Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jan 1926

Vol. 6 No. 7

CLAIMS BY IRISH LIVE STOCK OWNERS. - MOTION BY SENATOR COUNIHAN.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I move:—

"That in the opinion of the Seanad the time has now arrived to settle finally the question of the responsibility for payment of compensation for Irish live stock slaughtered by order of the British Ministry for Agriculture on the occasion of the foot and mouth disease outbreaks at what are known as foreign wharfs or landing places in Great Britain, and further, that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture be requested to take steps to ensure the immediate settlement of the claims of Free State citizens whose stock was slaughtered owing to this cause in the outbreak of 1923."

The question of payment of compensation to owners of Irish live stock that was slaughtered in Great Britain concerns a very large number of the people of this country. At present Irish cattle or any cattle landing in British ports may, by order of the British Minister of Agriculture, be destroyed owing to fear of the spread of foot and mouth disease, and although the cattle are free from disease, no compensation is given. Under the Importation Order made by the British Government in 1920, the British Minister of Agriculture may do that at any time. No compensation can be secured by the owners of the cattle. Senators will realise why people who are engaged in the live stock export trade wish to have this menace removed and of being placed in a secure position.

To a large extent this Order has contributed to the falling off of exports of live stock from Ireland during the past twelve months. The export of cattle was affected because of fear on the part of the owners that the stock would be held up at any particular time, then slaughtered, and no compensation paid. We have suggested that this Order should be removed on terms that would be fair and equitable to the parties concerned. We have suggested that the Irish Government should be responsible for Irish live stock landed in Great Britain until they were passed as sound after ten hours' detention, and that the British Government should then pay if the stock was detained at the port for any other reason. The question must be settled if the cattle trade is to prosper. The exporters of Irish live stock require all the facilities that it is possible to give them to carry on their trade.

We have been told that this Order was made by the British Government, and that the Irish Government cannot interfere. I do not agree with that. It is true that we send possibly 97 per cent. of our live cattle to England, but it is also true that 97 per cent. of our imports are from England. That position could be made the basis of a good bargain. I am not advocating any reprisals against England. I want to encourage and foster trade with England in every possible way because it is to our advantage to do so. At the same time I cannot believe that if our Minister for Agriculture, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, met the British Minister of Agriculture, who, fortunately, is another Irishman, and discussed the matter, with the goodwill that exists between the three Governments at the present time, and the expressed desire to help and assist one another, I cannot see why they should not be able to come to an understanding.

The second part of the motion deals with the outbreak of 1923. In that year a number of Irish exporters sent cattle to Great Britain. The animals were perfectly sound and healthy and were passed as such after the ten hours detention. An outbreak of disease was reported in the vicinity of the port. The cattle were put into quarantine and left there for some time. Although there was no suspicion of any disease, the British Minister of Agriculture ordered that the cattle should be slaughtered. The animals were slaughtered, but the owners have never got one farthing compensation. I think it is a discreditable and a monstrous proceeding, that owners whose stock was destroyed for the public good should not receive compensation.

Mr. JOSEPH O'CONNOR

In supporting the motion I may state that I am practically the oldest authority on foot and mouth disease in Ireland. I remember the first outbreak that occurred about 55 years ago. Animals suffering from the disease at that time, when there were no restrictions, were allowed to recover. I never saw a fatal case. The cattle, after getting sick, suffered for a time, but after that they got well. The peculiar thing is, that what they lost in condition during the disease they made up subsequently. We had another outbreak 34 years ago, but the restrictions then were not so stringent as they were after the outbreak of 1912. We also had an outbreak in 1911 at Ballysax, near the Curragh. My reason in mentioning that is that I desire to blame the British Government for their negligence in allowing the disease to come into the country. A family that lived near the Curragh—most respectable people—had a contract with the officers' mess, and got the offal. In that was packing and litter that came from France, where the disease was widespread.

To my mind the origin of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease was as I have said. What I want to convey is that the British Government was responsible for allowing this foot and mouth disease to come into Ireland. It came in in the way I have stated, through foreign packing material such as straw. We in this country were accused by the British of having the disease in the country and not reporting it. At one time there was a very widespread belief to that effect, and the Minister for Lands and Agriculture is well aware of that, and at one time he had to make a public statement that there was no such disease in Ireland. Cattle dealers in this country, over and over again in the time of the British Government, and even since, have made representations suggesting the prohibition of the importation of foreign packing material from countries where this disease is known to be in existence. At one time, when that representation was made to a late Minister of Agriculture in England, the cattle dealers were told that it would be a serious thing to interfere with the importation of wines from France. I might tell the Minister, and we in the Seanad know it, that the importation of wines was a very small matter in comparison with the protection of the cattle industry, and most of them considered it was a very silly case to put up when they were attempting to fix the responsibility for foot and mouth disease.

Now, coming to the question of the slaughter of these cattle, I honestly contend in fairness to the cattle trade that there was a very great amount of panicky legislation and administration adopted in order to cope with the outbreak. It was only within the last week that Mr. Hill, a gentleman connected with the Board of Agriculture in England, stated publicly his belief that these outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in England originated in France, and were brought over here through material used in packing goods that were imported into England. That really is the only correct explanation as to the origin of the outbreak. For the last fifty-five years the most scientific people in the veterinary line have been trying to discover the origin of this germ, and how it is introduced. But it is one of those things that has baffled the experts up to the present, and it is greatly to be regretted that as yet no preventative has been discovered. We consider it a great injustice that cattle should be slaughtered because of this disease, and no compensation given to the owner. This is done for the benefit of the general public, and it appears unfair and unjust that the owner of the cattle should suffer, as many of them have suffered already in this way. It is not what we would expect from the Minister for Lands and Agriculture here. We are as anxious as anybody could be to preserve the good name of our cattle, and we resent the imputation that we are not in favour of keeping out the disease, and that we do not appreciate the importance of having a clean bill of health.

We know that at present we have to depend on England and Scotland for the sale of our cattle. We, therefore, want to have our cattle in the best possible condition. I respectfully ask the Minister for Lands and Agriculture to see that no such gap as exists at present should remain open between the time the cattle leave Ireland (when the Irish Government is responsible for them) and the time they arrive in England or Scotland. We think that in the interval after the cattle leave Ireland, and until the detention period is over, compensation should be allowed to the owner in case of the slaughter of the cattle. It has always been held as a fair and equitable principle that anything done for the benefit of the public should be paid for out of the public purse. It seems to me rather a pity that in an industry like that of the Irish cattle industry, which amounts to many millions, that this small matter of £5,000 or £10,000 should stand in the way of justice being done to people who have suffered through having their cattle slaughtered while the cattle are in the detention lairages. These people were simply caught in a trap. We say that the cattle trade of Ireland requires a certain chain of safety from Ireland to any part of England or Scotland. And we say that they should be protected either at this side or at the other side, and we say that they should not be slaughtered unless the owner gets compensation.

I understand that a good number of these cattle come from Derry or from the port of Belfast, and some of them belong to people in the Northern area. That suggests that when the matter is one for the three Governments that it should be more sympathetically treated. We do not want to put down the liability to the British Government. We have sufficient faith in our own country to ask that the Government here would come to the rescue of those men and restore to them the heavy sums which they have lost owing to the slaughter of their cattle. There is no doubt that something ought to be done for these people. That would give a great deal of security to the people engaged in the trade, and it would encourage them to launch out into bigger business. I do not want to throw bouquets at the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, but I do say that he has been identified with one of the best Acts that was ever passed for this country, that is, the Live Stock Breeding Act, a measure that will increase the value of the Irish cattle trade by more than five millions annually in a few years time.

We are very glad indeed to have Mr. Hogan at the head of this important Department of the Government, and for that reason we say it is all the more a matter for shame that because of a small sum of £5,000 or £10,000 that an injury should be done to some of our people. I do not expect that the forensic ability of the Minister will seek to convince us that this is not a liability that the Government should in the first instance shoulder. I therefore respectfully urge on the Minister to use his influence to have this question brought to a satisfactory conclusion and to satisfy the people who are dependent on the cattle trade that they will not risk being ruined through having their cattle slaughtered. Such an act would inspire the people in the trade to go about their business with less misgiving and with greater heart. I want the Government to close up this gap, and I respectfully ask the Seanad to pass this resolution.

EARL of KERRY

I must say that until I saw this motion under Senator Counihan's name on the Order Paper I did not know anything whatever about the facts. It seems to me, however, that two things are established, and that there is more in this than meets the eye. In the first place, we have it that people who have had their cattle slaughtered at British ports have not received compensation. Now, is there any reason why people who have suffered this loss should not receive exactly the same compensation as has been given to hundreds and thousands of people who have their cattle slaughtered by the order of the Minister of Agriculture?

Those who do not look with favour on the British Minister of Agriculture contend that some people have got more than the value of the animals that have been slaughtered. That being so, I would like if those who lost their cattle got compensation. If that is established it is also clear that the owners of cattle are not in a position to extract full compensation from the recalcitrant British Minister of Agriculture. The Irish Government should in the first place make themselves responsible for this. The individual should not be allowed to suffer, and the Saorstát Government should make themselves responsible for the admitted loss. Surely the Government here would be able to extract this from the British Government. It is like the double income tax. On this point I would say that we should insist on having some clearing house to adjust the difficulties that may arise from time to time between the two countries. Questions of this kind must frequently arise between the two countries as there would be cases of money due from one Government to the other. It would be easy for the Saorstát Government in a well-established case of this sort to get the money back. I think it is only right and fair that the Government should see that individuals who are suffering should be compensated.

Dr. GOGARTY

I wish to support the motion. The difficulty in this case seems to be on which Government to fix the blame. This is an example of what arose in 1923. Most people do not require any more experience of public life to know that if you have two Governments to deal with, then they have two methods of escaping between them, each blames the other, and the man who suffers loss is left to an ad misericordiam appeal. That is what will happen here. Now the sum is not very large—five or six thousand pounds, but its importance lies in the fact that it may extend under future conditions. At present the trap is still open. What I mean is that any small cattle dealer sending his cattle forward not for immediate slaughter comes within the risk of this foot-and-mouth disease breaking out, and a panic may arise at any moment in any areas in England or Scotland, and the cattle sent over to be finished will be slaughtered. As these cattle are sent more or less at owners' risk there will be no compensation. These people suffer a great injustice. In the case of large companies no great hardship obtains because they are able to take precautions against this matter. But what is the position of the cattle owner sending over his beast? No insurance company will insure for more than 60 per cent. of the value of the beast, and they charge 3/6 a head, and in addition the value of the beast is at their own discretion. Now that 3/6 is a charge against enterprise and against the small cattle traders in this country, but the compensation given does not cover the full value of the beast.

It does not cover the value of the beast within forty per cent. and this trap is still open. Anyone may land a beast and at the very moment it may seem good to the Minister for Agriculture to bring down the guillotine with something of the panic of 1923, when it was suggested that we were the originators of the foot-and-mouth disease. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated. It touches the whole root of our cattle trade, particularly when there is an idea that foot and mouth disease is prevalent at these ports. It means in the long run that the Irish Government will have to act as sponsors for the cattle between leaving the Irish ports and getting over the ten hours' or whatever limit of time there will be for the quarantine. The position at present is one where the Government will abandon the responsibility and the man will be left without any compensation.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I think that any fair minded man will say that any shipper of cattle who suffers loss by having his cattle slaughtered deserves compensation and the question is who should compensate him. The cattle came from this country having a clean bill of health. They were held up in a port against the will of the sender for a certain time, at any rate long enough for the foot and mouth disease to occur, and all the cattle were slaughtered. Fortunately that happens to be a matter in which both north and south are concerned. We have not heard the Minister's statement, and I have no doubt that our anxiety will be relieved in a few minutes, when the Minister for Agriculture will tell us whether it is a subject which he discussed with the Northern Minister for Agriculture. It is quite clear that both north and south have suffered in the same way. Whether any action has been taken by the Minister for Agriculture or not I do not know, but clearly it is a case in which north and south can make common cause. I presume the Northern Government would have to pay for the damage as well as we should. It was ordered by the British Minister of Agriculture and he is liable for compensation to the owners.

The EARL of MAYO

This motion is a very important one and I desire to support it. It seems to me that the point is this, that on a certain occasion a certain number of cattle from the North of Ireland were held up during ten hours, and during that ten hours, there occurring an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, they were promptly slaughtered. I can understand that, because the cattle could not be moved, but it is hard lines on the people who sent the cattle and they ought to be compensated. When you have to deal with three Government Departments and, perhaps, an extra one thrown in, the arrangement of a small matter—it is a small matter now when we talk in millions—of five or six thousand pounds is difficult. As Senator O'Connor says we have now got an Irishman as the British Minister of Agriculture, and I believe he will do his best with regard to paying some of this. I do not know that he will pay it all. I also hear that two departments on the other side are involved in this matter. I may as well tell the Seanad that I shall take it on myself to see Colonel Guinness and ask him what he is going to do, and in the event of not getting a satisfactory answer I shall put a question down in the House of Lords.

Mr. JAMESON

We should all welcome a statement from the Minister on the subject. I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever as to the opinion of the Senators on the resolution of Senator Counihan, and when we think that a sum of £4,000,000 is being paid by the British Government to the British agriculturists whose cattle had been slaughtered it seems an extraordinary thing that our Irish exporters whose cattle were slaughtered in British ports for the good of British agriculturists should be left to get their money from nobody. I do not know whether the Irish Government should pay it or not. In justice to our own subjects I think it is up to them to pay it if they cannot get the British Government to do it. Certainly they should make every effort to get the British Government to pay everything that in a court of equity would seem to be a case against them. I have no doubt our Minister has done his best. As he is here we would be all pleased if he would tell us all about the matter. To the ordinary citizen it seems a hard case indeed, and with Senator Lord Mayo we do not like to hear that the British Ministry have not met us in the matter in a fair open way.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan)

Firstly it is necessary to give a short history of the case. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, all cattle slaughtered in Ireland by order of the Department of Agriculture were paid for by the State. That was also the position in England until 1923. Under the Importation of Animals Act, 1922— the Act took effect as from 1923—the British modified that position so far as cattle slaughtered in England were concerned. They had admitted liability for cattle slaughtered in England no matter where they came from except cattle slaughtered at the landing stations which are a kind of quarantine, and the normal time for cattle to remain there is ten hours. That is the regulation, but the time may be extended.

EARL of MAYO

By whom?

Mr. HOGAN

By the British Minstry. This regulation is made in England, and the Act allows great extension That is rather an important point. The position, therefore, at the moment in view of the two Acts, the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, is that all cattle slaughtered in Ireland by order of the Department of Agriculture on account of foot-and-mouth disease are paid for by Irish taxation through the Irish Department. All cattle slaughtered in England, no matter where they come from, on account of foot-and-mouth disease, are paid for by England with one exception—that is, where cattle are slaughtered at the landing-places. The landing-place is a quarantine station, and under the regulations the maximum time is ten hours for the cattle to remain there. The point is, who is to pay for any cattle slaughtered within the ten hours. In theory, the British must assume that cattle slaughtered in what is supposed to be a quarantine station, contracted the disease somewhere else. That is the theory, but everyone, including the English Minister, knows that cattle contracted the foot-and-mouth disease in England as a result of certain mistakes which I do not want to go into, but which were admitted by the Inquiry set up to go into the question. In any event, they refused to pay. Their attitude is: "No reasons are necessary. We have passed an Act of Parliament setting up this quarantine station, and cannot accept liability for animals slaughtered there. It is not our business."

Our position is equally simple. It is our business to pay for cattle slaughtered in Ireland. We have no other liability. We make those payments, but will not pay for cattle slaughtered in England.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Imported cattle.

Mr. HOGAN

Any cattle slaughtered in England, whether imported or not. It is not like the income tax question, where everyone is agreed that the methods are unsatisfactory. It is not a simple question of that sort. There is a big question of principle, a question which if wrongly handled would land the Irish taxpayer not into an expenditure of £5,000, or £6,000, but by the setting-up of a bad precedent, into an expenditure in the future of £500,000 or £600,000. We are asked to admit liability for cattle slaughtered in England. I was asked what was the maximum time for which cattle should be kept at a landing-place. I said ten hours. That is the regulation. The Act empowers regulations to be made by which that can be extended for a much longer time.

That is only the first step. When cattle land in England they are detained for a certain time in a landing-place on a quarantine station. The next step is that they are slaughtered or taken to a market and disposed of there, but either before or after they go to the market they must be detained by the purchaser or the original importer in a farm for six days. That period could also be extended. You have, therefore, various stages. First, the animal lands, and spends a certain time fixed by regulation in a quarantine. Then it must spend a certain definite time in a definite place. That is really no hardship, because it can go to the market, be disposed of there, and then be taken to the purchaser. It can also be brought to the farm before the market, kept there for six days, and then bought by anyone who can keep it on his farm for four or five days. It is no hardship. There are two stages—one, the detention of ten hours, and then the detention of six days. Both of these periods can be extended, and other stages can be added.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If the disease is found after the ten hours are over, but during the six days' detention or extended period when the animals are slaughtered, do they still refuse compensation?

Mr. HOGAN

No.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It is only where they are slaughtered within the ten hours.

Mr. HOGAN

The point I wish to make now is that we ought to be extremely careful not to do anything which directly or indirectly would influence the British Government in extending that state of affairs.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If the cattle are slaughtered because they are found to be suffering from disease during the ten hours, one perhaps could understand that there should be no compensation, but does the rule of no compensation equally apply during the ten hours that animals without disease are slaughtered as a matter of precaution?

Mr. HOGAN

Senator Counihan stated that animals are slaughtered on suspicion. They are not. They are only slaughtered if the suspicion is confirmed or if they are in contact with animals that are affected. They are not slaughtered on suspicion.

EARL of KERRY

But there may be hundreds of contacts, and these may be perfectly all right.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, and they are all slaughtered.

Mr. COUNIHAN

In the case of the 1923 outbreak they were slaughtered, not after ten hours, but in come cases ten days after.

Mr. HOGAN

I cannot say that. I was under the impression that they were slaughtered within the ten hours. They were slaughtered within the quarantine station, and I understood that the trouble arose during the ten hours. I presume they were slaughtered as the trouble arose while they were in quarantine. I repeat that cattle are never slaughtered on suspicion. They are slaughtered on suspicion confirmed by a V.S., or in contact with other cattle that are affected by foot-and-mouth disease.

CATHAOIRLEACH

All that is admittedly done in the interests and for the protection of the English cattle?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Why should not the English people pay for it then?

Mr. HOGAN

We have been in touch with the Northern Government on this matter since the thing happened in the year 1923. They see eye to eye with us in our attitude on this matter. We put the proposition to the British Government that they should pay. They refused. We put it to them again very strongly and they refused. As I say, they explained their refusal probably on the ground that this is a quarantine station. Whatever mistakes there may be, we cannot admit liability for what happens in a quarantine station, because the whole thing would fall to the ground if the quarantine station was not water-tight. As I say, we put up the proposition to them and they refused. We went further, although I was rather against going further, and I know that there was a considerable searching of hearts in the North about going further. We did go further, and we put up the proposition that if we could prove that in fact the infection did not take place in Ireland, would they pay, and they refused. I do not know whether I was sorry or glad that they refused, because again that principle might be extended very far. Anyway, we are in the unfortunate position at the moment that we pay, and the farmer is in the fortunate position that we pay for all cattle slaughtered in Ireland by our order.

The British pay for cattle slaughtered whether Irish, Canadian or any other class except cattle slaughtered in the quarantine station. Now, we must be extremely careful not to do anything by Governmental action which would establish a precedent for the British Government to suggest, and perhaps to legislate to make a suggestion good, that we should carry this a step further and pay for all cattle not only slaughtered in the quarantine station but slaughtered during the ten days' detention I have mentioned, or slaughtered during any other stage. If anyone will consider this they will see that there are numerous possibilities in it capable of all sorts of permutations and of combinations. We might very easily get on to the question where the British would say that they would not pay for Irish cattle that had been imported within a week, a fortnight, or a month. They might say that they would not pay for Irish cattle except on certain definite conditions.

Our attitude to the British is that they have got to pay for all cattle slaughtered on the other side, and we have carried that point except so far as the quarantine station is concerned. We do not want to do anything which would create a precedent, especially for the sake of the very small sum of money, comparatively speaking, that is involved. It was pointed out here by some Senators that the sum involved was extremely small. It was pointed out in the same connection that in this dilemma where you have three Governments sparring over a question like this the unfortunate individual is going to suffer. But I ask is there not a fourth party, and I am surprised that no one has thought about mentioning it. What about the cattle traders themselves? I understood Senator Counihan to say that the loss of this small sum of money was responsible, to some extent at any rate, for the decrease in the exports of cattle.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I did not say that. What I did say was that the foot-and-mouth disease on the other side was preventing exporters from speculating to the extent that they otherwise would.

Mr. HOGAN

I understood the Senator to say that as a result of the uncertainty——

Mr. COUNIHAN

The danger of being caught in the ports on the other side.

Mr. HOGAN

That as a result of this uncertainty exporters were unwilling to consign cattle across to the same extent as heretofore, and that this particular uncertainty had something to do and had some connection with, the decrease in the export of Irish cattle this year. The suggestion has no contact at all with the realities of the situation. Foot-and-mouth disease has been in England since 1923. It has probably been more severe since 1923 than during any other period in which an outbreak occurred. Anyone who knows the conditions under which cattle are quarantined on the other side knows well that it is only a fifty-to-one chance that what occurred in connection with these Fleetwood cattle could occur again. The results of the inquiry that was held into it were rather startling from the point of view of administration by the British Ministry.

It is perfectly certain that a sum of £5,000 would cover the risks under this for an average period of 20 years. The disease breaks out in England on an average, say, once every eight or nine years. This last outbreak has been the most severe that has occurred in England in our memory; it has been going on now for four years. The sum involved here is roughly £4,000. That would be the amount of compensation. Half the cattle were owned by individuals residing in the North, and half by individuals residing in the South. The North are about equally interested with us. The cattle traders themselves admit that a sum of £4,000 or £5,000 would cover the loss. I imagine if a sum of £10,000 were put up, that it would make the position absolutely safe for ever afterwards. That is what the risk comes to. I am not suggesting the insurance of cattle for a moment. In good times the insurance is not worth the money. The expenses are too many and the premiums are too high. What I do suggest is that the cattle trade should organise and put up a sum of £5,000. That would cover them for the next twenty years and would enable them to meet the liabilities of these unfortunate individuals who have suffered. We must look at the question not only from the point of view of these individuals, but from the point of view of the cattle trade. I have the greatest sympathy with these individuals, some of them small men in the trade who have lost 40 or 50 cattle each. They are broken, and from that point of view the position could not be more serious. But looking at it from the point of view of the trade as a whole, I ask myself is it a case in which the Government should establish this percedent? The Northern Government are quite clear that it is not, and I am equally clear that it is not.

As I say I have the greatest sympathy with the unfortunate men who have lost. We all profess the greatest sympathy with them and a tremendous interest in the cattle industry. The one thing we will not do is a little amount of organisation that would be necessary for the cattle trade to put up £5,000 or £7,000 as a lump sum to provide against risks of this kind. The compound interest on that sum of money would secure the trade during secula seculorum against a risk of this kind. Rather than do that the cattle trade have come to me with the suggestion that we should pay, and that we should bring in a Bill levying a certain amount on the live stock that leave Ireland. That would get us out of a temporary difficulty, but I am perfectly satisfied that if we were to establish such a precedent it would get us into a very permanent difficulty.

Colonel MOORE

There is just one little point that I would like to have cleared up. The Minister spoke of ten hours and he afterwards spoke of a number of days. I understood that some of these cattle were delayed for nine or ten hours and some for a still longer period through no fault of theirs, and it was during this second period, I understand, that the cattle were slaughtered.

Mr. HOGAN

Let me explain. The period at present is nine or ten hours, but under the Act it might be nine or ten days. I am not prepared to say that the period for 1923 might not be twelve or twenty-four hours. They have power to extend under the Act of 1923, but the period at the present time is ten hours.

Colonel MOORE

I do not know that the Minister is quite certain about the period, and of course neither am I. My information was that they were kept longer than the period they should have been detained whether that period of quarantine was nine or ten hours. But it was after that period that they were slaughtered in the quarantine station, and that makes the difficulty. I do not see myself how it is worked out, but I think that it ought to be explained.

Mr. JAMESON

I have listened as carefully as I could to the debates and I have tried to understand what the case is. There are two cases, as I understand, made: one is that in the first part of the resolution, which applies, I take it, to the future, when the Minister says that a sum of £10,000 or something of that kind, if raised by the cattle trade and invested with interest would more than meet the claims that would be likely to be made against them in the next twenty years. That is a question between the Minister and the cattle trade. I do not know why we should interfere, but that does not dispose of the case of the men whose cattle were lost in 1923. The Minister admits that some of these men were broken—I use his own words—by not being paid for their cattle. I think that is a point that appeals to everybody in the Seanad. It does seem to be a very hard case if these men are to be let down between the two Governments. I do not know whether I understood the Minister to mean that if the Irish Government themselves took the matter in hand and decided that these men should be paid, that that would be establishing such a precedent that we would have great losses piled up against Ireland in the future. If this could be dealt with as an ex gratia grant and these men cleared of their loss, and leave the future to be dealt with by the trade themselves, I think the whole of this House at any rate would agree. The Minister ought to ask for a grant for those men who lost their cattle on account of the action taken by the British Government on the occasion complained of. If this is only a question of four or five thousand pounds I do not think it is worth raising an international question upon the subject. I would be inclined to think our Ministry would be taking only a just and right action if they dealt with this matter themselves in the manner I suggest.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I am glad that Senator Jameson made that suggestion and it seems to me that if the cattle trade would make provision for the future the danger of creating a precedent of the nature suggested by the Minister would be obviated. I think if the Minister made the suggestion that if the cattle trade made provision for the future, he would deal with the past, would be a way out.

The EARL of MAYO

The Minister mentioned three Acts. The Act of 1923 and another, and yet another. Were there three Acts?

Mr. HOGAN

I mentioned two, but in the discussion that followed it looked like three. I mentioned the Act of 1894 and the Act of 1923.

Mr. KENNEDY

I would like to say a few words upon this matter. This is a case where cattle were held up in England in the lairs. As far as I can understand, since 1911 and 1912, there has been no case of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. There had been reports of foot-and-mouth disease from different parts of Ireland for two or three years, but when the European war started foot-and-mouth disease ceased until 1923, but even then I am quite confident there was no case of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland at all. Now, the cases of slaughter mentioned here occurred in the English lairs, and as we are aware there had been foot-and-mouth disease in different parts of England—one day in one part of the country, and another day fifty miles away. I think it is very unfair that those men who sent over their cattle to England should be kept out of their money now for nearly three years. Whatever regulations may be made in the future, these men should be paid for their losses.

The Minister for Agriculture should bring about some consultation between himself and the Minister for Northern Ireland and the British Minister in order to have these cases settled. It is too long to keep these people out of their money. It was the first case of the kind for ten years. Irish cattle had not been held to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease for ten years previously, and it is my contention that these cattle contracted that disease in the English lairs, and if that is so ought not England to be responsible? I say the responsibility rests with them. They were very glad to get our cattle during the war. Now I dare say some of them prefer the Canadian cattle. I say now, looking at the matter not from the narrow point of view, our Minister for Agriculture should, together with the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland, and in conjunction with the British Minister for. Agriculture, try to secure a settlement for those men irrespective of what may be done in the future. I am quite sure the Minister for Agriculture will do his best to see that these men are paid. I say it is time to settle this matter, and I am sure the House will be unanimous in passing this resolution.

Mr. LINEHAN

I wish to deal with one point raised by the Minister in his objection to this motion. All the material points that have been put by Senator Counihan have been admitted. It is admitted that a number of these poor people suffered from the action of the British Ministry in slaughtering their cattle in 1923. But the point of objection put by the Minister is that if they admitted liability for the slaughter of cattle within the ten hours detention it is possible that the British Government might extend that period to ten days or to ten months, and that, as a matter of fact, they might extend it to the slaughter of any Irish cattle in districts where the disease has broken out. I think there is not very much foundation for that fear on the part of the Minister. The British Ministry of Agriculture are sensible people. They are anxious to facilitate the trade in Irish cattle, so that there will be cheap food for the people of England. And I think he may put out of his head any possibility of their extending the period for slaughter without compensation if he joins with the Minister for Northern Ireland in paying this very small sum to the poor people affected. I put it in that way. I do not think that this will create any precedent, and especially as it is so long now since the loss of these cattle occurred.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I should like to ask one question. Have the owners of the cattle from Northern Ireland that were slaughtered on this occasion, been compensated, and if so, by whom?

Mr. COUNIHAN

I did not intend this motion which I put down on the paper as a vote of censure on the Minister for Agriculture or upon the Government. I meant merely to influence the Minister in dealing with this situation. If the Minister for Agriculture, in conjunction with the Minister for Northern Ireland, would open negotiations with the British Minister for Agriculture on the lines I suggest, I think a satisfactory arrangement would be arrived at. A lot of stress has been laid by every speaker upon the few thousand pounds lost by the traders whose cattle were slaughtered in 1923. The trade, as a whole, are more concerned with the future than with the bagatelle of four or five thousand pounds. I said, although the Minister does not seem to agree with me, that this matter has prevented speculating by exporters. It is the fear of being held up at the ports that is operating and no hope of merely getting compensation as the matter stands at present.

Mr. BENNETT

I support this motion, if only from the mere fact that it would make the position clearer. After all, one result desired is that the question should be settled so that the cattle trade should know where the responsibility rests. And if this debate has done nothing else it has satisfied me that the Minister is quite convinced the responsibility rests with the cattle trade, and if any legislation is brought in to fix the responsibility, I am satisfied myself on which side I shall be found. We all agree that the time has arrived to decide who is responsible for this payment. I do think the Seanad should not declare by an off-hand vote who is responsible.

Mr. COUNIHAN

The motion does not say who is responsible, but wants to fix the responsibility upon somebody.

Mr. BENNETT

As regards immediate compensation, I feel with Senator Jameson that these people ought to get an ex gratia grant. They were not conversant with the details and the troubles arising out of that new legislation. They were in very great difficulty and could not possible by any kind of foresight extricate themselves, and having been in that position, the Government should find some way to relieve them. I do not think that any precedent would be made, and I agree with Senator Jameson that consideration should be given to these individuals who lost their cattle on that occasion. I sincerely support the motion.

Mr. HOGAN

With regard to Colonel Moore's point, it does not matter whether the detention was eight or nine hours or eight or nine days or twenty-three days. The fact is that the British Act regulates the period of the quarantine. I thought I made it plain that we were in consulation with the Northern Government about this matter. We discussed it at great length in all its bearings. We put up the same joint proposition to the British and they turned it down. We put it up the second time and they turned it down. The British Government will not pay. Senator Kennedy suggested that they ought to pay and that they were very glad to get our cattle during the war, but that is all beside the point. The British Government will not pay.

Colonel MOORE

Deduct it from the five millions.

Mr. HOGAN

That is beside the point too. They have given us their reasons. The suggestion now is that we should pay, and we are told that this is only a small thing. But I do say—and in this I am expressing the considered view of the Northern Government and most of the Northern farmers as well, and our attitude is identical with theirs—that we do not think we should establish such an undesirable precedent. In view of the smallness of the amount, it is essential that the trade should do something for itself. I have no sympathy with the proposition that we should pay now, thereby establishing a precedent, and that the cattle trade should itself take the liability in the future. Of course the cattle trade will be cheerful because the chances are twenty to one that the liability will be nothing. We all hope nothing is going to happen next year or for four or five years. If I am right at all that it is a dangerous precedent, then certainly you will agree that my attitude could be no other than that we will not take on this liability or any future liability. I would not have attempted to discuss the matter with the cattle trade on these lines. My view is that we would be establishing a wrong precedent. It is the view of the Northern Government. We have discussed this time and again. We discussed it the last time they were down. They have not changed their minds in any way. It is a matter for the Seanad, if you consider it is not a dangerous precedent.

Mr. GUINNESS

The Seanad can only express a pious opinion on the matter. It cannot pass any binding resolution.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It cannot pass a Money Resolution, but it can suggest that a certain course be adopted by the Government. Perhaps the Minister would clear up the matter a little further. He has spoken of the danger of a precedent, but he has not developed that, probably for very good reasons. I do not want to force him to develop it, but, at the same time, in view of the pretty general opinion that the Seanad seemed to have, in favour of the spirit of the motion, it occurs to me that it might be desirable to have a little more light thrown on it and on what the dangerous precedent would be. I think I myself see it. If it were once established that compensation was to be paid by the Free State for all animals imported from Ireland and slaughtered in England, that these animals were found to be unquestionably suffering from disease, and that the disease was brought by them amongst English cattle, I can very well see the British Government saying: "They brought the disease into our country; you must compensate our cattle owners for the losses they have suffered." That is one of the dangers that I see might be opened if a precedent of the kind were established, and, therefore, the Seanad should consider this carefully and perhaps say whether it would not be better to confine this resolution to a recommendation that the losses incurred in 1923 by the owners should be made good by an ex gratia payment without saying now that there should be a final arrangement governing these cases in the future, which would be a very different and a very serious matter.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I am only the mouthpiece of the cattle trade. I have been pressed time and again to bring this matter up in the Seanad. I have brought it up now, and the only thing I could undertake to do would be to consent to adjourn it. I could not decide on my own responsibility as to whether I should have the Seanad take a vote on it. If the Minister and the House are agreeable, I suggest that the matter be adjourned to the next meeting so that I may consult the members of the cattle trade.

Mr. FANNING

This motion is of a purely retrospective character.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The second part is, but the first part is not.

Mr. FANNING

This four or five thousand that is being discussed——

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is covered by the last part of the motion, not the first part.

Mr. FANNING

I can appreciate the hardship this is to the small men in the cattle trade. I can see very clearly that this matter unquestionably opens up a precedent of tremendous importance because of the liability it might eventually impose upon the people of this country. I think the general feeling of the House is that these losses should be met by some grant or other. Would it not be possible for the Minister to permit a little Vote to go through, say, of five or six thousand pounds, on the very definite understanding that it is not to be regarded as a precedent for the Dáil or the Seanad? There is a very friendly atmosphere in the Seanad towards the claim, and it should be agreed to without being in any way regarded as being a precedent for future losses.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I suggest that the resolution be amended in the last four lines by inserting the words after the reference to an immediate settlement, "by an ex gratia payment.” Senator Counihan, who is simply acting as a mouthpiece for the members of his own trade, stated that he is more or less in their hands, and he would not like to take the responsibility of whittling down this motion without getting an opportunity of consulting them. I think that the trade would probably wish to have something rather than nothing, and he might get something if he fell in with my suggestion.

Mr. COUNIHAN

What is the opinion of the Minister?

Mr. HOGAN

My opinion is—I considered it from every point of view, and I have listened very carefully to all the arguments put forward—that you will get this £5,000 at three Dublin markets. The trade is worth fifteen million a year, and when you have four or five organisations, now amalgamated into one, I think you would get this five thousand, without creating any precedent, at the Dublin markets in one month.

Mr. FORAN

I think the Minister has met the cattle trade very generously.

Mr. COUNIHAN

In what way?

Mr. FORAN

The amount of money involved for the Free State is about £2,500 according to the Minister. The advice he has given is worth more than the amount of money involved, that the cattle traders should organise their business. One would imagine from reading the papers that the Irish Cattle Traders' Association is a great body, but they come here to ask this House to support them in going over on their knees with the beggarly claim to the British Government for £2,500. They could raise this money, as Senator Mrs. Wyse Power said, by having a flag day in the Dublin markets. The money could be very easily raised and the cattle traders would be well advised to take the advice of the Minister and organise a Protection or Defence Fund to assist any members who may meet with misfortunes seeing that the turnover of the trade runs into millions per annum.

Mr. HOGAN

Fifteen millions.

Mr. FORAN

In a trade with that turn over, if they cannot raise a couple of thousand pounds, they must be very bad Christians. Certainly I think the Minister has given them very good advice.

Mr. COUNIHAN

With the permission of the Seanad I withdraw the motion, and I shall consult the trade with a view to future action.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That will not prevent you bringing it forward again in a different form, if you wish.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.