asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether a person (name supplied) was refused permission to see his horse, which was in quarantine at the RDS, between 10.30 and 11.30 a.m. on 6th December, 1971; and, if so, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Quarantine of Horse.
15.
On 6th December, the owner in question, accompanied by two other persons, called to the quarantine premises and requested admittance. The veterinary officer in charge refused admittance to the group, but he indicated that he was prepared to have the horse they were interested in brought to the entrance gate so that it could be looked at from outside the quarantine premises. This compromise did not seem to be attractive to the owner at that time, but it was availed of by him later that day.
I think it well that I should point out that the quarantining of imported animals is designed to protect this country against the introduction of serious animal diseases from abroad, and no right whatever can attach to owners to visit their animals in quarantine. I must reserve full discretion to grant or refuse facilities in this matter.
On two previous occasions, the Minister has stated here that no owner was refused permission to see his horse. Now we have a case where an owner was refused permission to see his horse in the company of two leading breeders from France. In view of the fact that there was some controversy regarding the standard of the quarters made available for the horses, would the Minister state what insurance facilities were in force at the time, whether there was any neglect involved, and whether the insurance company would pay if anything happened to the horse?
I should like to deal with Deputy Byrne's assertion that the owner in question was refused permission to see his horse. In the first place, he has no right to demand such a right but, in fact, I understand he acceded to an arrangement that would permit him to look at the horse through the gates of the quarantine establishment.
Yesterday the Minister stated that nobody had been refused permission to see the horses. Will the Minister not agree this is so?
Yes. The owner saw his horse.
Is the Minister aware that the owner was refused permission between 10.30 and 11.30 when he went to see his horse?
As I told the Deputy, he accepted the arrangement by which he could look at the horse through the gates. He was not entitled to any concessions. The Deputy will appreciate that the primary function of a quarantine establishment is to ensure that horses in this country are not affected by any serious disease such as Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis which is prevalent in the United States at the present time. It is the responsibility of the Department to exercise strict control over such matters and they will maintain strict control in this connection.
The disease the Minister has mentioned is prevalent in Mexico, not in the United States. These horses have been in quarantine for three weeks before they come over here. On two occasions the Minister stated that nobody was refused permission but I have shown him a case where the owner was refused permission.
The right of admittance and the right to inspect a horse are completely different matters. Is the Deputy unable to appreciate the difference?
The Minister said nobody was refused permission to see the horse.
That is right. Does the Deputy want me to read my reply again?
I should like to point out that it is extremely difficult to hear the Minister. Perhaps he would speak a little louder.
I am calling Question No. 16.