Previous to the year 1922 there was provision, both in Great Britain and this country, that where animals were slaughtered owing to foot and mouth disease the owner of such animals was compensated. In 1922 the British passed an Act which to some extent changed this. Previous to the 1922 Act, passed in Great Britain, compensation was given by the British Government for animals slaughtered in Britain but when the Act was passed they exempted animals at the ports from the provisions and regarded them as animals that had not been accepted by the British and did not compensate the owners in case of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. From 1922 to 1928 therefore the exporters of live animals from this country were exposed to the risk of having animals slaughtered in Great Britain through foot and mouth disease without any compensation. In 1928 the Slaughter of Animals Act was passed by the Oireachtas which gave the cattle trade the statutory right to collect fees on animals exported. Out of that fund the owners of animals exported from this country could be compensated for the loss of animals slaughtered in Great Britain at the port before being accepted by the British buyer as it were. There was no outbreak of disease since 1928, but exporters in this country did suffer a certain loss, due to animals being detained on suspicion much longer than the customary period, and having to pay extra charges for lairage, feeding, water, etc. This Bill is now being introduced for the purpose of compensating those owners who suffer a certain amount of loss through such extra detention. It provides that the owners of animals detained owing to suspicion of foot and mouth disease, if the detention extends beyond the customary period, will be compensated.
The second matter dealt with in this Bill is, that whereas in the 1928 Act the fund was limited to a sum of £20,000, we now propose that the fund should be permitted to go to £40,000.
These are the two provisions of the Bill which, I take it, is non-contentious. As a matter of fact, I was asked whether this should really be a Government Bill or not. Probably it should not have been introduced by the Government but rather by a Private Member who is interested in the cattle trade. My predecessor, however, the Minister for Agriculture, in 1928 introduced the Principal Act as a Government measure and I felt that it was my duty to introduce the Amending Bill at this stage at the request of the trade.