board, or of the people interested in this, but the property of this community in the sense that it was taken off the producer in the first instance—that the less opportunities that would be given for any wastage of that money the better. I felt originally that confining the decision merely to the Board of Assessors nominated by the board was rather harsh, and I am quite satisfied that the appointment of a referee in the position of arbitrator will meet the whole case.

I do not like to question Deputy Corry's bona fides in bringing in his amendment, but Deputy Broderick and I and several other Deputies were anxious to know whether, in fact, the 65 letters that Deputy Corry mentioned to us represent 65 separate cases, or whether, in fact, these 65 letters represent only one or two cases?

The strongest case that could possibly be made about the administration of an Act of this sort is the total number of claims paid, and the number questioned. Assuming there were 100 claims paid and only one questioned, that is a very strong argument in favour of the system in operation. The position would be different if 50 or 60 were questioned. If, in fact, 55 claims were questioned, I should be very glad to know the reason.

Mr. Broderick

I think the most objectionable part of Deputy Corry's statement was the implication in it of victimisation in this particular case. That, of course, reflects on the administration of the board. I need not point out to the Minister the democratic way in which the board is appointed. It is appointed by the whole of the cattle trade association. The directors were appointed by them, and they appointed the assessors. The Bill proposes to amend the method of appointment.

It will mean that three directors will be going off every year. That removes the possibility of a lengthy period of service. One of the reasons why I feel so much about the impeachment of the board, and the charge of victimisation, is that every one of the directors is a number himself and a shipper. It would be a dangerous thing for any member to lay down the precedent of not giving adequate value or of penalising anybody, since he himself might, so to speak, be a plaintiff before the same court later. It would be an extraordinary thing for members of the board not to honour their obligation by giving a lesser value than they were entitled to since that might react on themselves.

Since there is a huge accumulation of money in connection with this, the one thing that I fear is that more than generous treatment might be given. This mutual insurance scheme has been in operation for about two and a half years. It was started when insurance policies were 47/6 per cent. That has been reduced to 10/- per cent. Funds to the amount of £200,000 have accumulated in the meantime. Of that sum, £120,000 is invested in Government securities. The State has the advantage of it. It is not the property of any group of individuals, of the cattle traders or of anybody else. If this company had not been set up, and the scheme put into operation, one can realise how much money at the old rate of 47/6 per cent. would have gone to foreign insurance companies and left the country. I think that instead of impeaching those men and making charges of victimisation against them they are entitled to the greatest possible consideration as well as the commendation of this House and the country.

Deputy Corry's example need not be followed.

Mr. Broderick

When an implication of that sort is made, am I not in order in replying to it?

I have not prevented the Deputy from protesting. He should rest content with what he has said in praise of the board.

Mr. Broderick

There is some merit, I think, in one of Deputy Corry's amendments on the question of a court of appeal. The Minister is now proposing to meet that by appointing a referee and holding himself answerable to the House on the question of the sufficiency, or otherwise, of any compensation paid. I would not care for a proposal to have an appeal to the courts. This was the first time that I ever heard Deputy Linehan advocate anything that would help to add anything to the income of the legal profession.

The amendments submitted have the approval of the executive of the cattle traders' association, and I do not think there is any reason for cavilling at the provision that is being made for a continuance of the great benefit which this scheme confers on the cattle trade. Prior to its introduction our insurance was not half as extensive as it is to-day. Formerly, when cattle were landed alive at the other side that ended all liability. The scheme now proposes to take in the ports in Northern Ireland, so that cattle from the South going through these ports will benefit in the same way as cattle going through our own ports. That will be of enormous help to our producers. There is the greatest possible safeguard in this that any losses entailed will eventually be recouped to the producers.

Amendment No. 7 is before the Committee.

Mr. Broderick

I am speaking on the whole Bill.

Mr. Broderick

This question of an appeal to the courts runs through the whole Bill. I am opposing it. The Minister is prepared to appoint a referee in the case of a dispute, and that, I think, should get over the whole thing.

While I do not want to follow Deputy Broderick in reviewing the merits of this scheme and the advantages that have accrued from it to our live-stock industry, we must, of course, admit that we all have that in the back of our minds when speaking on this.

The Chair heard all that on the Second Stage.

In the case of a compulsory scheme, where an individual is compelled to do something, there is something to be said for the right of appeal to some court. Therefore, I think there was some merit in the original suggestion that there should be some court of appeal. This is a mutual society. The board is elected in a democratic way by the members of the live-stock trade. An opportunity is given periodically to dismiss the personnel of the board if it is felt that the members of it are not performing their duties properly. Obviously, if Deputy Corry's amendment were agreed to, the courts would have the power to mulct the people benefiting by this scheme in considerable costs. In that way, a lot of money might be dissipated. Therefore, I think the amendment brought in by the Minister is a proper one in the circumstances. He will be empowered to nominate a referee to act as a final court of appeal to which any man who feels that he has not been fairly treated can go.

I think it cannot be suggested that any individual has been unfairly treated, or that there was any bias on the part of the board for or against any individual. Their anxiety was to work this scheme honestly and in the best interests of the cattle trade as a whole, and I think they deserve every praise for doing that. But the House must bear in mind that when we legislate here we are not legislating for the purpose of having this scheme operated by any particular board. There may be changes and the working of the scheme in the future may not be performed as well as it is at the present time, so every possible safeguard must be made to protect the interests of individuals. I think this is a proper way of doing it, and it will not involve the society in very much expense.

I support the amendment submitted by the Minister. I support the suggestion that appeals should be made to the referee. I think the provision for a deposit of £10 will be a safeguard so that no fictitious claims will be brought. There must be some substance in an appeal, or else the person making it will lose his deposit.

I have already stated that I am not pressing amendment No. 14, with reference to an appeal to the court, in view of this amendment, which goes a long way to meet my case. By putting down amendment No. 14 and other amendments, I succeeded in getting this amendment from the Government, so my amendments served their purpose, and the submission of this amendment proves I was right in my contention.

I have not the same opinion as Deputy Linehan expressed of his court. Deputy Linehan has so poor an opinion of his court that he has an appeal from the District Court to the Circuit Court, from the Circuit Court to the High Court, and even to the Supreme Court, and those courts are all run by the legal profession. He has such a poor opinion of the legal profession that he is prepared to accept one referee against the whole of them. He seems to have a very poor opinion of the legal profession.

This scheme has been in operation for the past two years without any court of appeal. The amendment that has been submitted by the Minister sets out: "...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...." I entirely agree with that.

I do not want frivolous cases brought before any court. The Minister saw fit to put in this amendment, with the consent of the cattle trade. I should like to pay this tribute to the cattle trade—that they were damn fine canvassers. We could not see a trace of them until my amendments were put down, and then you could not walk down the corridor without falling over one of them.

Mr. Broderick

You galvanised them into life.

I should not like, in this House, to go more fully into their operations.

Perhaps it would be better not to do so.

I could go a bit further if I wanted to. What I am looking for is that the amendment should be made retrospective and applied to the cases that I have quoted. I think we should give that man an opportunity of having those cases tried by a referee. He will have to pay the piper—£10 for each case he brings before the referee. I want to get this ugly matter cleared up and I should like to have this particular clause made retrospective. I am not looking for anything that is unfair. Those matters have been talked about. There are 65 of those cases and I hope the Minister will make the clause retrospective so that this man, who had no redress so far, and who could not go into court owing to the action of the House, will be given an opportunity of having his case heard.

He had no court of appeal. Three or four cattle dealers came together and they said: "We might give him a fiver, or perhaps £10, or nothing at all"—it was just according to their own sweet will. I do not want to impeach them in any way, but those are the facts. This man should have an opportunity of going before the referee. If his case is frivolous, he will be paying £10. I think the Minister ought to accept that suggestion. Let us get rid of this atmosphere of suspicion that has cropped up as to the manner in which the Act has been operated.

Was this man prepared to co-operate, to work the Act in a proper spirit of co-operation from the start, and did he insure his animals for their full value?

Or was it his attitude to try to make the Act unworkable?

I am aware of the whispering campaign that has gone on in the corridors for the past fortnight. That man insured his animals, his milch cows and springer heifers, for £50 each. When he discovered that all the compensation he would get for two animals, after paying £39 in insurance on the lot, was £1 5s., he came to the conclusion that there was no purpose served by wasting his money insuring his animals in that way, and he then proceeded to insure them for 5/- each. He insured 79 cattle for £50 each and he paid £39 for the insurance. Two of the cattle got injured. They were seen by the company's veterinary surgeon and were taken over by the company's agent and salvaged or sold to the knacker, and the amount they realised was 25/-.

Mr. Broderick

Did those cattle come under the terms of the insurance? I asked that question and I could get no answer to it.

Yes, definitely, they came fully under the terms of the insurance, and so did the 65 other cases quoted here.

The board thought otherwise.

Mr. Broderick

The Minister has now answered the question. I am not going to accept that, quite clearly, it was a matter of their own sweet will. Those men who investigated the cases were honourable, intelligent men and they decided on the evidence that came before them. This case that Deputy Corry has referred to would appear, on the face of it, a vindictive act of discrimination. This is a thing that the House could not let go on any group of responsible men. The Minister has answered the question that I put to Deputy Corry and that was: did they come within the terms of the insurance? We must remember that the insurance, the mutual insurance of the cattle trade to-day, is the widest possible type of insurance in this country; yet, wide as it was, those animals did not come within its terms.

I question that statement by the Minister.

What I say is that the board thought they did not come within it.

That is an entirely different thing. I wish to spare the House the reading of these 65 letters. One of them reads:

"In reference to your claim for compensation in respect of one cow (part lot of 101) shipped from Waterford to Frome via Fishguard on 24th February, 1942, I am to inform you that the Board of Assessors who investigated the claim have, by virtue of the powers conferred on them under the above Act, determined that you are not entitled to compensation.”

That man paid £50 10s. in insurance.

What did he lose by the transaction, by the fact that he was not, as the Deputy says, properly compensated?

He paid £50 10s. insurance. He was compelled to pay that insurance by an Act of this House. One of the beasts was injured.

But what did he lose?

He lost £50, the price of the cow.

At how many markets in England were these cattle exposed for sale? In other words, were they hawked around from one market to another?

They were sent from Dublin to Uttoxeter, via Holyhead, from Dublin to Sparkford, via Birhead, from Dublin to Bristol via Birkenhead, from Dublin to Bristol via Holyhead and from Dublin to Sparkford, via Holyhead.

Mr. Brennan

Is that the same cow all the time?

They were all turned down. I object to giving this power to any body of men, and I do not care if they were specially selected by a court of bishops.

The Deputy is not answering the question I asked.

Would the Deputy say why the board of directors turned down the claim? Can he give the House any information as to whether there were any particular circumstances, because there must have been?

That is the one thing we are all looking for. If they gave any reason for turning down the claim, we could take them to the Circuit Court and get the facts, but they were cute enough not to give reason.

Is there not a Cork representative on the board?

I do not know; I expect there is. My objection is an objection to putting in the hands of three or four individuals, who may be competitors of the man whose claim they are dealing with, the power to drive that man out of business.

Mr. Brennan

They could not do that.

I say that under the Act as it stood that power was given to them, and I say further that, were it not for the fact that I brought in these amendments, we would not have the referee now. The insertion of these amendments in connection with the referee proves that my contention was correct.

The Deputy has so contended at least twice in my hearing.

Blame the Opposition, Sir. If I have to fight seven of them, as well as the Minister, you cannot blame me for having to stand up seven times.

There is no objection to the Deputy standing up seven times provided it is not to repeat himself seven times.

Each of them asked the same question.

And we want an answer to it for the sake of information.

There was no reason whatever for the turning down of these claims, any more than any other claim that went before them. Each of these cases was fully covered by insurance, but this Dáil by its Act prevented that man from going to the court and having his grievance ventilated there.

Mr. Broderick

I need not tell the Minister that, as one so closely connected with the Cattle Traders' Association, it is very objectionable to me to be taking a strong line against anybody.

What I am trying to do is to deal with the merits of the measure, but I have a natural feeling of resentment against any implication of unfair treatment or victimisation. Nobody believes the smallest part of any such allegation. I want to ask Deputy Corry one question, and I hope the answer to it will afford some information to the House. How often has this one cattle trader been compensated, and on how many occasions has he been more than pleased with the amount of compensation which the board of directors considered he was justly entitled to?

Considering the number of cattle which this man shipped, he has not got one-sixth of the compensation which smaller cattle dealers than he have got. The proof of the manner in which he was dealt with is here in these 65 cases which were turned down.

Mr. Broderick

Quite clearly, from the Deputy's statement, many other cases were put up to the board of directors. Has this man not been perfectly satisfied with the treatment of him by the board of directors in other cases in which they considered he was legally entitled to compensation?

Sometimes.

Mr. Broderick

Then, in the name of common sense, what is the idea of impeaching a body of this kind? In one case he is amply compensated and feels perfectly satisfied, but in another case, because the board did not give compensation, they are to be impeached as dishonourable and as victimising people. I do not think that is fair.

I am not impeaching anybody. I am only endeavouring to the best of my ability to prevent power being put into the hands of any body of individuals to wipe out others. I have been successful in partly getting rid of that trouble, and all I am asking now is that the Minister should agree to make that section retrospective, so as to enable any cases outstanding to be brought before the referee and dealt with. If he will not agree, I shall have to take the opportunity to put in the amendment for Report Stage.

More things have arisen in this Bill than the House was aware of at the time of its introduction. I do not claim to have any special knowledge of the cattle trade, or of insurance companies either, but a member of the cattle trade, a decent man, met me recently and explained to me the situation in connection with the appointment of the board of directors. He informed me that the executive of the Cattle Traders' Association were not consulted with regard to that part of the Bill dealing with the tenure of office of the board of directors.

That does not arise on this amendment.

It probably does not.

There is no doubt. This amendment deals with an appeal.

I shall not delay the House very long. This man, who is not by any means an admirer of Deputy Corry, told me that Deputy Corry was the first man to point out what was in the Bill, which I believe is now somewhat better. The board of directors sought a life of ten years.

It came from the cattle traders.

It did not, and the cattle traders sought an interview with the Minister for Agriculture very recently, and hence the result of certain amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Brennan

They had several interviews.

I am informed that it did not come from the cattle traders.

The Deputy must reserve that question for some other occasion and deal with amendment No. 7 now.

Before the amendment is put, Sir, I should like to hear the Minister's viewpoint on this.

I only want to answer two points that were raised on this amendment. It is not true at all that the cattle traders were not consulted on this Bill.

That is my information.

The draft Bill was in their hands for some weeks, and each section of the trade went through the Bill before it came to the Dáil at all.

And did not the original proposals come from them?

Yes, and they had every opportunity of seeing the Bill before they came along to me, and I saw them at an hour's notice, before these amendments. Deputy Corry, of course, may claim the credit of starting all this row in connection with these amendments.

And I am the solicitor who briefed him.

I have just as much intelligence as Deputy Hughes, and do not require anyone to brief me.

Whatever the merits are, it would be impossible to make a provision like that retrospective. After all, if certain rules are laid down with regard to the decision of a certain case, these rules must hold until they are changed, and you cannot make a thing like that retrospective; so that the scheme can only come into operation with the passing of this Bill.

Amendment No. 7 agreed to.

With regard to amendment No. 8, I think Deputy Curran is right in saying that the cattle trade were not agreed about this extension of office.

Exactly.

I put this down as a suggestion from Deputy Fagan but I found out that at a meeting of the cattle trade there was no general acceptance of it, and I think it better not to move it.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 3, to delete all from the word "or" in line 33 to the end of the section and substitute the words "or, if the declared value and the appointed minimum value of such animal differ, whichever of the said values is the greater."

This is consequential on Section 3.

Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
Section 6, as amendment, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (1), page 3, to delete lines 38 and 39, and substitute the following: "‘, if the declared value and the appointed minimum value of such animal differ, whichever of the said values is the greater.'"

Amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 go together. They have close connection.

And the decision might be taken on No. 11.

Yes, and there is another amendment, No. 20, consequential to that. I move amendment No. 11:—

To delete sub-section (2), and substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Principal Act is hereby amended in the following respects—

(a) by the insertion before the word "until" of the words "from the time such animal is put on board a ship at a port in the State",

(b) by the deletion of the word "seventy-two" where it occurs and the substitution therefor of the word "eighty-four".

The point made here is that when the original Act was going through it was laid down that the cattle exporter would be covered as regards insurance until the cattle reached their place of destination on the other side, that is, the farm or slaughterhouse to which they were going, or for a period of 72 hours, whichever period was the shorter. If they reached the slaughterhouse or farm in less than 72 hours, then the insurance ceased at that point. It was pointed out to me, however, by the cattle trade that transit has become very much slower than it was when the original Act was brought in two years ago, and they suggested that we should make some extension. There was a difference of opinion about that, but I think that, on the whole, 84 hours is reasonable. There is a certain danger of substitution of our cattle, and that sort of thing, on the other side if you make the period too long, and the best compromise we can arrive at is to put in the figure of 84 hours instead of 72, and if the beast has not reached his destination, then he is not covered.

Is that a proposal of the board or of the cattle trade.

Yes, the cattle trade.

I am rather alarmed about this question of the risk of substitution that the Minister has mentioned. It would be a serious thing if fresh cattle were to be substituted on the other side and public funds mulcted in that way.

Yes, but they pointed out to me that the beast is consigned from here to somewhere.

But there might be cattle there from the previous market.

No. It only covers the beast for 84 hours on his way to where he is consigned to. If he is consigned to some other place afterwards, he is not covered. I think there would be a danger in Deputy Corry's amendment of giving 12 hours after the arrival of the beast at his destination, because if there were a sick beast on the farm they might substitute a beast that had just arrived.

Does the Minister mean that the beast is only covered for 84 hours if he has not arrived?

Yes, at the outside.

But if he has arrived, he is covered up to the time he has arrived.

Yes, and he must be on his way in any case.

Deputy Corry's amendment might be considered.

I am quite satisfied. I was looking for more than I really wanted.

Amendment No. 11 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Is Deputy Corry moving amendment No. 15?

That is the Minister's amendment.

The Deputy probably has the wrong list of amendments. This is list No. 3.

Mr. Brennan

What does it relate to?

To the first seven days' notice.

Very well. I shall not move the amendment.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

It is proposed to delete Section 10.

Section 10 not moved.
SECTION 11.

I move amendment No. 16:—

In sub-section (1), page 4, lines 10 and 11, to delete the words "or the appointed minimum value of such animal" and substitute the words "or, if the declared value and the appointed minimum value of such animal differ,".

This again is consequential to Section 3.

Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.

I move amendment No. 17:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii), page 4, to delete lines 30 to 35 and to substitute the words "set out in the appropriate Customs Form,".

In connection with amendments Nos. 17 and 18, I should like to say that it was overlooked in the drafting of this Bill that cattle going over the Border do not carry a health certificate as they do at the ports, and so what we have done here is to substitute the customs form for the health form used at the ports. It has the same effect, providing that the exporter is in any way honest. He fills up both forms.

Amendment No. 17 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:—

In sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (c).

Amendment No. 18 agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 19:—

In sub-section (1), page 5, line 28, to delete the words "or the appointed minimum value of such animal" and substitute the words "or, if the declared value and the appointed minimum value of such animal differ,".

Amendment No. 19 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:—

In sub-section (2), page 5, to delete the words "seventy-two" where it occurs in lines 37 and 42, and substitute in each case the word "eighty-four".

This is consequential on No. 11.

Amendment No. 20 agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 21:—

To delete, in page 6, lines 12 to 16, and substitute the following:—

(i) the owner or the personal representative of the owner of the animals shall not take proceedings against such company claiming damages in respect of such loss or damage;

(ii) the board may, in the name and on behalf of such owner or personal representative, take such proceedings.

I think the object of this amendment is obvious to anybody. When a claim is paid, the board naturally has the salvage, and has also the right to take action against the carrying company for any loss that may have been sustained. We do not want the insured person also to have an action against the carrying company.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

When will the Report Stage be taken?

I only got those amendments on Wednesday last. I want to put in an amendment to a new section which I only got last Wednesday, namely, this section covering the referee. I wanted to put in an amendment to that section, and I think I have the right to get an opportunity of doing so.

It depends on the House.

Mr. Broderick

If there were any really serious feeling of loss in the mind of anybody, I certainly would like that some opportunity should be given to them of bringing their cases. If there is any feeling that a substantial and considerable loss has been sustained without thorough investigation, I certainly would feel that they should get some reasonable opportunity of stating their case.

Deputy Corry must realise that we will not be meeting until 3rd February, and there are provisions in this Bill which are very necessary and, I suppose we might claim, urgent, including this appeals section. Of course the principal matter in the Bill is the application of the provisions of the original Act to the North of Ireland. Perhaps Deputy Corry would get a friend of his to move the amendment in the Seanad, and we could then see what it was possible to do in regard to the matter.

This is my place, not the Seanad.

If the Deputy wants to hold it up until 3rd February——

I do not wish to hold it up, but in view of the statements that have been made both here and outside in connection with this particular matter I am anxious to give this gentleman an opportunity either of proving his cases or eating his words. He will have to pay the piper for proving his cases.

Does the Deputy seriously oppose the Report Stage or not?

I should like to ask whether or not the Minister will put in that amendment? I will leave it in the Minister's hands.

I have not seen the amendment, but I think it is impossible. If Deputy Corry gets it moved in the Seanad, I am quite prepared to consider it, but I cannot give any undertaking that I will accept it.

Mr. Brennan

I am very anxious to see the Bill passed to-day, because it is for the benefit of the people, and there would possibly be very serious loss even between this and the early days of February. While I am not at all convinced that there is anything in the case which Deputy Corry has made with regard to this particular gentleman—I do not know anything about the case myself, and the Deputy has not told us the circumstances, or what accidents those cattle met with—at the same time, from the point of view of procedure, if any Deputy feels that he has a grievance I think we ought not to establish a precedent by letting the Bill out of the House without giving ample opportunity for having it amended. We have not been accustomed to doing that. It is a question of procedure in the House. But I think Deputy Corry would be well advised to withdraw his objection and, as the Minister rightly suggested, let some of his friends move it in the Seanad. I do not think he has made a good case here, and I am sure he could make at least an equally good case in the Seanad. On a point of procedure, I think Deputy Corry is entitled to his rights and, if he insists on them, I do not see how we can push the Bill against him.

I do not want to be unreasonable, but this man considers that he has lost £5,000. Let us see the case tried. This Dáil, by Act of Parliament, has deprived him of the right to go to a court to prove his case.

The Deputy has said that often enough.

That is the reason why I want to see that this man gets some opportunity of taking his case to some tribunal. I cannot be a party to closing the door to that.

Is the Deputy opposing the Report Stage?

The Deputy claims his rights.

It can be decided in the normal way by vote of the House if necessary.

Is there only one man in question?

Why should the board have the right to single out one man for victimisation?

Mr. Broderick

I think the suggestion made by the Minister is most reasonable; Deputy Corry could get his amendment moved in the Seanad. He will have plenty of time to put up the whole case to the Minister, and I am sure the Minister will consider it on its merits. I think it would be very unfair to the entire trade, particularly to those who are trading with the North of Ireland and who are paying those insurance contributions, to hold up the Bill until February. We are anxious that everyone should be satisfied. No one is more anxious than I am that this gentleman who claims that he has sustained a serious loss should be satisfied that the board has decided the case on its merits. At the same time, I would ask Deputy Corry to accept the Minister's suggestion and get the amendment moved in the Seanad. It would be very unfair to the trade to hold the matter over until the Dáil meets in February. I am sure the Minister will consider the whole circumstances of the case, and deal with the matter in the Seanad.

What objection can there be on the part of any reasonable persons, unless they are afraid of the truth coming out——

Mr. Brennan

Nonsense.

What objection can there be to having this case tried by the referee whom the Minister is now appointing under this section? That is all I am looking for.

I only think that there may be practical and legal objections to getting anything like this done retrospectively. I have not heard of it being done before. Under the system of appeals in the courts, and so on, it is never done retrospectively. I think it would be impossible to do it. However, I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with Deputy Corry, if he wishes to have an amendment moved in the Seanad. This Bill would not come up in the Seanad until next week, if it goes through here to-day, and we would have time to consider the amendment in the meantime.

There is one point which I think the House might consider. If there is any danger of any reflection being cast on the character, good name or integrity of this board by insinuations of this character, I think the best way to safeguard the interests and good name of the board, and clear the public mind of any doubts which might arise as a result of what has been said in this House would be to give an opportunity of reviewing this case. Let us remember that this gentleman will have to put down a deposit of £10 per beast in order to have the case reviewed. If he feels that it is worth risking the loss of a further £10 a beast, he must be convinced that his grievance is a real one. If there is any danger of any reflection being cast on the good name of this board, I think it might be as well to have this examination, in order to show that this business is being properly and sincerely and honestly conducted in the best interests of the people.

Is the House taking the Report Stage now, or not? There is nothing before the House but a proposal to take the Report Stage now. That is the only question at present, and it should be decided quickly.

The House should decide whether Deputy Corry ought to get an opportunity of putting in his amendment.

That amounts to the same.

All that Deputy Corry is asking the Minister is whether the case he has in mind can be submitted to the referee.

Can this Bill be made retrospective, so that the cases to which I referred can come before the referee? These men have been deprived of any court of appeal.

It is nothing at all contrary to procedure or precedent to take the Report Stage now, if the House so desires. I am, therefore, putting the question: "That the Exported Live Stock (Insurance) Bill, 1942, be now reported—the Report Stage taken."

The Deputy may be recorded as dissenting, or does he want to challenge a division?

Yes, Sir. Has the Deputy no right to put in an amendment?

Deputy Broderick rose.

Both Deputies will resume their seats. A division has been challenged.

Question:—"That the Report Stage of the Exported Live Stock (Insurance) Bill, 1942, be taken now"—put, and declared carried.
Question:—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put, and agreed to.
Question:—"That the Bill, do now pass"—put, and agreed to.
Top
Share