Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

This proposal clarifies the arrangements for abatement of compensation and makes them more generous in that instead of abatement only being totalled, a partial limitation can be applied. This relates to the particular circumstances in respect of which one would limit compensation. Rather than giving full compensation one would have the capacity to give partial compensation in the circumstances outlined in this amendment.

The main thinking behind this is particularly valuable animals. For example, a race horse in Coolmore, from which a person may be breeding, which picks up a disease which we are trying to stamp out and as a result of which the animal has to be destroyed, which would result in the exposure of the State to €50 million, €60 million or €100 million in compensation. There must be some limitations on the State in terms of exposure in this regard and a balance between what the insurance company and the State would be asked to pay. That is my understanding of the reason for this provision. It is an unlikely enough scenario but there are bulls which are particularly valuable. Race horses are an obvious example. I am anxious in the context of biosecurity not to expose the State to compensation of tens of millions of euros. That is what we are doing in terms of the limitation on compensation.

I stand to be corrected on this but I do not believe it will have any practical impact on normal compensation around disease control, be it an outbreak of foot and mouth disease or TB. This provision is being introduced in an effort to limit the exposure of the State to very large sums of compensation where a person would have to destroy a particularly valuable animal.