The question put to the Minister today with the answer to which we were dissatisfied, asked that the Minister amend any recent change he had made in the limitations on the export of horses so as to avoid any serious losses to the Irish farmer. There are many ways of amending a particular matter. Any amendments to be made are up to the Minister and the purpose of the question was to give the Minister an opportunity to amend the limitations as he saw fit. However, the Minister, in the supplementaries to the question seemed to avoid the entire point at issue. I quote the supplementaries as follows:
Mr. Donegan: Does the Minister not realise that this means a minimum loss of £15 per head on horses sold by the Irish farmers, that as a result fewer farm horses will be bred and that if this continues there will not be a horse in Ireland in ten years?
Mr. Smith: I do not realise what the present policy or the day to day policy of the Fine Gael Party is but in 1953 that Party voted for a motion to prohibit the export of all horses.
Mr. Dillon: Not true.
Mr. Smith: It is on the records of the House. They voted for the prohibition of the export of all horses at a time when there was no means of processing horses in this country, and now they are concerned about an order I make altering the age at which horses may be exported from seven years to five years.
I would answer that as Deputy Dillon did by saying "not true" and would refer the Minister to Volume 143, Columns 597 and 598 where he will discover that this was a free vote of the House and that over one-third of the members of the Fine Gael Party voted for the motion as he has described and that none of the members voted for the other side. He will also find that a Minister and some Deputies of his Party voted with them on that motion so confirming the fact that this was a free vote and had nothing to do with Party politics.
The duty of any Irish Minister for Agriculture is to get the best price possible for the products of the Irish farmer. The farmer must pay for everything he gets in the open market and therefore he must get the highest possible price available to the Minister to get for him. The sole responsibility devolves on the Minister in that regard. One finds from the Statistical Abstract for the last years for which one can get accurate information that, in 1958, live horses were exported to the value of £2,233,000 that in 1959, the value was £2,389,000 and that in 1960, the value was £3,265,000.
I do not suggest that these were all exported for slaughter but I do suggest that a large proportion of them were and if there is to be a loss, as there seems to be, of £15 a head, then the Irish farmer is losing something in the region of half a million pounds a year. We on this side of the House must clarify our position exactly. We are not concerned as to how the Minister gets over that position. Our consideration is to see that the farmer gets the highest prices. How that is to be done, the marketing and the humanities, is the Minister's concern. On that he will be judged. That is his responsibility.
If the Minister wants to say that the decent humanities are not being observed and that export must be stopped, it is his duty to see that the farmer gets an equal price at home. If he wants to prohibit the export of horses, then it surely is his responsibility to provide, by subsidy or other means, the difference that will mean that the Irish farmer will get the same price.
The last paragraph of the question asked:
And if he will now amend this recent change, so as to avoid serious loss to the Irish farmer?
We do not mind how the Minister amends it but it is the right of the Irish farmer, if he has to buy his goods in a free market or behind a tariff wall, to sell in a free market. Therefore the responsibility devolves on the Government to see that he gets the same price.
The British Government want to give their industrial workers cheap meat and they allow free export of cattle to the British market but they provide subsidies for their farmers so that they will not lose money. There is no reason why the Minister cannot do that. If he takes a certain action which interferes with the profits of the Irish farmers, it is our duty, as a responsible Opposition, to see that he answers for that and we will do just that. Is this to be the start of many such things? If there is to be trouble in relation to cruelty to livestock, and I would be the last to encourage cruelty to any animal, least of all to the horse, then are we to be told that we cannot export our cattle? Are we to be told that we will have to take a lower price and slaughter them at home?
A definite precedent has now been established and there is only one action open to the Minister as I see it. If he is going to kill the trade, and that is what he is doing, then he must provide a subsidy to ensure that the Irish farmer will not be at any loss. That is the reason we are raising this matter on the Adjournment.