This question was raised on the last day, and I understood the Minister was not disposed to agree. As the Bill stands there is no definition of stallion at all.
In Committee On Finance—Money Resolution - Horse Breeding Bill, 1933—Report.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper:—
1. In page 2, after line 22, Section 1, to insert a new definition as follows:—"the word ‘stallion' means an entire horse used or intended to be used for stud purposes."—Deputies Bennett. The O'Mahony, and Desmond.
Dr. Ryan
As I explained the last day, that would come into the regulations, as it did in the present Act.
It is defined in the present Act?
Dr. Ryan
No. It is defined in the regulations—not in the Act.
What regulations?
Dr. Ryan
It will be defined in the regulations.
Is it the intention of the Minister to define it in accordance with the terms of this amendment?
Dr. Ryan
Oh no. I think amendment 5 covers the point.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 12 might be considered together.
Would the Minister move his own amendment? We could leave the others over.
They cannot be left over.
Dr. Ryan
I think Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are met by No. 5. Of course amendment No. 3 is more or less in preparation for No. 5, and amendment 12 is consequential. No 5 is the main amendment, and probably will dispose of the whole controversy.
Could we not take up No. 5 first?
An Cean Comhairle
No. The Bill must (on Report) be taken line by line.
Then the Minister does not intend to accept No. 1? The regulations in Section 24, which he cited, as far as I can judge, do not give him power to prescribe what is a stallion. Where is there any mention that he gets authority to specify what is a stallion in this case? The whole point at issue and the only point that can arise is at what age a colt becomes a stallion. The proper interpretation of the term should be after the racing period when the horse goes to the stud. Everybody who has any experience of racing—although that does not exhaust the whole Bill— knows that no horse in training can be used for stud purposes. That is what Deputy Bennett had in mind when he put down this series of amendments. It would be quite possible and easy for the Minister, in connection with regulations which he could make, to put himself right with regard to horses that are not in the bloodstock category. There is no objection at all to the ordinary terms of this Bill directed towards the horse-breeding industry, outside bloodstock. Every— body would like to see even better stallions purchased by the Department. Perhaps it might not be impossible to get better ones at a not much increased price. Money might be reasonably spent in getting a better quality animal. However, the Minister may, if he likes, make his regulations under Section 24, but I am not so sure that he could maintain them in a court of law. It would be better, in a case of this sort, to have a definition of what is meant, so as to make easy, at any rate, the minds of those who have invested so much money in this industry.
Dr. Ryan
I think the point Deputy Bennett wanted to get at was to have certain stallions exempted in this Bill. The way in which he wanted to achieve his point was by saying that the word stallion meant "an entire horse used or intended to be used for stud purposes," in other words, horses used in racing excluded. That has been provided for under amendment 5, sub-section (1) (b), where stallions over the prescribed age and used exclusively for racing are exempted. The point made by Deputy Cosgrave and the point that Deputy Bennett wanted to achieve is covered by the amendment. We have power to prescribe the age and other matters which are dealt with in the sections. Apparently there has not been any difficulty in prescribing under the present Act what a stallion is. I think that was not the real point Deputy Cosgrave wanted to get at but as to what is a stallion for the purposes of this Act. As the Deputy is aware by amendment 5 we have exempted under (a) a blood stallion at the stud, if I might refer to it in that way; and in (b) blood horses for racing.
The section states that the owner of any stallion entered in a prescribed stud book, used for the service of a number of mares other than mares entered in the stud book in which such stallion is entered, may apply to the Minister for a certificate. Persons not engaged in the business of horse breeding—racing people—have to apply to the Minister if they possess entire horses two years old or three years old, and not being used for stud purposes. We are living in a modern age and, to my mind, this is an antediluvian proposal. As the Minister has lost his copy book concerning the amendment I suppose I am entitled to deal with this question. I am positively certain, from the way that section is drawn, that the persons who devised it knew nothing about this business. Take the case of some of the best bloodstock in the country, the Mayday strain or the Prospector's strain, which are not in any prescribed stud book. What is going to happen where a stallion is in one book and a mare in another? There is a filly at present in England belonging, I think, to Lord Derby, called Versicle and I doubt if it is given in any stud book. There was a horse racing a short time ago, Solenoid, one of the best two year olds, and it was not in any stud book. The late Mr. John Gubbins won the Derby twice with some strain of bloodstock that is not in any prescribed book. The way this section is drawn shows that apparently Miss Prior's stud book was not heard of. There were some other horses—Irish Elegance was one—which were not entered in any stud book. Did the Minister really mean to meet Deputy Bennett or was this a Departmental arrangement, made by someone who knows nothing about the question? If the Minister means well I advise him to act up to what he says, and not to cause dissatisfaction to people with bloodstock.
The leader of the Opposition has mentioned the case of Irish Elegance, a horse that is not mentioned in any stud book because there was some technical fault in his breeding. There was a horse in this country some years ago that was the sire of many of the best animals ever produced here, which sold for large sums in England, but the progeny were not in any stud book because there was some difficulty about pedigree. The dam was not in any stud book either. I should like to emphasise what has been stated by Deputy Cosgrave, that horses which are not in any stud book often produce the best blood. Owing to the extremely technical way in which the stud book is kept, if there was a flaw in the breeding of the sire or the dam many generations back the horse is not entitled to be recorded in the stud book as of pure blood. Even though it is only a technical point, it prevails to such an extent that the stud book does not include animals whose progeny cannot be traced for a number of generations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
The Minister undertook to bring in a definition of "stallion" in the regulations.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Will the regulations be laid before the House?
Dr. Ryan
That is provided for.
I move amendment 3:—
In page 2, line 27, Section 3, to add at the end of the section the words "and is not for the time being an exempted stallion."
Dr. Ryan
The Bill applies to every stallion "which is for the time being of or over the prescribed age." Then we say "and is not for the time being an exempted stallion."
Can the Minister say what he intends by "the prescribed age"?
Dr. Ryan
Two years.
The Minister is making a mistake if he makes that age the prescribed age.
Dr. Ryan
Why?
If it is the intention to improve horse breeding a start is being made at the wrong end.
Dr. Ryan
Does the Deputy think we should go the other way, and make the age 20?
No.
The number of stallions of two years old must be very small.
Dr. Ryan
There must be some.
If the Minister is putting in a definition of "stallion," I think the number two years of age must be very small in this country, and in any part of the world.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 4:—
In page 2, line 27, Section 3, after the words "prescribed age" to insert the words "except to thoroughbred horses in recognised racing stables and under the charge of a trainer holding a licence to train under Irish Turf Club Rules."
This amendment was considered on the Committee Stage, but was left over in order to give the Minister an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. The amendment purposes to exempt what I describe as colts, but which the Minister insists are stallions. That is, horses for racing preparatory to proving capacity to be used at a subsequent date as stallions. If young entire horses racing are not to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill then the Minister and the Department will be put to very great difficulty in operating it. There will be difficulties also for the managers of racing stables, the owners of racehorses, and other people. The racing fraternity are very much opposed to this section. When the Bill was before the House previously Deputy Norton suggested that the Minister should accept the principle of excluding racehorses. I am sorry Deputy Norton is not here now to lend his assistance in agitating for the deletion of this section. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment, or some amendment of a similar nature, that he may approve of.
If young racing horses are to be subject to licensing provisions and other such disabilities, there will be tremendous opposition to the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I do not see that it serves any useful purpose and, in fact, the Minister did not put forward any very strong argument on the Committee Stage for the retention of this particular section. There is not any great fear, as I pointed out on the Committee Stage that any of the young entire horses which are racing will be used as stallions or sires. In fact, every indication is the other way about and, as I pointed out on the Committee Stage, horses in hard training for racing are not suitable as sires for very many reasons, and there would be no fear of any principle of the Bill being violated by any owner of a particular racehorse while he was a racehorse. I think the Minister ought to accept some provision exempting horses while they are racing from the operation of the Bill other than placing the onus of applying for a licence on the owner of a young horse.
I dislike Deputy Bennett's amendment from the point of view that I do not think it goes far enough. It is confined to thoroughbred horses in recognised racing stables. There are many people who have horses which they intend to use for racing and for one reason or another they do not put those horses into a racing stable at the critical age so far as this Bill is concerned. A horse may be backward or may have sustained an injury and may not be fit for training at the moment, and we all know that a man who breeds horses for racing purposes may come to the conclusion that his horse may not be fit this year for racing but may be fit next year and he will naturally keep him at home because he can keep him there more cheaply than in a racing stable. That case would not be covered by Deputy Bennett's amendment. I thought that Deputy Bennett would have put down a better amendment because I mentioned this matter to him last week. There are many cases in which a man keeps a horse at home which he intends and keeps only for the purpose of racing because he feels that the horse is not fit at the moment for training. I remember seeing, a number of years ago, a horse in a certain racing stable, and I was told by the trainer that he had been kept at home and trained at home and was sent to this racing stable only a fortnight before the race for which it was entered. I can conceive a case in which a horse like that would not come within the exemptions in this Bill and, therefore, I object, as I say, to the amendment in so far as it proposes to give the exemption he asks for to horses in recognised racing stables. Many people have horses intended only for racing and not for stud purposes at all and, purely for reasons of economy, they do not send the horse to a racing stable in its two year old days. They keep him at home because they feel he will be no good as a two year old and they decide to send him to a racing stable if he is fit enough to be trained as a three-year-old.
It is very seldom that one sees a horse thrown by at home or kept over for a year or two unless he is castrated. These horses are not thrown by idly because they would be very likely of no use for racing when put to racing after two years idleness. A provision, however, which I think would meet the difficulty would be a provision to fine an owner very severely for allowing his horse to serve a half-bred mare unless he was registered so to do. I think that would cover the difficulty.
I quite see Deputy Rice's point and after the Second Reading, when I had had an opportunity of thinking further on the point, with perhaps the object of extending my previous amendment, I came to the conclusion that it might lead to difficulty for the Minister or whoever would be in charge of the Bill afterwards. If a horse in the possession of an owner without being in a racing stable were exempted for racing, as the Minister hinted in his speech on the Second Reading, possibly some unscrupulous owners of horses might make the case that they intended to race these horses subsequently. I can see the Minister's difficulty there and it was because of that that I left the amendment as it originally was so as to make it more easy for the Minister to accept it. If the Minister accepts the amendment as it stands, I do not see any danger of what he desires from the Bill not being brought about. The amendment reads:—
except to thoroughbred horses in recognised racing stables and under the charge of a trainer holding a licence to train under Irish Turf Club Rules.
That amendment covers every possibility of fraud so far as I can see. They will have to be raced under Turf Club Rules. The Minister might make the case that if we did put in the provision of naming the Turf Club or some other body, a person racing horses illegally—flapper meetings, for instance—might claim exemption and it was to prevent such a possibility that we inserted the words "under Irish Turf Club Rules." I do not see any danger, if the Minister accepts the amendment and excludes horses while they are training in the hands of a recognised trainer and racing under recognised Turf Club Rules, of horses so trained and raced being used at all as sires.
Mr. Rice
My objection is not to the words to which Deputy Bennett now refers "under Irish Turf Club Rules" but to the inclusion in the amendment of the words "in recognised racing stables."
Dr. Ryan
I think that the points at issue here are better covered by amendment 5. Deputy Rice, for instance, objects to the amendment because some of the horses might not be in recognised racing stables, but in amendment No. 5, which I have put down, the words are:—
is of or over the prescribed age and is used exclusively for racing.
I prefer that to Deputy Bennett's amendment.
Dr. Ryan
Objections have been raised from other points of view——
In reference to that, I must apologise to the Minister. I thought I had read his amendments very carefully, but I did not notice paragraph (b) of the amendment. It was an over-sight.
Perhaps I spoke rather hastily——
I do not want to curtail this very useful and informative discussion, but I would remind the House that we are not in Committee.
I only want to say that as regards the Minister's point now, I prefer his amendment. I said that perhaps rather hastily a moment ago, because I would be entirely satisfied with his amendment 5 (b) if the words were "is of or over the prescribed age or is used or intended to be used exclusively for racing" because you have, as I say, the case of a man who has a horse and intends to use it only for racing, and that would not be covered by the Minister's amendment.
Dr. Ryan
I must say that that was our intention.
Would the Minister accept the amendment? It would meet the case completely if he did.
Dr. Ryan
I should not like to accept it here and now, but I will promise to look into it—because that was our intention—and it can be amended in the other House, if necessary. One objection was raised by Deputy Cosgrave, who said that it was antediluvian to ask those people to make application for exemption. I do not see any other way in which we can do it because, after all, it is surely more reasonable to ask them to make application than to ask us to go around looking for them and saying: "There is a horse we are going to exempt for you." We have to keep account of them somehow or other, and if there is a stallion horse, we want to know whether he comes under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the exemption or, if not, if he is licensed or not. I do not think that it is any great hardship on people that they should be asked to apply for exemption. I do not know as much about racing as some of the Deputies who have spoken on this matter, but I am told that if an owner is putting a horse in for racing he has, on an average, to fill up four or five different forms. If he races his horse five or six times a year he has, therefore, to fill up twenty or thirty forms. We are only asking him to fill up one form, an application for an exemption, and that form will be as simple as we can make it. I got no suggestion as to an alternative way of dealing with it. There must be some document. If we are going to exempt a horse, we will have to send down an exemption form. Otherwise how are we to know of the existence of the horse, or that he is used as stated in paragraphs (a) and (b)? I cannot see any hardship in this matter.
There was another objection raised by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Rice, that some of the horses would be thoroughbred horses which would not be in the stud book. I do not see how we can deal with them. I do not see how we can go further than we have provided here, that he is in the stud book and is used for the service of mares in the stud book. If we go further than that and include horses mentioned by Deputies opposite, very good horses perhaps, with very good records as race horses and with very good progeny also, how could anybody frame an exemption clause to include such horses? It is true that these horses may have been used successfully for racing purposes, but still for the few exceptions there are—and I take it Deputy Cosgrave mentioned whatever exceptions came into his mind—I do not think we should try to frame this Bill to include them. We could not frame such a clause without its being altogether too loose, or without altogether losing the effect of what we are trying to achieve in this Bill. Another point has been raised by the Deputy.
Are we not now discussing amendment No. 4?
Dr. Ryan
I understood they were all to be discussed together.
It was decided to discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 together, but no amendment may be postponed pending the fate of a subsequent amendment.
Dr. Ryan
I do not mind whether we dispose of No. 4 now.
In regard to No. 4, the Minister having stated his intention in the matter, I would ask permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Government amendment appeared on the Order Paper:—
5. In page 2, before Section 4, to insert three new sections as follows:—
(1) The owner of any stallion, which is entered in a prescribed stud book and which—
(a) is used for the service of no mares other than mares entered in the stud book in which such stallion is entered, or
(b) is of or over the prescribed age and is used exclusively for racing,
may apply to the Minister for a certificate (in this Act referred to as a certificate of exemption) exempting such stallion from the application of this Act.
(2) Every application made under this section shall be made in the prescribed form and manner and shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(1) On receipt of any application, made under and in accordance with this Act, for a certificate of exemption in respect of any stallion the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, grant such certificate and from the date of the grant thereof so long as such certificate remains in force such stallion shall be an exempted stallion within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Every certificate of exemption granted under this Act shall, unless previously determined, revoked, or suspended under this Act, remain in force until the 31st day of December next after the date on which such certificate is granted and shall then expire unless renewed under and in accordance with this section.
(3) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, on the application of the owner of any exempted stallion, grant in the month of December in any year, for a period of one calendar year from the 31st day of that month, a renewal of the certificate of exemption granted in relation to such stallion and whenever the Minister grants such renewal such certificate of exemption shall, unless determined, revoked, or suspended under this Act, remain in force until the 31st day of December in the next ensuing year.
(1) Every certificate of exemption granted under this Act shall determine if and when the right to the possession of the stallion to which it relates passes by any means from the person to whom it was issued.
(2) Where the person to whom a certificate of exemption is issued under this Act dies while such certificate continues in force, the stallion to which such certificate relates shall continue by virtue of such certificate to be an exempted stallion within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act until the happening of whichever of the following events first happens, that is to say:—
(a) the expiration of three months from the death of such person, or
(b) the passing by sale, assent to a bequest or otherwise of such stallion from the possession of the personal representative of such person, or
(c) the revocation of such certificate by the Minister.
(3) The Minister may at any time, at his absolute discretion, revoke or suspend for any specified period any certificate of exemption issued under this Act.
Dr. Ryan
In regard to this amendment, Deputy Cosgrave also said that I had brought in the amendment without consulting anybody, either inside or outside the Department, or without knowing anything about the business. I admit that Deputy Cosgrave knows a good deal about horse breeding. In fact, I read an account of his very perfect knowledge on that subject in some of the Sunday papers. But there are others, both inside and outside the Department, who know something about horse breeding also. I have consulted these people. There are men in this country who have given most of their lives to the breeding of horses. I consulted some of those men and they were the first to make the suggestion to me that this amendment should be brought in. I do not know whether we have got exactly in the amendment what they wanted and what I wanted. In the case of the 1920 Act in England, the draftsman inserted this clause: "A stallion entered in any prescribed stud book."
Is not that very different from this Bill?
Dr. Ryan
In our amendment it is "in a prescribed stud book."
It is a little more than that.
Dr. Ryan
——"which is used for the service of mares entered in a stud book in which the stallion is entered."
Now will the Minister open his eyes?
Dr. Ryan
If the Deputy would be a little patient, I have only got so far yet. In the 1918 Act which was drawn up by the draftsman in Westminster— there we have the combined knowledge of the Westminster draftsman and the owners—the clause reads: "A stallion entered in any prescribed stud book." We have here: "A stallion which is entered in a prescribed stud book."
"In any prescribed stud book," and here it is "in a prescribed stud book."
Dr. Ryan
The 1918 Act goes on to say: "Used for the service of none but mares so entered." We have it: "Used for the service of no mares other than mares entered in the stud book in which such stallion is entered." I want to explain that the men concerned in horse breeding wanted the same clause as was in the 1918 Act.
But it is not in the Bill.
Dr. Ryan
I asked the draftsman to give me the same clause and this is what the draftsman gave. I am quite prepared to go back if on reconsideration it is felt that that does not cover the point and to have the amendment further amended. I think it is very unfair for the Deputy, who was head of the Government for some time, to make remarks about people in the Department of Agriculture not knowing anything about horse breeding. He knows very well they know something about this Bill.
Were they consulted about its terms?
Dr. Ryan
Does the Deputy not know that no head of a Department would bring in a Bill of this kind without consulting the people concerned?
I have no knowledge of this Administration.
Dr. Ryan
Judging by the remarks the Deputy has made his Administration must have been run on very peculiar lines.
Mr. Rice
They were very good lines. They worked for ten years.
Dr. Ryan
They did not succeed, anyway. In suggesting that a Minister would frame an amendment such as this, without consulting the particular officials in the Department who are there for that particular purpose, experts in that particular line, the Deputy is trying to give a false impression to his own deluded colleagues.
Did the Minister consult his Department about this amendment?
Dr. Ryan
Of course I did.
And got its terms as they are there?
Dr. Ryan
Yes. A point was made about a two-year-old colt. I have been advised by the experts in my own Department, and by the experts outside the Department, that two years is the most advisable age to prescribe.
Is the Minister going to license them at two?
Dr. Ryan
They must be licensed over two years old. Of course those kept for racing are exempt.
Would the Minister be prepared to accept a two-year-old, no matter how well-built he was, as a Department sire? Would any of the Minister's officials recommend them for acceptance to the Department?
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy knows that a stallion over two years old can be used——
We are asking a question now and if the Minister does not know let him say so.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is getting a bit cross. Because he came in here as an expert in horse-breeding he wants to live up to the Sunday Independent reputation. He is afraid he will be caught out. Deputy Desmond asked whether it would be possible to allow an owner to keep a horse and said that in case he was caught out he could be fined. That is the present position which we want to rectify. The present position is that any person can keep a stallion and, if he wants to use it for stud purposes, he must get a licence under the present law. In practice we have found, in some cases, that they have not applied for a licence or, perhaps, knowing that the horses would not be passed for a licence, have used them as sires. We are fairly certain that they are using them but the difficulty is to catch them. The Bill is brought in to meet that, and I think the suggestion of Deputy Desmond could not be accepted.
The Minister, on the Committee Stage, undertook to accept the principle of an amendment that I had tabled for the exemption of certain thoroughbred horses. I believe the Minister was honest in his intention to accept in full the principle of the amendment but, perhaps, in different words. I am sorry to say that the Minister's amendment, whether drafted in goodwill or not, does not meet the case. My amendment read as follows:—"A stallion which is entered in any prescribed stud book and is used for the service of none but mares so entered." That simple amendment would have covered all the cases we had in mind and practically every possibility we had in mind with regard to the rearing of thoroughbred horses. There were no addenda to it requiring application to be made for a permit to have such horses nor was there any case made for the necessity for such an application on the Committee Stage. Certain horses were to be exempted without any necessity on the part of the owner to make any application for a permit, which might or might not be granted. In accepting the principle of the amendment, the Minister made no terms, if I may so put it, that the owner of the horse would be put to the trouble of applying for a permit, as is provided for in this amendment, which may or may not be granted. There is no definite guarantee in this that the permit will be given. It might or might not be given.
The chief objection I have to this amendment is the wording of paragraph (a) "is used for the service of no mares other than mares entered in the stud book in which such stallion is entered." The Minister recognises the existence of a couple of stud books. There is the chief stud book. Then there is another stud book commonly called Miss Prior's, in which horses and mares of recognised merit which have built up a reputation for themselves, though technically not recognised as thoroughbred, are entered. To exclude horses in that stud book would exclude the Mayday strain which is a most important strain in Ireland and which entered largely into the pedigree of many racehorses for forty years past. It would exclude another great strain, that represented by Verdict and other notable horses. Curzon, a horse which was second in the Derby, would be excluded. The dam of Curzon would be excluded. Coming down to later history Verdict, one of the greatest mares in England, would be debarred from being mated with a recognised thoroughbred stallion in Ireland. If the amendment were accepted and Lord Lonsdale, or whoever owns Verdict, sent her over here to be mated, the owner of a sire here would have to say that he was debarred by the Minister's amendment from mating her. Versicle, the daughter of Verdict, would be debarred from being mated with a thoroughbred stallion here if the Minister's amendment were carried. My original amendment made no distinction. While the Minister recognises two stud books, a sire entered in one would have to be mated with a mare entered in the same book. A mare entered in one and a sire entered in another could not be mated together. That is the chief objection I have to paragraph (a). It would place tremendous difficulties in the way of those engaged in the rearing of bloodstock. I venture to say that the Mayday strain in this country and the other strain I have mentioned would be excluded altogether if the amendment were accepted.
I would again ask the Minister to accept the simple amendment which I put down on the Committee Stage. It was taken from the 1918 Act and must have been put in after careful consideration of all the difficulties which, perhaps, a wider amendment would cause—"a stallion which is entered in any prescribed stud book and used for the service of none but mares so entered." That simple amendment would meet all the difficulties that those of us who spoke on this Bill had in mind. I do not see that there would be any harm in accepting the exact wording of the amendment, but if the Minister wishes to change the wording without affecting the meaning of it he can do so. That certainly has not been the effect of the Minister's statement. There was no provision in the original amendment for applying for a permit. The exemption followed de facto. If a horse fulfilled certain conditions, was in a stud book, and was used only for thoroughbred mares, there was exemption without any proviso. The acceptance of that simple amendment would meet every difficulty that the breeders of thoroughbred stock had in view.
It would be disastrous if you excluded the Mayday strain from the provisions of the Bill. They have bred some of the best winners in England. When I was a boy they tried very hard to get Wetherby's to recognise the Mayday strain. Since then, of course, they have been mated with thoroughbred stock and are now better fitted to be in the stud book. Some mares missed being put into the stud book. There is a stud book for such mares. One of these horses—Shotgun—was placed in the Derby and was only beaten about a length. Irish Elegance won the Hunt Cup carrying 9 st. 7 lbs. All these horses would be excluded and the mares would be excluded from being served by horses in Wetherby's Stud Book. They are recognised in Miss Prior's Stud Book.
Deputy Bennett and Deputy Desmond referred to horses not in the stud book that were distinguished horses. The latest example is a horse called Prospector that died a year or two ago. That horse produced some of the best sprinters sent out of this country—horses that were sold in England for very large sums of money. They raced in England, India and in America. Prospector was recognised in his day as one of the greatest sires of sprinters.
That horse, Prospector, would not have been recognised. He could not be mated under the Minister's Bill with a thoroughbred mare. But he was recognised, when standing at the stud here, as one of the greatest sires of that time, and he was producing some of the best horses racing at sprint races not only in this country but in England, America and India. I think that the Minister ought try to draft an amendment to provide for cases of that kind. There are horses which are absolutely thoroughbred, having the best blood in the world, but through the fact that the pedigree of the horse himself or of the dam has not been recorded at some time or other in the stud book, they are at a disadvantage. That does not mean that the defaulting ancestor was not of pure blood, but is due to the fact that, at some time or other, the pedigree was not recorded in the stud book. Those horses which are not entitled to be described in the stud book as "thoroughbred" horses are technically described as "half-bred." The Minister should draft an amendment in the terms I suggest, having regard to the practical example I have given of a great sire like Prospector who produced great horses and brought into this country large sums in the way of stud fees.
The Minister, in his explanation, was about as lucid as he was when introducing the Bill. He dealt with the various clauses when introducing the Bill, but he made no statement as to his intentions on the subject of horse breeding. Having compared a particular portion of the section with what is contained in the 1918 Act, he confesses himself to be unable to see any difference between the two. At this stage, will he say that he wants to exclude the various strains of blood referred to by the different Deputies? Does he want to include the Mayday strain and the Prospector strain or any of the others mentioned? If he does we shall know where we are. If he wants to include them, it will not take a whole page of instructions to the draftsman to get a clause framed to effect his purpose. Deputy Bennett's amendment brought them in. What objection has the Minister to that amendment? It was in the Act of 1918. Is that the objection? Having regard to the fact that, in the case of the Workmen's Compensation Bill, the sheet-anchor was a British Act, if he objects to the 1918 Act, his fastidious political stomach is not as strong as that of Deputy Lemass. Does the Minister intend to keep out certain strains of blood? If he does, we shall know where we are. If he does not, what is the objection to adopting the words in Deputy Bennett's amendment?
Reference has been made here to the fact that there are two books. The Minister does not deny that. Why should not he say "in any prescribed stud book" as provided in the British Act? Why does he insist on excluding those mares if, on consideration, he thinks they ought not to be excluded? The Minister ought to remember that if he does not make up his case before coming in here we are prepared to help him. The fact that he does not make up his case or knows nothing about the subject should not be an excuse for having an imperfect Bill passed through the Oireachtas.
Going through the measure, I find that various steps have to be taken by people who have horses and racing stables in order to get exemption. The Minister says that one extra form does not matter. A lot he knows about the forms which people who are racing have to fill up? The trainer of this year's Derby winner told me that he had to write twenty letters in order to get his horse across, owing to the Minister's economics and the nonsense that he and his Ministry are going on with. He had to write twenty letters to get his horse over here to run in our principal classic. This amendment of the Minister really covers three new sections. I suppose we are taking them all together. Is it intended to exempt a horse that is racing? Surely, the House is entitled to know that. The section says: "if the Minister so thinks fit." What is the meaning of sub-section (2) (b) of the third section, which states that the stallion to which the certificate relates shall continue to be an exempted stallion under the meaning of this Act until... "the passing by sale, assent to a bequest or otherwise of such stallion from the possession of the personal representative of such person"? Is it really intended to make it more difficult for people to sell a horse in training? What is the necessity for that provision? Why could not a certificate pass from one person to another, with endorsement, without all this nonsense? There is no great money in racing horses. Even the very best advice that one can get in that connection, shows that there is not much money in it. Why should the Government deliberately make it more difficult for people so engaged to sell their horses? The last sub-section I suppose is nonsense also. It is scarcely intended to be operative. It states: "The Minister may at any time at his absolute discretion revoke or suspend for any specified period any certificate of exemption issued under this Act." What is the meaning of that? The horse is to be exempted from being licensed. What happens then? Must he be licensed? Must he be castrated if not licensed? When all that is done, will he be restored to the exemption list?
In 1918 the horse breeders of Britain accepted that stud book. We should accept it more readily here because it affects us more than the British people. A great number of our studs will be affected by it.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Cosgrave pretended to be angry about the things that are happening under this Bill. He would like to give the impression, for further publication, I suppose, that he knows all about the horse breeding industry. Evidently he does not know what was happening under his own Government in connection with that industry. Yet he lectures the Dáil, the Government and my officials about the injustice done under this Bill. While he was President of the Executive Council, his own Minister for Agriculture did not allow in the mares that Deputy Cosgrave wants to have included now.
He could not prevent them. He had the Act of 1918 there, and any schoolboy will tell you they are included in it.
Dr. Ryan
Will he? The Deputy, then, has not the intelligence of a schoolboy.
Read it out and let us see whether they are included or not.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy's whole Party has not the intelligence of a schoolboy.
The Minister is getting more courteous. If the Minister does not know his Bill, we shall forgive him, but let him read out the Act.
Dr. Ryan
If Deputy Cosgrave did not know what his own Government was doing, we shall have to forgive him, too. If he puts down a question on the Order Paper asking what the regulations were for the last ten years, I shall answer it.
Read out the Act.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy has indulged in a lot of hot air about this Bill. We are doing what he was doing for ten years.
Mr. Rice
You do not know how to do it.
Dr. Ryan
I must admit it is a very bad thing to carry on anything relating to Cumann na nGaedheal, because they met with a very bad end.
Can you improve on what they did?
Dr. Ryan
The section sets out any stallion which is entered in a prescribed stud book.
That is what we want.
Dr. Ryan
We are just continuing what were the prescribed stud books in the Irish Free State under Mr. Hogan as Minister for Agriculture and President Cosgrave. After all the hot air speeches made by Deputy Cosgrave about the hardships we are going to inflict on the thoroughbred and the racing people, it is as well to realise that we are merely going to inflict just the same hardships as have been inflicted for ten years.
Still, all the horses that were mentioned were bred here.
Dr. Ryan
They were, under licence.
Under licence? Humbug!
Mr. Rice
Where was the licence?
Dr. Ryan
They were not exempted, otherwise.
The Minister will have to learn a little more about horses and horse breeding.
Mr. Rice
What does the Minister mean by referring to licence?
Does the Minister know that Wetherby's accept the responsibility of placing them? If you have a technically half-bred mare and she has progeny you send the particulars to Wetherby's.
Dr. Ryan
Then there is no complaint, and Wetherby's is all right. This indignation on the part of Deputy Cosgrave was, therefore, all for nothing.
Not necessarily. I mentioned that Messrs. Wetherby accept the responsibility of placing them, if you like to put it that way.
They do not put them in the stud book.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Cosgrave said that I know nothing about the Bill. I do not claim to know a whole lot about horses, but I used to follow horses in a cart while Deputy Cosgrave was following them in the hunt. I do know more about the cart horse than about the hunting horse.
I suppose you know he is becoming extinct, too.
Dr. Ryan
I know more about cart horses; I suppose that is my misfortune.
The Minister should be careful not to cart himself.
Let him keep on the horse and not get into the cart.
Does the Minister intend to let in the type of horse that we mentioned?
Dr. Ryan
That is a matter that will be prescribed.
You do not think you will let him in?
Dr. Ryan
I do not think I will, but that is a matter that will be prescribed.
If the Minister will consider the suggestion in his more sober moments, perhaps he will give a more definite answer.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy spoke about various steps. What are the various steps? Is it a matter of just applying for an exemption? Only one step has to be taken.
What about a sale?
Dr. Ryan
If he sells his horse he has to take other steps. We were told about the 20 letters the winner of the Derby had to write. The men with the stallions have to fill scores of forms for one reason or another.
It was not a stallion; it was a colt.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy said that this is all due to our nonsense. That is the usual thing—accusing us of being responsible for what Mr. Thomas did when he put on the duties.
And increasing the cost of everything to the farmer by 100 per cent., as you said yourself.
Dr. Ryan
I would like to ask the Deputy does he know what is under discussion. He has just come in and of course he could not sit down without saying something. I was asked whether horses in racing will be exempted. Where we are satisfied horses are in racing, they will be exempted.
Does the Minister intend to allow in those mares to which I referred?
Dr. Ryan
That is a matter for consideration, but I do not think so.
When we come to amendment 6 it will mean raising this whole discussion again. I do not want to be forced to move amendment 6. Perhaps, as we are discussing No. 5, if we could allow the discussion to include amendment No. 6 we might get somewhere. If the Minister persists in his attitude on amendment 5, I am afraid I will have to move amendment 6.
Dr. Ryan
Why?
The Minister gave us an explicit undertaking on a former occasion when the Leader of the Labour Party spoke.
Mr. Rice
Where is the Leader of the Labour Party to-day?
He is not here to-day, but on another occasion he delivered a great oration.
Dr. Ryan
There are enough of you making great orations to-day and he is not required.
If I am obliged to move amendment 6 it will mean going over this whole discussion again. As I have said, the Minister gave an undertaking to accept in substance and spirit what I have set out in amendment 6. The Minister has not done that. I must say that I did trust Deputy Dr. Ryan above all the other Ministers to abide by any promise he made to the House. However we might tilt at one another across the House about agriculture and other matters, I have always had implicit trust in Deputy Dr. Ryan and I have always felt that he intended to fulfil his promises. Unfortunately, through the fault of his draftsman or for some other cause, he has not met the substance of the amendment that I have submitted. I appeal to him to admit that the terms of paragraph (a) in his amendment do not at all meet what is set out in my amendment, which was taken from the 1918 Act; it does not meet it in substance or spirit.
Mr. Rice
I think the Minister conveyed, in answer to a question of mine, that in paragraph (b) of Section 1 of the amendment he would insert the words "or is intended to be used exclusively for racing." The words of the sub-section are: "is of or over the prescribed age and is used exclusively for racing." The Minister agreed to insert, after the words "used exclusively", the words "or is intended to be used exclusively for racing."
Dr. Ryan
Our intention was that the amendment should cover that point —horses intended for racing.
Mr. Rice
I am quite satisfied so long as the idea is carried out. Perhaps the Minister can find better words than those used now by the draftsman.
Dr. Ryan
I will see that the idea is carried out.
The expression "used exclusively for racing" may prohibit a man from hunting a horse for the purpose of training him for steeple-chasing. The animal cannot be trained at all then; he must be used exclusively for racing.
Dr. Ryan
Intended to be used for racing.
I will direct the Minister's attention to the sub-section which reads "is used for the service of no mares other than mares entered in the stud book in which such stallion is entered"—that is, a stallion which is entered in a prescribed stud book. That will prevent mares in one particular stud book being mated with a stallion entered in another stud book.
Dr. Ryan
My intention was to have it as near as possible to the 1918 Act. I will undertake to consult the draftsman again and, if necessary, have that change made.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
The Minister does not mean what he said about keeping out those mares?
Dr. Ryan
I should like to have it possible to prescribe those stud books but from what advice I have got up to the present I do not think I would prescribe them. The possibility is there at any time of, perhaps, better advice being given. But we mean to set up a consultative council on this matter and then if the consultative council think well of it we may have these stud books.
Will the people on this consultative council be persons who are engaged in horse breeding?
Dr. Ryan
We will certainly try to have racing people on it.
There is a huge difference between people engaged in racing and people engaged in bloodstock.
Dr. Ryan
We mean to have both, those engaged in racing and in bloodstock, and people engaged on the business side as well. We mean to have representatives on the consultative council from all persons and groups interested in horses.
Let us have one representative from each particular section. Let us have them specialised. What does a Clydesdale man know about bloodstock?
Dr. Ryan
They must all consult together.
I would like formally to move amendment No. 6:—
In page 2, at the end of Section 4 (1) to add a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) he has or keeps in his possession—
(i) a stallion which is entered in any prescribed stud book and is used for the service of none but mares so entered, or
(ii) a thoroughbred stallion the stud fee for which is not less than ten pounds, including grooms fee.
Have you not got that already?
I do not know that I have. I am not satisfied that the Minister intends to give us the substance of this amendment. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I used on the Committee Stage. I just formally want to move the amendment. Perhaps the Minister would inform us now whether he would reconsider that matter?
Dr. Ryan
I should like to say that I thought I was meeting the Deputy in what I promised. I admit that the wording is not quite as clear as I would like it to be, but I have given an undertaking that I will consult the draftsman again. I want to be in a position to prescribe other stud books if we want them.
So that mares entered in one stud book could be mated with a stallion in another. If that undertaking is given I withdraw my amendment.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Very well, on that undertaking I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 7:—
In page 2, line 49, Section 5 (1) (c), to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "two".
This was an amendment in connection with penalties under the Bill. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the original decision and to reduce the penalty.
Dr. Ryan
I understood the Deputy had withdrawn that amendment on the last day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 8 reads:—
In page 2, line 50, Section 7 (2), after the word "inspector" to insert the words "who is a qualified veterinary surgeon, or who is accompanied by a qualified veterinary surgeon."
This is an amendment under which we had considerable discussion on the last day, and I am not sure that although we withdrew the amendment the Minister did not make a promise that he would reconsider it. I am not definitely stating that he did. But I think he said that there would be a qualified veterinary surgeon to examine the horses. I do not intend to make a speech of it. Perhaps the Minister would repeat his assurance that there would be a qualified veterinary surgeon to examine the horses.
Dr. Ryan
I think I have explained that the majority of the inspections will be carried out by the Department's veterinary surgeon, but there are certain cases where a layman would be deemed sufficient without being accompanied by a veterinary surgeon. I may say that no stallions would be rejected for unsoundness except on the certificate of a veterinary surgeon. The layman would only judge the fitness and suitability of the animal, not his soundness.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 9 and 10 not moved.
I move amendment 11:—
In page 8, line 17, Section 17 (1), to delete all words after the word "purposes" to and including the word "time", line 18.
This is another amendment on which we had considerable discussion on the last day. It is an amendment which inflicts the maximum penalty on the owner of a sire who fails to put in his application within the prescribed time. Everything that could be said on this was said on the last day, but I want to recapitulate in a few words what I said then. It seems to me that whatever necessity there was for the main portion of the section—inflicting a penalty on people who violate the law in certain respects—that penalty was altogether too great for a technical offence such as the failure to make application for a licence. I hope the Minister, on reconsidering the matter, will accept the deletion of these words.
Dr. Ryan
I think we discussed this very fully on the Committee Stage. I understand that this particular penalty of castration could not be inflicted without due notice, in fact, without many notices. First of all, we have to give notice about the castration. If that was not carried out, reasonable notice would have to be given—14 days after—to castrate the animal. There is an appeal against that notice, and that appeal has to be heard. There are various safeguards given before any such thing as castration can be carried out.
This particular clause deals with castration. That penalty should be confined to animals unsuitable for licensing, not for any other reason. The bringing in of another purpose here is little short of vindictiveness against the person who has failed to apply for the licence. No Deputy is standing for the registration of a stallion that is not up to standard. But the one qualification for getting that designation is suitability. For unsuitability there is one and only one method of dealing — and that is to order the animal to be castrated. You are losing the whole situation if you make the Bill so that a man who did not apply for a licence through forgetfulness, or through any other cause, is to have his animal castrated. The owner might be in the same position as the Minister for Agriculture was five or six years ago—that he would not recognise the court. But that is no reason why a suitable animal should be castrated. The animal should be examined only as to his suitability as a sire. The other question does not arise. It is nonsense to bring in that penalty here because a man has failed to apply for the licence in time. When the Minister says there are various safeguards before a thing of that kind can be done, he is trifling with the House. Let the man who disobeys the law suffer whatever penalty is inflicted in connection with the breach of the law, but the horse should not be cast simply for the reason that his owner did not apply for a licence to have him registered as a sire. I certainly think Deputy Bennett is perfectly entitled to divide the House on this amendment.
Is there any parallel for that amendment in the Act relating to pedigree cattle?
Dr. Ryan
Of course there is.
Is it possible to castrate a beast simply because the owner has failed to apply for a certificate within the prescribed time?
Dr. Ryan
You have first to serve a castration notice, and then the owner applies for a licence or for registration. It is a very good way of getting people to hurry up. Take the case mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave. Suppose you have a person who will not recognise the Act?
Then fine him.
Dr. Ryan
Are you going to leave it at that?
You are fining him in perpetuity if you do the other thing, and I submit that is not fair.
Dr. Ryan
But these horses have to be examined once a year.
Very well, let them.
Dr. Ryan
But then we will have no record at all that these stallions are in our books.
You have no right whatever to destroy the animal.
Dr. Ryan
Again I must repeat that Deputy Cosgrave, when he was President, did not restrict Deputy Hogan from putting such a provision in his Livestock Breeding Act.
I do not think he did it.
Dr. Ryan
I think he did.
Well, it was put in very safe hands anyway.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy has reformed a lot since his Government was in power. He stands for a lot of things now that he did not stand for then. He now describes as unjust and immoral things that were done under his own administration.
Surely the Minister is not going to make the defence that because the Cumann na nGaedheal Government did something five years ago that that, in itself, is an adequate explanation for the inclusion of a section such as this?
Dr. Ryan
I think myself it is a rotten defence.
I knew that the Dr. Ryan who was transmogrified into the position of Minister for Agriculture always cherished in his bosom a profound veneration for Cumann na nGaedheal, but this is the first time that he has said it. Quite apart from that, is it not perfectly obvious that if the stallion was an animal of very considerable value the Minister would not do the manifest wrong of destroying it? He would go some other way about it. He would fine the owner, or take such steps as were necessary to prevent the destruction of the animal. In fact, in no case would the Minister use the sanction that he has in this section, because he knows himself it is a bad one. The course that he would pursue would be to fine the man for every day that he kept the animal without making application. That would be the sensible thing to do. Eventually, if the man proved stubborn and intractable, the Minister would levy for the fine and, if needs be, imprison him for it. That would be the ordinary sensible thing to do. It is the ordinary way of coercing a citizen into conformity with the law. Surely it is had in principle to take powers in a Bill that the Minister himself knows no rational man could use or employ, and that is all Deputy Bennett asks the Minister to forgo. To me the Deputy's suggestion seems a highly rational one. Where there is a sanction proposed in a Bill that is manifestly unusable and that no rational Minister would think of using, then I say that no rational Minister should ask the House to give him that power.
Mr. Rice
Deputy Dillon has summed up in a few words the true situation as regards the principle we are discussing. The Minister can get all that he requires under the Bill— we on this side of the House will not object—by taking power to inflict a day to day fine for a breach of the statute in regard to the matter that he wants to have attended to. That will be a complete remedy. It will be a much better remedy than to have this bludgeon held over people's heads that their property may be destroyed. Such a power as this might lead to the destruction of very valuable property in this country, but there will be no such danger to property if the Minister takes the remedy suggested by Deputy Dillon, namely, that after the lapse of a certain period during which a man should apply for a licence there will be a day to day fine for a breach of the regulations. I think the Minister should accept that suggestion. The remedy in the Bill was truly referred to by Deputy The O'Mahony last week as a penalty that was going to be inflicted on the animal instead of on the owner. I think the Minister ought to be satisfied with the power to inflict a day to day penalty for neglect or refusal to comply with the regulations after a prescribed period. That, I think, will be a complete remedy. What we object to in the section is the danger of destruction of valuable property.
I would like to make a final appeal to the Minister to meet us on this. We have got on very well in connection with this Bill. There has been a little give and take on both sides. We have not had any divisions on it, and at this, the eleventh hour, I do not want to have a division on this particular amendment. We on this side of the House feel that this is a very necessary amendment. I make a final appeal to the Minister to make some provision that the penalty inflicted for a breach of the Act will not fall on the horse.
Dr. Ryan
I see such a spirit of reform amongst the Cumann na nGaedheal Party——
Mr. Rice
When Deputy Dillon was speaking he referred to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party of some years ago.
Dr. Ryan
Well, such a spirit of reform amongst former members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and former members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government—they want us to do a little better than they did themselves—that, for the sake of good feeling, I am inclined to give way on this.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment 12:—
In page 10, line 18, Section 22, to insert after the word "licence" the words "certificate of exemption."
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as reported, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, the 30th November.