Has any provision been made to enable other persons to express their views in this debate? I understand that the debate will last for half an hour only. Unfortunately, I was not present when the Seanad met at 3 o'clock. There are some views which I should like to express.
Adjournment Debate—Export of Horses for Slaughter.
Under Standing Orders the motion may be debated for half an hour. In accordance with the procedure of the House, twenty minutes are allowed to the mover of the motion and ten minutes are allowed to the Minister to reply. Unless the mover and the Minister are prepared to give some of their time there is no further time available for other speakers to contribute to the debate.
If, within that time, I cannot get an opportunity of speaking, may I raise the matter tomorrow?
That is a matter for consideration.
I have, as has been indicated a bare 20 minutes. I shall try to make what I have to say fit into that time. I personally was in favour of extending the time because I think this should be spoken on more widely. The House has decided otherwise.
I should like to begin by saying that on this question of the export of horses I have no patience with those who brand the people who are protesting here and in England as mere sentimentalists and cranks. I remember that on a previous occasion a Senator referring to me said: "Senator Sheehy Skeffington's heart is always bleeding for somebody." On that occasion I was talking about the beating of Irish schoolchildren. The remark was intended as a sneer, but I regarded it as a compliment. I should like to say at the outset, therefore, that I am not ashamed of being capable of compassion. My experience is that in general those who hate cruelty in one field will hate it in every field and fight against it, and that on the contrary those who are callously indifferent to suffering at any level will tend to be insensitive bullies also in their approach to every human problem.
It is because, as an Irishman and speaking for Irishmen, I feel for all victims of suffering, human and animal—the child, the horse, the fox —I feel for all of these and think we owe them our protection—for that reason I am appealing to-night to the Minister, and to the Government, to stop this horse export trade now.
I do not know to what precise degree a horse can feel pain, but I know that an Irishman can feel shame, and I feel ashamed as an Irishman to-day. I am far from being alone as an Irishman in feeling thus about this trade. I know I am speaking for all decent Irish opinion. I have had a number of letters. I would quote from two of them. The first is from an Irish engineer in Barrow-in-Furness, England, who says: "Therefore when you stand up in the Seanad on Wednesday at 3 o'clock you will have literally thousands of unseen supporters." An Irishwoman in Glasgow writes to me and says in the course of her letter: "I said at the beginning I was Irish which I was never in my life ashamed to be until I read of this ghastly trade."
In my contention, therefore, I am speaking for all decent Irish opinion as well as decent world opinion. I feel ashamed that we have let this unclean export trade continue. I am ashamed because the Minister and the Government have spent far too much time in covering up, and far too little time in facing the facts, and in seeking a permanent solution to which we can reconcile our conscience. I feel ashamed also that yet once more it is the money-grubbers apparently who dictate our national economy. I feel ashamed that once callousness and unnecessary suffering can be shown to pay a dividend, apparently no Irish Government can be persuaded to put a stop to it.
I think the Irish Government are wrong in thinking that this attitude of theirs is approved by the vast mass of the Irish people, though it may be approved of course by some with vested interests. I talk about "the Government", but it is not of course only this Government; the same applied to the last Government. The last Minister for Agriculture had practically the same attitude as the present Minister.
I believe that this trade should have been stopped years ago, and, if it had, by now a whole subsidiary industry would have been built up on carcase meat, canned meat, sausage meat, bonemeal, dried blood and other fertilisers, and so on, an industry which will I believe be built up eventually in this country, but which could have been created years ago. I do not know whether the Seanad is aware that in fish and meatmeal and bonemeal—they are not separated in our statistics— we imported in 1958 £230,000 worth of meal, fish meat and bone; of hides not necessarily of horses but all "other than cattle", £62,000 worth. It is not possible to give the figures for individual fertilisers, dried blood and so on, because they are not broken down in our trade returns, but the figure for such imports would be considerable.
I suggest that if there is money in the export of horses there is potentially just as big money, perhaps bigger, in retaining them here and doing the processing in Ireland by Irish hands. This is perfectly possible, but we must first stop the live export. It is quite possible that there would be a money loss to some at first, but there would rapidly be a change and a gain once an outlet other than the export trade had to be found for worn out horses.
I remember years ago, as we all remember, articles in the Manchester Guardian about the sort of things that happen to our horses when they get to the Continent. Some improvements were made arising out of those articles. Horses had to be more critically vetted before they went on ships. Better conditions were ensured. But in my opinion—and that is what I am putting before the House to-night—these precautionary measures are not enough, even if they are perfect or near-perfect, as the Minister would ask us to believe, because we are responsible also for the end-purpose of this trade.
I was speaking yesterday to an Irishman who has been in Dieppe in the past few days, and has seen the abattoir in Vaugirard in Paris. He described what he saw—the horses as delivered on the Continent and what happened in Dieppe and afterwards. He described how they were crowded eight at a time into railway wagons. He described how, if a horse went down on the voyage, it was often found to be dead or dying at the end of the run; how the abattoir in Paris which was built for handling 80 horses in a day is now being asked to handle 200. He described how in a crowded space these horses are first stunned, not killed, by the humane killer, their throats then cut and allowed to bleed to death. The floor is covered with blood. The hides are dragged out and thrown outside the door. The fresh horse is brought in to face this and to have his turn. Most of these horses are unwilling to face it, and have to be dragged and beaten in to have it done. Yesterday this Irishman said he had seen these things happen a few days ago and had also seen the same abattoir years ago, and he said that it is now "worse than ever".
The French, I am glad to say, are concerned about this, and a judicial inquiry is to be held. On this point, decent Irish opinion is joined by decent French opinion. Yet there are here people in responsible positions who say that what happens our exported horses on the Continent is not our responsibility. I say that is hokum. It emphatically is our responsibility. We cannot wash our hands of it. Once we know what happens to these horses, if we let the export continue, we are accessories before the fact, as was well said in an Irish Times editorial on January 18th, from which I now quote:
The traffic is a cruel one; so much cannot be denied. Even if the conditions of transport are all that the shippers claim them to be, and the suffering is only the result of storms, there is yet every reason to believe that the wretched brutes have a hard time after landing on the Continent and we, as accessories, must take our full share of the blame.
I believe that to be true.
Yet, what is the attitude of our Government? We have today a long statement from the Taoiseach. I am glad he has at last found it necessary to intervene. But what does he say, having, according to the Irish Times, first of all, excluded the British journalists in a manner which seems to be petty and highly misguided? He excluded all of them before he made his statement. I do not know what fear that implies, or what sense of guilt. Having done that, he went on to refuse to make any comment when asked if he would make representations to the French Government about alleged cruelty to Irish horses in transit in France. He is apparently unwilling to do even that. He went on to say, and again I quote from this morning's Irish Times:
The Taoiseach pointed out that the Government would much prefer to see the trade in horses converted into a trade in horse meat. We hope that this will happen.
I suggest to the Taoiseach that in relation to other trades and the making of a variety of articles in this country, such as the assembly of high-powered cars or the making of Irish cutlery, the Government were more positive and were not content to say "We would prefer these things to happen. We hope they will happen." Instead, they set about creating conditions where they would happen. That is what we must do by stopping this trade here and now, and by thus making it possible for the alternative trades to grow.
The Taoiseach says further that our regulations are the same as the British "except that the British regulations prohibit the shipment of horses under a certain value, but this is irrelevant." So far from being irrelevant, it is the very thing that our Government must do—make an Order like the British Order, the Exportation of Horses (Minimum Value) Order, 1956, which makes it impossible to export live horses from Britain of a value of less than £105. So far from that being irrelevant, it is the answer to our problem, and it is precisely what I would ask the Government to do.
Further, the Taoiseach mentioned that an inquiry was "immediately instituted" by the Minister for Agriculture. I would point to the fact— the Minister is present and I am glad to see him—that, in a sense, the Minister and the Government are acting as judge and jury in their own case, because if something has gone wrong under the Minister's regulations, there should be some independent inquiry to judge whether he has a case or not in defence of these regulations.
The Taoiseach goes on to say that the Department institutes an inquiry "without delay". Today is the 20th January and the sailing of the City of Waterford was on the 19th December. I would not call that “without delay”. He then goes on to attack the newspaper reports, “sensationalism” and so on, and to say there is no cruelty, and he gives the number of casualties at less than .3 per cent. But he omits to mention that a horse that staggers off the boat, collapses and dies or has to be killed on the quayside is not technically counted as a “casualty” because it did not die on the boat, and there have been all too many such. Furthermore, he says:
The newspapers which are campaigning in this matter do not seem to understand the resentment felt in Ireland at their unjustified assumption that we in this country are not concerned about the way the trade is carried on ...
I can only interpret that as meaning he thinks the trade stops when the horse gets off the boat at Dieppe, for he has made it clear he is not interested in or concerned with the way the trade is carried on once our horses are delivered on the Continent. He says, and he may be right, that our regulations are "the strictest in the world", but if, under regulations which are the strictest in the world, it is possible for 47 horses out of 150 on one ship to die, to be killed by the conditions—and they are all fit horses, pronounced fit by vets.—if it is possible for that to happen under the best possible regulations, I would say no regulations can render this trade decent, even in its ship-board phase.
I notice in this press report also that there is a mention of a meeting of the Protection of Livestock for Slaughter Association in Liverpool, which passed a resolution urging all cattle buyers to boycott the import of all Irish steers and store cattle. That is only one example. There is also, according to the Bournemouth Echo (January 14th), the example of the local branch of the Ringwood Farmers' Union Branch which similarly called on their members to boycott Irish store cattle.
The Taoiseach talked about the sensationalism of certain newspapers. Sensationalism, I submit, is not to be found only in British newspapers. We find all too often in our Irish newspapers sensationalism of the kind referred to by Senator O'Quigley earlier to-night—the sort of article which deals with the "exploits" of Japanese and Nazi air aces, for instance, Sunday after Sunday. It is unfair at any rate to brand all the British Press as muck-rakers. The Guardian, The Times, The Observer and The Sunday Times, all of which have been concerned about this, are quite definitely not muck-rakers in any sense. As the French say in a wise saying: “It is only the truth that hurts.” I am afraid that is why our people in high positions are getting so annoyed at this protest.
I am old enough, I may say, to remember when Black and Tan atrocities were happening here. We were very glad then to have foreign correspondents come amongst us to tell the truth to the world. Foremost amongst the newspapers represented by these correspondents were British newspapers such as the Manchester Guardian and The Daily Herald. Now, alas, I am afraid it is the truth we are afraid of, and which we hope to suppress. I am prepared to admit that muck-raking has been indulged in by certain British newspapers, and some of the facts have been presented without moderation, or without making it clear which sufferings occurred where— in Ireland, on board ship, in Belgium, in France, and so on. But though muck-raking is not a pleasant occupation, I have a feeling that what the Government resent is not that some papers indulge in muck-raking, but that, when they do rake this particular muck, they find in it some of our Governmental policy-makers. Indeed, unless we all protest, and do our damnedest to force the Government to stop this ghastly and unsavoury trade, we are all in it. If we resent being portrayed to the world with dirt on our hands, there are two ways of attempting to prevent such portraits. One is to try to muzzle the Press and smash the cameras; the other is to clean our hands.
I have nearly reached the end of my time, but I should just like to point out that the Independent today mentions the conclusions and recommendations of the 1955 Report of the Blue Cross and Dumb Friends' League, in which Recommendation 13 reads:
That shipowners should give instructions to captains of the ships before putting to sea with cargoes of horses that they should make the most careful inquiries from the meteorological service to ensure that very heavy weather would not be encountered for the three days normally taken for the journey.
And yet on the days in question—this sailing took place on 19th December —warnings were issued by the British Meteorological Service on the 16th saying that south to southwest gales, force 8, were imminent in the Irish Sea. On the 17th the warning was issued: "Gales in the Irish Sea, veering westerly, force 8"; on the 18th, "gales in the Irish Sea, veering west to northwest, force 8." A further entry for the 18th said at 7.30 p.m.: "Gales now ceased in the Irish Sea," but on the 19th at 3.41 a.m. a gale warning was issued, which was operative until midnight on the 19th, saying: "Southerly gale, force 8, imminent in the Irish Sea." Despite all these warnings, this ship set out. This is what actually happens under what are called the best regulations in the world.
I believe that we must concern ourselves with what happens to these horses after they reach the Continent. We cannot pretend that we are behaving honourably in supplying animal victims in exchange for cash without any care or thought for what happens to those victims once we have collected our blood money. I would appeal to the Government, consequently, in the name of decent Irish opinion, to stop this trade now, and to give every help to the setting up of the Irish abattoir to deal humanely with worn-out horses, and establish all the subsidiary industries which will eventually and necessarily flourish as a result of our stopping now of this horrible export trade.
I should like to conclude with a quotation from a memorandum to the Minister submitted by the Irish Branch of the International League for the Protection of Horses and the Central Council of Irish Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in which they urge the following:
The regulations made by your Department governing the conditions in abattoirs in Ireland where horses are slaughtered for animal food and also for abattoirs where horses may be slaughtered for human consumption are very comprehensive and humane and would stand comparison with any in the world. We feel that if the horses could be slaughtered here in Ireland under these humane and up-to-date conditions laid down by your Department this would effectively answer the outcry in the foreign press and radio that we as a nation are a cruel people with regard to animals.
It is that spirit that I should like to see in the Government and in that spirit I appeal to the Government to put an end to this trade now.
The Minister, to conclude.
I should like formally to support Senator Sheehy Skeffington.
I should like to protest on behalf of the graduates of the National University of Ireland who comprise 90 per cent. of the Irish graduates——
As the person who first raised the question of his right to speak on this matter today, I wish to protest. I think it is very wrong for other people to be allowed to speak.
They are not being allowed to speak. The Minister for Agriculture, to conclude.
There is not very much time left and there are just a few points that I should like to make in the few minutes left to me. The first point is this: I do not know of any country in which the export of horses is prohibited. Britain exercises a value limit on horses allowed out of the country. I have not got time to elaborate on what I think of that arrangement from the point of view of the sort of pretence to which we have just listened. The regulations enforced in this country as regards the transport of horses by sea are in conformity with the highest international standards. Again, prior to shipment, all horses must be subjected to examination by the port and veterinary staff and only animals in good condition, strong and fit to put to work, are allowed to be exported. All ships must be approved by the Department of Agriculture and there are detailed regulations as regards the fittings for penning the horses and for bedding and stalls.
From time to time, veterinary officers of the Department have travelled on the vessels carrying these horses and they have always found the manner in which the horses travelled, and their condition on arrival, very satisfactory. In 1955, the Blue Cross carried out an independent investigation and their report on the condition of horses on arrival was satisfactory. In 1958, a veterinary officer of the Belgian Government travelled with a consignment of horses from this country to Belgium and it is understood he could find no fault with the arrangement.
This campaign started on the basis that horses were carried under cruel and savage conditions, but later when the representatives of the newspapers were made aware of the facts, and actually travelled to the Continent with the horses, they found neither horror nor cruelty. These reports, however, did not receive very much publicity. Irish people at home and abroad have no reason in the world to hang their heads or feel any embarrassment about this business.
Question.
They have the assurance that the Government are just as concerned about the humane treatment of animals as those who shout loudest about them. They have, over the years, maintained and improved regulations for the transport of livestock and are always ready to carry out new ideas likely to add to the safety and comfort of animals. The export of livestock is a perfectly legitimate trade. Every country accepts this and I do not think that any country would be prepared to give up its rights in this matter. We have gone a long way to meet those who object to the export of live horses. Since October, 1957, the Government have been prepared to permit the export of horse meat.
The loss of horses from the City of Waterford on the voyage is being investigated and if as a result we find that our regulations can be strengthened, we shall not hesitate to strengthen them. I do admit this: even with all that human ingenuity can do, it is impossible to provide against everything. If I breed a young horse, I have to train him. If the horse is bred for work on the land, or bred for other purposes, he has to be trained. There is risk associated with the training of the animal. If I took him on to the road in the old days when motoring was not as it is today and the horse became frightened, he was liable to take me and the cart, or whatever he was hauling, across the fence and break his neck and perhaps mine also. But is it to be contended that because the animal was exposed to risk like that I was not to take him on to the road?
I do not really understand—and I say this as one who speaks for those who belong to rural Ireland, and who know and think a lot about animals and tend them and serve them and work and train them—the mentality of those who say that because there is a risk for the human and for the animal, life must come to a standstill. I admit completely and absolutely that the Department of Agriculture has been doing its best to make the conditions as nearly perfect as possible, and I admit that we should continue to make every effort in that regard, but having made every effort, I say that no human mind or ingenuity can save us from the possibility of loss or injury not only to the human but to the animal as well.
What about what happens when they get to France?
I am talking now about any ordinary man; that man who has experience of life and who knows life and understands it perfectly because I have seen horses injure themselves in their stalls, injure themselves in training, injure themselves on the road —horses that were valuable and loved by their owners. But is it to be contended that because they were to be exposed to these risks, we are to stand by and say that we cannot take them out because injury might follow?
As I say, I shall not comment upon this whole campaign. I repeat that we have nothing in the wide world—and this has been admitted by people of every nationality who have come amongst us—of which to be ashamed. Those who try to pretend that Irish people and the Irish Government are not fully conscious of or desirous of respecting the feelings of our own race are doing something and campaigning about something, which has no foundation in fact. Fully conscious of our responsibilities and of the feelings of our race we shall do everything we can, as a Government, to ensure the humane treatment of animals, not only of horses but of animals of all kinds. I can assert confidently that this Government will do all in their power to ensure that humane treatment, as will every Irish Government of the future.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 21st January, 1960.