I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £10 be granted to make good an excess on the grant for agriculture for the year ended 31st March, 1941.
Committee on Finance. - Excess Vote (Agriculture).
Is it agreed?
Is this an introduction?
No, it is not an introduction of an Estimate.
Is this consequent on the Interim Report of the Committee of Public Accounts?
I think so, but it is for the Minister to say.
It is to make good an excess.
Yes, but is it consequent on the Interim Report of the Committee of Public Accounts?
Yes.
Are we to take it now, or can it be taken later?
I wish it to be understood that this is not a normal introduction.
We can leave it over until next Tuesday, if the House desires.
My point is that we did not hear about it before.
Was not this before the House on a previous occasion in connection with an Interim Report of the Public Accounts Committee, moved by myself, saying that we had certified it, in the ordinary way in which such matters are raised?
That is so.
And it now comes before the House in the ordinary course?
Yes.
It is an Excess Vote, and the matter has been examined by the Committee.
I am only asking that it be taken now.
Very well. Is it agreed?
I have no objection.
Since the point has been raised here, Sir, I desire—and I have no doubt Deputy Hughes will join me —to direct the attention of the House to the fact that when this Excess Vote came before the Committee of Public Accounts the attention of the accounting officer concerned was directed to the fact that certain farmers who had received compensation for slaughtered stock had got what might be judged to be fair compensation if they happened to be farmers whose stock was slaughtered in the early stages of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, but that by the time the concluding stages of the epidemic had been reached the price of replacements had gone up greatly, and you then had a situation that, when the compensation for the latecomers was measured by the amount which was deemed to be just and fair in respect of the earlier casualties, those whose stock was smitten with the disease at the tail-end of the epidemic suffered a very material loss.
Now, I think there is some substance in that case, although I am sure every reasonable Deputy will recognise the Minister's difficulty: that unless the Minister takes a foot-rule, albeit a generous one, and measures everybody's case by that, his difficulty is that he has to pay one man one price for his deceased cow and another man a different price. On the other hand, there is the other difficulty that the man who got his compensation early could go into the market early, at a time when the price of cattle was somewhat depressed as a result of the prohibition on exports in Britain, and replace his stock, whereas the man who got his compensation in the later stages had to go on the market when the British cattle market had been reopened, and if he had lost 100 cows, the compensation money, which might have permitted the man who was smitten at the beginning of the epidemic, to buy 100 new beasts, was not sufficient for the man who came along at the later stages to buy 70 or 75 beasts.
Is not the matter closed, since all the compensation in question has been paid?
I submit that no matter is closed so long as the Minister concerned comes before the House with an Estimate.
And the Deputy desires to reopen the question of compensation.
Owing to the slight misunderstanding that seems to have arisen, what I wanted to do was to give a Deputy a run for his money on a matter that he wanted to raise in another place, because I think there was some substance in it, and now that Deputy Hughes has realised the nature of this Financial Resolution he might like to say a word in regard to this matter, of which I think he has a peculiar knowledge.
I am glad that Deputy Dillon has raised this point. As a matter of fact, I did raise it at the Public Accounts Committee, and Deputy Dillon, who was in the Chair and who ruled very strictly there, thought that the matter should be properly raised in this House.
What?
Deputy Dillon has more or less covered the whole ground.
Interesting information about strictness in ruling.
I have had actual experience of people who received compensation late in the period of the epidemic. It was not sufficient to enable them to re-stock their land. That does not apply to people who were compensated early on. They were in a position to purchase and to re-stock from a restricted market. Those, however, who were compensated towards the end of the epidemic had to go out and buy stock particularly milch cows in a highly competitive market. The fact is that they were not able to re-stock with the compensation awarded to them. I know, as Deputy Dillon has said, that in this matter the Minister is faced with the problem that he may be asked to review a great many cases. There is this much, however, to be said, that if there is any danger of an injustice being done to people who were compensated late there is a moral responsibility on the Minister to reopen and review their cases. It would not be a legitimate excuse for him to say that if he were to do that an attempt might be made to have every case reviewed.
I think there is a grave responsibility on the Minister to ensure that no injustice is done to individuals whose stock was slaughtered in the national interest. The Minister could get over that difficulty by saying that he would only take cases towards the end of the period, say in the last six or seven weeks, and review them. That might cover the whole matter. Representations have already been made in connection with one or two outstanding cases. Deputy Cosgrave, on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture, referred to one case and asked the Minister if he would reconsider it. This was the case of a man who was sick at the time that his place became infected with the disease. The man has since died. We are not asking the Minister to do anything unreasonable. In the calmer atmosphere that now prevails, it would be well, I think, if the cases that we have put forward were reviewed and reconsidered by the Minister.
As the Ceann Comhairle very truly remarked, the money which is being voted here cannot be used for the purpose advocated by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Hughes because it has already been spent. The point raised by them was referred to on many previous occasions. I went into it very fully on two or three occasions. I went to the trouble myself of interviewing the veterinary people who were in the area towards the end of the epidemic and who made the valuations. I came to the conclusion, I must say, that on the whole the compensation paid was generous, even up to the end. Undoubtedly, the people who had the outbreak on their farms early on and who could re-stock during the restrictive period were probably able, as Deputy Hughes has said, to buy cattle cheaper than they could be bought later.
It is not probable at all. It is certain.
That is true of a certain period, but not of the very beginning or the very end of the outbreak.
When the export market was thrown open, prices went up.
From my own examination of the figures I would be inclined to say that the people concerned were very fully compensated, but that in or about the middle of the outbreak they were more than fully compensated. I would go so far as to say, however, that if I were convinced, or even if a fair case were made to me, that people were unfairly treated, I would be prepared to reopen the question. It will present very great difficulties. As Deputy Hughes has said, we may be able to adopt some simple rule by taking the restocking date as that covered by a couple of weeks before the reopening of the ports, and only consider cases from that date onwards. It will, as I have said, present great difficulties because, in a complicated matter of this kind, it is hard to apply a simple rule. On the last occasion that I examined this I was satisfied that ample compensation was paid. I am, however, prepared at any time to listen to any cases that may be put up and go into the matter again if I think ample compensation was not given.
That is fair enough.
Question agreed to.
Vote reported and agreed to.