Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1932

Vol. 15 No. 17

Public Business. - Detained Animals (Compensation) Bill, 1932.—Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

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.

Mr. Counihan

As the Minister has explained, this is an Amending Bill to the Live Stock Compensation Act which we passed in 1928. He has fully explained the objects of the Bill. Our main idea in the Live Stock Compensation Act was to get funds to compensate the owners of live stock which were slaughtered by order of the British Government at the landing ports in Great Britain in 1923. We had been agitating for all that time but the Irish Government refused to pay and the British Government refused to pay. Some members of our trade were left high and dry and nobody would pay any attention to their claims. The cattle trade, of their own accord, put forward this scheme, which was accepted by the late Government, and the Live Stock Compensation Act of 1928 was passed. At that time our principal concern was to compensate the owners of stock which had been slaughtered in 1923. We were very careful to see how the Act would operate, although at that time a number of people in the cattle trade wanted us to compensate under the provisions of the Act for holds-up at the ports. That was not, however, done. During that time there have been a number of holds-up which were not compensated for, and there was only a very small amount of the money collected paid out for compensation. I think there was only one case since the 1928 Act came into force.

Last year, in 1931, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland and there was a stand-still order issued by the British Government which held up the cattle at all ports for a period of eight or ten days. That entailed a considerable loss to exporters. As there was so much money in the fund, the cattle trade came to the conclusion that the owners of cattle held up in this way should be compensated for the actual out-of-pocket expenses which they incurred in the feeding and the lairage of the cattle during the hold-up. This Bill has been introduced by the Minister at the request of the cattle trade. Section 2 of the Bill explains the whole object. It is not going very far; it simply states that if they are held up beyond the usual period of detention of ten hours at the port the owners are entitled to the actual out-of-pocket expenses. I cannot see that there could be any objection to the Bill. The Minister has explained its provisions very thoroughly and I intend to support it.

Mr. O'Connor

I wish to be associated with the support of this measure to provide compensation for the owners of cattle detained. As Senator Counihan has very clearly explained, the necessity for the original Bill was occasioned by the fact that some cattle were slaughtered in 1923 and the trade generally expressed great disapproval that the owners were not compensated for animals so slaughtered. It was put forward as one of the cardinal principles of the trade that what was done in the public interest should be paid for out of the public purse. That, however, was not agreed to, and the necessity then arose for the people themselves to make provision. This compensation has been arranged by voluntary agreement, so much per head being charged on cattle exported to make up the fund. It has, I understand, run up to £20,000 and it is expected that it will eventually reach £40,000. That will be making a very solid provision for anything that may arise in the future and it will remove the fear of loss through unforeseen circumstances from those who are engaged in the trade.

Personally when this loss first occurred, at the period mentioned, I thought that the Government should have provided compensation. Many of the cattle at the commencement came from Northern. Ireland, and as we had no responsibility for the outbreak I thought we could force the Government to give compensation, particularly as a lot of their customers come from the Northern area. I applied to one of the leading members, Captain Dixon, but he refused to take responsibility, and we came to the conclusion, in consultation with the ex-Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan) that we should help ourselves. Consequently an arrangement was come to and the Principal Act was passed.

It is very unfair that people should be penalised for an occurrence over which they have no control and which is not their fault. This principle is now well established in the trade with the universal approval of people north and south, and it is a most desirable arrangement. It is to be hoped that this money will be sufficient for all time. The outbreak that has been mentioned caused a great deal of loss, and the hold-up which followed was a source of very great loss and inconvenience in the carrying on of the trade. The authorities got into a kind of panic, and cattle in districts surrounding the ports for a fifteen mile radius were held up. It was felt as very unsatisfactory that the people who suffered as a result of these holds-up should be penalised through no fault of their own, and consequently I agree with the principle of the Bill, and I am very glad the Minister has given his consent to it. I honestly believe that this is one of the things that will add very much to the prosperity of the trade and of the people for whom compensation is being provided.

Mr. Johnson

I should like to find out if possible from either of the two Senators who have spoken, or from the Minister, who, in fact, ultimately bears the burden of this £20,000 or the prospective £40,000? Is it the cattle dealer, the Irish farmer or the English buyer?

Mr. O'Hanlon

The farmer.

Mr. Counihan

In reply to Deputy Johnson, I agree that it is the producer who pays for all expenses.

Cathaoirleach

Nothing about the consumer?

Mr. Counihan

It is not the consumer but the producer. The whole cost of the insurance comes only to 2½d. for a £10, a £20 or a £30 bullock. I do not think anybody will object to paying insurance against foot and mouth disease on that small scale.

Cathaoirleach

There is no direct taxation on the taxpayer?

Mr. Counihan

No.

Mr. Jameson

Who pays the £40,000?

Cathaoirleach

There is a fund into which the cattle dealers themselves pay.

Mr. Jameson

Then really we have nothing to do with it.

Cathaoirleach

No.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for next sitting of the Seanad.