I move:—
That, in view of the cruelty and suffering caused to live horses in their export to the Continent and slaughter there, under inhumane conditions, Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that our national prestige, as well as our economic advantage, would be enhanced by the prohibition of this trade and the substitution for it of a dressed meat trade.
I put down this motion about a year and a half ago so that the House would have an opportunity of discussing this question fully. This matter of the export of live horses is something which has been the subject of public grievance and feeling for quite a considerable period. The question was raised in June, 1952, by Deputy Dockrell in a parliamentary question and subsequently on the Adjournment. It is hardly necessary to recall to the House that public opinion at that time felt very strongly about this subject. You will recall that there were very many meetings and demonstrations in Dublin. Some of these meetings were the largest that many Dublin Deputies had seen for many years.
Public opinion felt strongly, not only in the country but outside the country.A series of articles covering a full investigation into the export of live horses for slaughter was run by the Irish Times.TheManchester Guardiancarried out an investigation into the trade. Questions were raised in the British Parliament on the matter. It was the subject of a good deal of publicity throughout England and there were petitions even from the Continent itself from some of the countries to which this export is actually taking place and where slaughter occurs under conditions which we here find so unsatisfactory.
Let us examine the trade as it stands and see what are our objections to it and where those objections are placed. First of all, there is the question of the long sea voyage, often of 60 or 70 hours. Many hundreds of horses are brought across to Dieppe and other continental ports. It has been shown from the articles which were written in the newspapers, the investigation done by Mr. Keatley, and from the observation of many other reliable witnesses that the horses undoubtedly suffer great hardship during transit. I realise that efforts have been made as far as the Irish authorities are concerned to try to ensure that there is a proper standard for the accommodation of these horses on board during the sea crossing but, nevertheless, instances have occurred, one in particular, where 29 out of 51 horses had to be destroyed as a result of the injury they met with during the voyage.
It has been pointed out again and again that horses are not suitable for a long sea journey. Horses suffer much more from sea-sickness than other animals and, being unable to vomit, they suffer a great deal of colic during transit.
However, the actual sea voyage is not the worst of the journey. Far greater cruelty and hardship take place when the animals reach some of the continental ports and from then onwards. In the investigations which have been carried out, it has been pointed out that after the sea voyage, which sometimes extends to 60 or 70 hours, the horses are entrained at the port of Dieppe or other continental port, and after waiting there for someconsiderable time are brought by rail to Paris. This stage of the journey is something which we object to very strongly. In all, the horses are travelling some 36 hours by train. They are put in groups of 12 or 13, irrespective of size, into wagons at sidings at Dieppe. The wagons are closed and the horses are left there, often without food or water, for at least 36 hours.
I put it to members of the House, do they really think that it is fair that animals should be put into a wagon like that, that there should be no method of seeing that they have proper accommodation and that they should be left to run about inside these wagons, injuring one another? It is quite common while these animals are being transported by train that certain horses take fright, bolt from one side of the wagon to another, and on many occasions animals have been taken out of these wagons in an injured condition and have had to be destroyed.
Apart from this very unsatisfactory method of rail transport, there are the very dreadful conditions of slaughter in France. People may say that this is not a responsibility of ours, that it takes place in another country, but we must remember that we are allowing this trade to continue, we are selling these horses to the Continent and we cannot discard the responsibility for what happens to them afterwards. I have no desire to interfere in the affairs of another country, but as long as we are selling these horses to the Continent we must accept responsibility for the way they are transported and for what happens to them subsequently.
I was in France in September, 1952, and I went to Vaugirard to see the slaughter conditions there. When I read the articles by Mr. Keatley that were published in the Manchester Guardianand subsequently here in theIrish TimesI thought it was possible that there might have been some exaggeration in his description of the slaughter conditions at Vaugirard. I went there and saw the horses being slaughtered. I do not think there is any exaggeration in his description of the conditions.
I think that it is something which the French will probably admit themselves that Vaugirard abattoir is completely inadequate to deal with the number of animals which were being slaughtered there at the time I visited it. It is a premises which was probably built to deal with some 70 or 80 animals a day and in September, 1952, when I was there, there were some 300 horses a day being slaughtered there. The conditions of overcrowding and the speed with which those who work in the abattoir had to carry on to try to complete that number would have to be seen to be believed.
It only took them some 15 minutes to slaughter and completely butcher a horse. That in itself must convey to the members here in the House the overcrowding and the complete lack of consideration and the crude methods which are adopted. When I came back from Vaugirard I went to see our own abattoirs here in Dublin. I went to see the Corporation abattoir and I compared the conditions in the two. There is a vast difference. There is no comparison whatsoever. It is quite obvious to anyone that our standards in these matters are entirely different from continental standards. What Mr. Keatley described in the articles of horses being led in and being slaughtered in front of the remains of other horses, the blood flowing across the floors, offals and various products of butchery scattered around the abattoir, are all absolutely true.
That is something which is not done here in the Dublin abattoir. It is considered an essential that when a horse is being brought in to be slaughtered that it should not be brought in and see the remains of another animal which has been previously slaughtered. That is a fundamental standard in the construction and in the running of an abattoir, so that I can personally vouch for the fact that there is no doubt but that these horses are being subjected to cruelty and are being treated in a way when they leave this country that we as Irish people would not treat them if we were slaughtering them at home.
I do not think that there is any doubt but that the case has been made that there is cruelty here. The last time that Deputy Dockrell raised this and we discussed it with the Minister for Agriculture his contention was that the cruelty had not been proved and, that if it had been proved, anyway it happened outside this country and was not our responsibility. I do not think the objection is valid, or that the case can be disproved. I think it is there, I have seen it myself, and I do not propose to go over it any further, because I think that any fair-minded person who looks into the evidence of all the reliable witnesses who had interested themselves in this case will see the facts for themselves,
In this motion a dressed-meat trade is suggested. What are the objections to altering the situation? Why cannot it be changed? In other words, what is the case of the other side? The case of the other side is, first of all, that there will be a loss of revenue to the farming community and, secondly, that there is a fear of damage to the beef trade. Now, as far as damage to the beef trade is concerned I do not accept that the establishment of a dressed-meat trade here would affect the beef trade. I notice, indeed, that in the Six Counties a factory has been set up in County Down, where they are carrying out the industry of the dressed-meat trade. No doubt, in the Six Counties they are interested in the beef trade too, and they are not going to take any steps that are going to interfere with their beef trade. Yet they do not see anything wrong in establishing a dressed-meat trade.
However, it is not sufficient for those of us who are fighting for this cause just to prove that the cruelty exists. We must be practical in this thing, we must offer an alternative, and we must see that the public and this House understand what the alternative is. First of all, the animals must be slaughtered in this country. If the animals are slaughtered in this country I think it is possible that, if the dressed-meat trade is not acceptable, these horses, both on the hoof and the fallen animal, could very usefully be put into the manufacture of animalfoodstuffs. There is a great shortage at the moment in this country of animal foods of high protein content, and it is a strange thing that we are leaving ourselves short of these animal foods and that we are leaving ourselves short of fertilisers and that we should be exporting to another country which can make all those products from the horse, the raw material which we require. There are other factories here which require the live horse and which cannot compete with the price which the Continent is paying. There is a dog-meat factory in Dublin and I understand that they cannot get live horses because they cannot compete with this price that is being paid. In regard to the use of the horse on the hoof or the fallen animal for the production of the high protein foodstuffs and the fertilisers, a factory has been started in this country, in Ballinasloe, and I am given to understand that they will be using cattle and horses, both on the hoof and the fallen animal, for the manufacture of these foodstuffs.
I am glad to say that the export is declining somewhat, and I believe that if there were a few other factories like this in the country it would be very possible that they would be able to take up entirely what is the present export trade. That would mean that we would have valuable foodstuffs which we require. It would mean that we would give employment in this country and that we would be able to put an end to this trade which is so disgusting and which is so very offensive to so many people in this country.
There is one point, supposing that those factories are set up. I do not know what the position would be, but I doubt very much if they are going to be able to pay the high prices that the continental firms pay, but I consider that there is a problem for the farmer himself. If he wants a high price for a horse I suppose he would be prepared to pay a high price for the bone meal. If he only gets a low price for the horse then I am sure it should be possible to make available foodstuffs at a very much lower price. However, I do not want to take up too much time, because I know that Deputy Dockrell and myself who arevery interested in this thing intend to do what we can, but what is aimed at in this motion now is to get the views of the House on it, and to see if we can, by putting down this motion, make some progress in doing away with this form of export trade which, as we have said in the motion, and as I firmly believe, is very, very damaging to the country's interest and which is most unnecessary in itself.