I wish to remind Deputies that this debate must close at 10.30 p.m. There is just an hour and a half to go.
Private Members' Business. - Export and Slaughter of Horses—Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
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. —(Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll, Deputy M.E. Dockrell.)
I do not intend to delay the House much longer in view of the fact that other Deputies wish to speak on this debate. Last night, I invited the Deputies responsible for this motion to take a ramble down to any one of the bacon factories in Dublin in the early morning and to see for themselves what happens there. I invited them to see if there was not far more cruelty in the way pigs are slaughtered than there is, as suggested in this motion, with regard to some other animals.
I also pointed out that this motion does not atempt to stop the shipment of these horses to Britain. They can go to Britain all right but they cannot go to the Continent. I wonder where is the difference? That is what I should like to hear.
We are not keen on their being sent to Britain, either. I spoke at considerable length on that.
One would think that, in view of the fact that 10,000 of the 32,000 horses exported last year went to Britain, you would include Britain in this motion.
It is a shorter distance.
The motion was put down one and a half years ago.
Since then, we have had some changes. I gave instances here last night of the number of cattle that are injured in the course of shipment to Britain. I instanced one case in particular and I invited Deputies to find it in the Official Report. They will find it at column 101 of the Official Report of the 9th December, 1942. I mentioned that, in a period of two years, 63 cattle belonging to one cattle dealer were injured to such an extent that he was not paid for them. He was paid for several other cattle which were injured but not for 63 cattle that were injured over a period of two yearsin the course of shipment to Britain. That does not take into account the number of injured cattle for which he was paid.
Did the Deputy quote that last night?
I had to refresh my memory on the point. I am giving the exact number involved now. I wonder if either of the two movers of this motion ever goes to a race meeting. Do they ever take a ramble down to the Curragh? I am sure that a lot of the ladies who are so interested in this matter of cruelty to horses in the course of their being shipped to the Continent, often go to race meetings at the Curragh and elsewhere. There there see the poor old horse with a jockey up on his back. They see the horse being flayed on both sides—just like the way an Orange drummer flays a drum during the 12th July celebrations. The lady who now objects to allowing the old horse to be sent to the Continent, sits above in the grandstand and claps her hands in delight, unmindful of any injury that the animal might get just because she has a few bob on his tail. She is not worried about cruelty then. She does not see that there is any cruelty there.
That will not happen to Tulyar.
I wonder if, by any chance, either of the two Deputies who moved this motion are anglers. Do they ever go fishing? If they do, they pull an unfortunate worm out of the ground, with its poor body wriggling, and they stick that worm on the top of a hook and then they cast that poor unfortunate worm into the water in the hope that a fish will come along and gobble it. They do not care about that: that is not cruelty at all. No, there is no cruelty in that but there is cruelty in shipping horses to the Continent. Apparently, the movers of the motion are not interested in any other animal except the horse.
Many Deputies, particularly the older ones, have been caring for and working horses from our infancy. I have seen comrades of mine andneighbours of mine—and I include myself in this—coming in after a hard day's work in the fields. The first thing we do is to take the horse that works with us to the stable and feed him, clean him and care for him before we sit down to our own meal. We have a lot more respect for horses and we know a lot more about them than either of the two Deputies who come in here——
They are able to work.
We have a lot more respect and thought for the horses than either of these two Deputies have. I think I have given enough instances to convince any Deputy who goes into this matter in any kind of a fairminded way that he should vote against this motion.
I support this motion. I am really surprised to hear the speech which was delivered last evening and this evening by Deputy Corry. It is bad enough that these unfortunate animals are flogged in the manner described by Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll, without making a laughingstock of them in this House. I have no objection to Deputy Corry describing the manner in which pigs are slaughtered. I hope that the Deputies who were good enough to take up this matter in the House will, when they have completed their investigations and have this motion carried—I hope it will be carried—take up the question of cruelty to pigs and cruelty to cattle.
And stop the export.
Not stop the export. Why should we?
Stop the cruelty.
We are inclined to forget that the slaughterer of pigs and cattle takes jolly good care to ensure that these animals are not abused because, in abusing them, the flesh of the animal becomes marked and that does the owner financial harm. Unfortunately,the old horse may be flogged. His skin is so thick that it is not marked.
And the cattle, too. Did you ever see the nails on the sticks on loading banks?
No. If I did, I should go straight to the Gardaí.
I did.
I hope you reported it.
Yes.
I heard Deputy Corry say that he has seen horses dying for days in his part of the country. If it were the last penny I had, I should spend it on buying a cartridge to shoot the animal. It is ridiculous that horses should be left in that manner in their old age, especially when we hear Deputy Corry talk about the way he grooms and feeds them when they are able to work. Once their useful day is over, the attitude is to leave them on the roadside and to let maybe the tinker take them away.
Shoot them.
A considerable amount has been done to prevent cruelty to cattle and pigs. It is time we did something to prevent cruelty to these unfortunate horses. We are not asking the Government to stop the export of horses. We are asking the Government to export horses in the tin rather than on the hoof. We are asking the Government to establish a dressed-meat factory in respect of horse-flesh. We will get as much for the animal in the tin as we get for it on the hoof and, in addition, we will preserve the hide and the offal for by-products in our own country.
When the day of the usefulness of the animal is finished, why should we permit it to be sold and abused in the manned described by Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll and Deputy M.E. Dockrell? We are lacking in the appreciation of the animal. No later than yesterday I read of some horse-owner in England who, when the horse's racing dayswere over, sent it to America to graze on the luscious grass of some of the stud farms out there. We know also the way in which the jackass or donkey has been abused and I cannot understand why it should be a matter for joking in this House. I remember that not so very long ago the donkey was abused by the sticking of pins into certain parts of its anatomy. It was possibly a joke to school children, but certainly not to grown-ups.
And not to the donkey.
It certainly was not. Let us be serious and discuss this, not from the viewpoint that the farmer may lose in the beginning, but from a really humanitarian viewpoint. If we do, and if we do not allow our minds to be prejudiced by politics or by allegiance to a political Party or a particular Minister, the House will be 100 per cent. in favour of the motion. I think these Deputies deserve the thanks of the House and of the country for putting down the motion. Unfortunately, the Minister has not yet indicated what the attitude of the Government to the motion is, but if they are prepared to accept the motion, we are merely wasting the time of the House in discussing it further.
Mr. Walsh
Would the Deputy give us some evidence of cruelty to these horses?
The Minister was not here last night——
Mr. Walsh
I am asking the Deputy to give it to us now.
I have not got it, but I accept the word of the two Deputies who have evidence of it. Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll has told us——
He saw it himself.
——that he saw it himself and he is a member of the Minister's Party. Will the Minister not accept his word? I accept it, and I think that when a responsible Deputy,a member of his own party, tells the Minister that he has seen this cruelty, there is a duty and an onus on the Minister to take steps to prevent it. I have very much pleasure in telling the House now that I give this motion my wholehearted support.
Mr. A. Byrne
It is a well-known trick, when you are on the losing side or have a bad case, to try to use ridicule. That is what is being tried here now. Deputy Corry has tried to ridicule the people who have drawn the attention of the House to this appalling cruelty to animals sent away for slaughter. I feel that the people who have drawn the attention of members to what is going on, to the extreme cruelty inflicted on these poor animals, deserve our congratulations, and, if they do not get the congratulations of the majority of the Dáil, they will get the congratulations of the country as a whole, because one thing which everybody will admit is that all Irish people love a horse. I have seen very poor people in the old days who, when the old donkey was no longer able to do the work it had done so well for them in enabling them to get a livelihood during the years, made arrangements to retire the animal to a rest field and paid for it while it was in that rest field. That is what should be done so far as our old horses are concerned, if the country could afford to do it.
Deputy Corry spoke about the man in the fields—and this applies equally to the coal hawker in the City of Dublin with a horse and cart or donkey and cart—who brought his horse into the stable and saw that it was cleaned, dried, fed and bedded before going in for his own meal. You will see that being done in any tenement quarter in Dublin by the owner of a horse and bell-dray or a small donkey.
I personally wish to join in the tributes paid to the two Deputies who have tabled this motion. It has been on the agenda for a long time and I remember joining with them a year or so ago in raising the matter in the House by question to the Minister. We got genuine photographs of continental slaughter houses and we saw horseslying injured on the quayside after being taken off the boat. There is no cruelty by individuals, so far as an effort to be cruel to the animals is concerned. I have seen these horses being exported from the North Wall. I have seen aged lorry horses going away and I have seen the men handling them and putting them aboard the ships treating them kindly and sympathetically. They showed that they felt for them and saw to it that they were properly bedded, fed and watered before going on the boats. But after that what happens?
It is like the case of our emigrants. Ministers have said that we have no responsibility for our humans when they leave our shores. That was publicly said from the Government Benches on more than one occasion, when we raised the question of the emigration of boys and girls from this country and tried to find out what happened when they went away.
Which Minister said that?
Mr. A. Byrne
So far as it was possible to see that these horses were properly looked after and fed on the boat, that was done but we got no further reports officially from anybody concerned as to subsequent events until we got these genuine photographs showing this cruelty and ill-treatment in other places. Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll put their case last night and it revived for me what was said here a year or so ago when this matter was taken up by these citizens. Certain ladies and gentlemen drew attention to this cruelty and asked us to see that the cruelty was ended. They suggest now a method by which it could be ended, in the slaughtering of these animals at home, with the humane killer. We had a change in the method of killing cattle some ten years ago—thanks to these ladies and gentlemen who were ridiculed by Deputy Corry, the humane killer was brought in and regulations made for its use. I hope they will succeed this time.
I want to put a challenge to the Minister, though not in any hostile way, because we know that he is as sympathetic, so far as animals are concerned, as any of us and would like to see the least possible harm done to them. I want to ask him if he is aware that that is the feeling of the majority of his own members. I wonder would he agree with a view to finding a new way of treating these animals, to leave this motion to a free vote of the House and be guided by that vote as indicating the wishes of our constituents. I have heard members of his Party expressing keen sympathy with the motion and sympathy with the desire to find some means which will prevent the cruelty of which we saw so much in these photographs within the past 12 months.
There is no use in hiding the fact that the question of £.s.d. is behind it all. If some poor man has an animal and thinks he can get £25 for it, without worrying about what is going to happen to it, it is very hard to take £10 or £15 from somebody else.
If the Government could devise some system to ensure that a person who is the owner of a retired animal would not lose anything if he agreed to dispose of it in a manner which would ensure that the animal would be treated humanely, it would have a good effect. There might be some method for replacement of such animals. I have little knowledge of country life or farm life and I do not know what method of subsidies or otherwise could be devised to deal with the matter, but for the sake of the country's reputation, we do not want to be told that we approve of cruelty. There is nobody intentionally cruel in this country. No man or woman would want to injure an animal. If the motion is accepted perhaps the Minister could suggest some means of providing compensation for a person who owns an old animal so that if he were offered £10 for that animal for which he might get £25 elsewhere, he would not be the loser if he accepted the lower offer. I would appeal to the Minister to accept the motion particularly in view of thefact that some members of his own Party are sympathetic to it.
Possibly its acceptance may result in the extension of the home dead-meat trade by the fact that steps would be taken to ensure that these animals will be killed at home and the carcases exported. The by-products could be utilised for Irish industries. I think that every credit is due to the ladies and gentlemen who directed attention to this matter and to horse owners and workers in small stables and large stables, who supported their activities and who are anxious that this cruelty should come to an end.
Mr. Walsh
The motion on the Order Paper states:—
"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."
The Deputies who moved and supported that motion had, I am sure, the best intentions in the world. They, possibly, believed what they had been told. I understand that one of the Deputies who moved the motion actually went to the trouble of investigating the matter himself. He went to the Continent to ascertain the conditions under which horses are slaughtered there. I, too, have reports as to the conditions under which horses are exported from this country. I have no evidence, nor has any evidence been produced to me, to contradict the reports I have received. There was one case in 1950 of a ship that left this country with over 70 horses on board. Twenty-nine of them died on the voyage, but there was a reason given for that. There was a report furnished by the captain of the ship and I shall read that report to the House.
The following extracts from the Captain's report, give details of theexceptionally severe weather conditions encountered during the course of the voyage referred to.
"At the time of departure a strong southerly wind prevailed and on arrival off Beagh Castle (River Shannon) we anchored awaiting favourable weather. At 9.00 a.m. the wind had moderated considerably and we proceeded towards Scattery arriving there at 10.45 a.m. By this time the weather was calm and there was a blue sky and there was every indication of lasting fine weather. The barometer although low started to rise. Upon dropping our pilot, I proceeded to sea. On approaching Innishterragh Island (outer Blaskets) the wind suddenly became gusty and a heavy westerly swell increased. Before we got abeam of Innishterragh there was a sudden heavy squall of rain and hail and the wind increased quickly to gale force with a high tumbling sea, and the visibility in the squalls was very poor. In the circumstances in which I was so suddenly placed it was absolutely impossible for me to turn back or run for shelter, being placed on a lee shore. Our difficulty was to get the ship off the land and we had to steer a west course bringing the wind and sea on the starboard bow to ease the heavy rolling and render as much comfort to the animals as possible in the heavy seaway."
How many bullock men were on that boat?
Mr. Walsh
That is the only case that has been cited in which there was exceptionally heavy losses at sea.
How many bullock men were on the boat? That is a very vital matter.
Mr. Walsh
I have no idea. That is the only case in which there was any severe losses at sea. I shall at a later stage give the figures which we have up to the present time in regard to other losses in course of transit. My attention has been drawn to a statement made last night by Deputy Dockrell in the course of a speech byDeputy Corry. Deputy Corry was giving a description of the slaughter of pigs. Deputy Dockrell, when he heard of the cruelty which pigs had to undergo——
So there is cruelty.
Mr. Walsh
Apparently. If the Deputy will read the report he will see that Deputy Dockrell interjected the statement while Deputy Corry was speaking: "Two wrongs do not make a right." Are we to assume that Deputy Dockrell also objects to the slaughter of pigs in this country?
Mr. Walsh
That is the statement the Deputy made. Deputy Corry gave a graphic description of how pigs were slaughtered and I take it, from the statement he made, that Deputy Dockrell objects to the manner in which they are slaughtered even here at home. I do not believe that Deputy Corry indulged in any exaggeration in the statement he was making. Does Deputy Dockrell object to the conditions under which pigs are slaughtered?
May I intervene for a moment? Deputy Corry said that there was cruelty in the slaughter of pigs and that because there was cruelty in the slaughter of pigs we should not interest ourselves in the matter of cruelty in the slaughter and treatment of horses. My remark was directed to that statement.
Mr. Walsh
I do not think that was the statement made. Deputy Corry said:—
"There is more to this than meets the eye. I can assure both Deputy Dockrell and Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll that there is more cruelty in any bacon factory in this country than they will find on their visits to the continental abattoirs where horses are slaughtered."
Then Deputy Dockrell intervened with the remark:—
"Two wrongs do not make a right."
There should not be any cruelty.
Mr. Walsh
Wherever there is blood there is cruelty. Let us be a little bit realistic.
A Deputy
Be realistic yourself.
You are thinking of a cockfight now.
Mr. Walsh
I am sure the Deputy knows a lot about horses. It has been my experience to live amongst horses, cows, pigs and sheep for the past 50 years. I think I know as much about horses—good ones, bad ones, mean ones and fine ones— as anybody else. I have come across every type of horse and I have found that there is nothing more in a horse than in a cow. Both are animals to me and nothing more.
You put £250,000 in one horse.
Mr. Walsh
It was not to slaughter him. We bought him for the purpose of making more money out of him and for the purpose of enhancing the reputation of our bloodstock. I can see nothing more in a horse than in a cow. If it is cruel to send our horses by boat to Britain or elsewhere, then it is equally cruel to send cattle. If it is not cruel to send our cattle across by boat, it is not cruel to send our horses by boat.
Is there anybody prepared to stand up and say that the horse is sacred in this country? The cow is sacred in India. Is somebody prepared to say that the horse is to be the sacred animal here? Is he to be put up on a pedestal, put on a higher plane than any other animal we have. That is a question I should like to have answered.
There is one on a pedestal.
Mr. Walsh
There is one on a pedestal and it cost a bit of money to put him on it. Is it the policy of some of the people who are talking about cruelty to horses to put them on a pedestal and make them sacred? If it is, it is fair enough for people to advocate that. But, when we come to the questionof placing one animal against another, they are there for the purpose of serving man and nothing more. The horse is no more sensitive than the cow.
A Deputy
He is.
A horse is a very intelligent animal.
Mr. Walsh
I am afraid that is not quite true. I am also afraid that there are people in this country who have a lot more respect for a cow than for a horse, be it right or wrong. We have a number of people who may have greater respect for cats even than for horses, and the people who have greater respect for cats possibly have a sort of sneaking regard for horses. Many of the people who are spreading the propaganda in this campaign might be able to divide their allegiance between the cat and the horse. What I am concerned about is this: if we prohibit the export of horses where will it lead to? Where are we going then? If we prohibit the export of horses, we prohibit the export of all horses. There is going to be no distinction.
We have been told about horses which have been sent out for slaughter. We have had ex-racehorses going out for slaughter from this country. Horses sold at Ballsbridge Sales have gone out for slaughter. If we are to differentiate between the horse who has finished his racing career and the horse who has been racing for a certain time, who is to say that a horse's career on the turf is finished when he is sold? If we have prohibition with regard to one we must have it in regard to the lot. Is it only the export of the Clydesdale or the Shire or the Irish draught horse or the cob or the pony that must be prohibited? The racehorse or the hunter has not been included.
They are included if they are for slaughter.
Mr. Walsh
As I say, ex-racehorses which were sold at Ballsbridge were afterwards exported for slaughter. Who is to draw the line between horses going for slaughter eventhough some of them may have been some time on the turf?
The purchaser.
Mr. Walsh
The purchaser has nothing to do with it. If a regulation is made to prohibit the export of horses, all horses must come under it. That is what some people are advocating when they say we should not export horses. The motion states——
The Minister must not have read the motion.
Mr. Walsh
I have read it. I will read it again for you (Motion read).
For slaughter.
Mr. Walsh
Who said that the horses sold at Ballsbridge were for slaughter? As a matter of fact, they were followed up and the name of one of the horses sold at Ballsbridge was given in the Manchester Guardian.Is not that true?
Some high-class hunters were bought for slaughter.
Mr. Walsh
Is it suggested that we put a prohibition on the export of horses——
For slaughter.
Mr. Walsh
Who is to decide whether a four-year-old racehorse will be slaughtered or not slaughtered?
If you have a dressed horse-meat factory here they would not go out of the country.
A Deputy
The price.
Mr. Walsh
The price does not give any indication of a horse's value, as winners of the Grand National have been bought for a song. I want to come to the real point, and that is the question of cruelty to horses. Let us see what it amounts to. In the year 1948 we exported 37,468 horses. How many did we lose in transport out of that number? We lost 26 or .03. We have information as to the losses we have had in cattle.
They will not tell you of all that died at sea. They are outside the jurisdiction.
Mr. Walsh
Who has given the Deputy his information? Is not my source of information as good as his?
It is not. They are outside the jurisdiction then.
Mr. Walsh
These are the statistical returns given to me. I doubt if the Deputy has the means of getting correct reports, the same reports as I have.
They are only based on conjecture.
Mr. Walsh
The Deputy's reports are a gross exaggeration supplied by some people who are interested in this campaign. I have a statistical report of the losses and injuries at sea.
I do not think you have a full report. Does it include the number of horses who died in railway wagons in Great Britain?
Mr. Walsh
I have nothing to do with them once they go to Great Britain. Have I any control over a racehorse once it goes to Great Britain, or has anyone any control over a racehorse when it leaves this country, even if it breaks its neck at the first fence, if it becomes the property of some person? Have we any control over cattle or sheep or pigs that we send out? In 1948 the losses were .07; in 1949, .03; in 1950, .05; in 1951, the year of the "Clarina," .25; in 1952, .18; and this year, .08. These are figures of the casualties. We send hundreds of thousands of cattle out of the country. If I had statistics of the losses of cattle from injuries, I am sure they would be much higher than that.
Do you know where to get them?
Mr. Walsh
I do.
From the Cattle Traders' Insurance Company.
Mr. Walsh
Yes. Deputy Byrne, who had experience of horses all his life, who knows so much about them, and does know a lot about them——
You do not want to know a lot about them.
Mr. Walsh
It has been suggested that the horse is a sacred animal, that nobody should even put a whip on a horse. That is the suggestion which has been made by the sponsors of this motion. I do not subscribe to that view at all. To me, he is no more sacred than a cow. Perhaps I have far more experience of horses in every capacity than any of the Deputies who spoke on this motion.
Including Deputy Corry?
Mr. Walsh
Yes, even Deputy Corry.
He is the horse's best friend.
Mr. Walsh
When horses are exported from here they have to go through a very rigid examination before they are allowed out. They are inspected by a veterinary inspector at the port and only sound horses are permitted to go out.
If they show any indication of lameness or bad sight they are rejected, and the owner is not allowed to export them. It is only good, sound horses that are allowed out of this country. The others are retained and find their way to the knackers. One thing that has struck me very forcibly in connection with this agitation is this: Is there someone who wants to go into the horse trade here, Deputy Alfred Byrne or some of them?
Or Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll?
Mr. Walsh
I have given my own views on this question. I see nothing realistic about it.
That is the thanks they get.
Mr. Walsh
As I said before, I have as much experience of horses, possibly more, than any of those who have spoken on the motion. As far as cruelty goes there is no more of it than there is, say, in the case of any other animal. If we take the year 1951, when we had more abnormally bad weatherthan at any other time, was there any reason to complain about the shipment of horses or the casualties they suffered in transit?
Is the Minister accepting the motion?
Hold your horses.
Mr. Walsh
I am not accepting the motion, if that information is of any use to the Deputy.
Would the Minister explain his attitude to the second portion of the motion? I am a free agent in this.
Mr. Walsh
Are you?
Yes.
Mr. Walsh
That is good.
He is not following Deputy Murphy.
Mr. Walsh
It might satisfy a number of people if they were to know that the export of horses is diminishing in numbers yearly. If we had abnormally high exports in the years 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951 and, even up to last year, it was because of the introduction of machinery—the mechanisation of farming.
The French were hungry.
Mr. Walsh
It was due to the introduction of machinery. As I have already pointed out, the number of horses exported in 1948 was 37,000. That number has been gradually diminishing. Last year we were down to 24,000 and for the nine months of this year we are down to 11,000. This question of the export of horses will solve itself in a very short period because with present prices for live stock, for cattle, for instance, no one, unless he is living in a very mountainous district and has rough grazing, is going to breed horses for the export of meat. For that reason, I believe that the question will solve itself in a short time.
I do not think there is any necessity for me to go into the matter further except, again to point out the difficultythere is, that if we were to stop the export of horses then we must include all types of horses. We have had some of the finest ex-racehorses transhipped to the Continent for slaughter. Hunters, Clydesdales, and driving and other breeds all found their way there. If we were to put a prohibition on the export of one type of horse we would have to put it on all, because we would have no guarantee that the horses put up for export were not going to be slaughtered.
The Minister did not express his views on the second portion of the motion.
Mr. Walsh
The second portion would not arise at all.
Does the Minister mean to say that horses are disappearing?
Mr. Walsh
They are.
That will be a bad day for the country.
Mr. Walsh
It will be a bad day, but the introduction of machinery is responsible. The tractor comes in and the horse goes out.
If there is another war there may be no petrol to drive the tractors.
Mr. Walsh
You cannot compel people to keep horses if they wish to get tractors. I am sure there is nobody who wishes to put back the hands of the clock. If anybody wishes to advocate that, then let us hear him. As I have said, I think this question will solve itself in a very short time. With present prices for live stock, no one is going to breed horses for slaughter. I must oppose this motion on the grounds which I have stated. I can see the danger that would be attached to any of these prohibition orders. If you do prohibit the export of one type, you must prohibit the export of all types of horses. You cannot differentiate between the different breeds. You could not say where any particular type were going, whether it was going out for racing, for slaughter or for work. The evidence is there alreadythat racehorses went to the slaughterhouse and that many possibly good young horses exported ostensibly for the purpose of going to work actually went to the slaughterhouse. You cannot draw the line and differentiate between one breed and another.
They had no difficulty in doing that in England—in stopping the export of horses for slaughter.
Mr. Walsh
The English are not so concerned with the export of racing stock or bloodstock as we are. We are very much concerned with the export of bloodstock. We send hundreds of yearlings from Ballsbridge every year to all parts of the world. We are an exporting country of bloodstock.
The Minister himself has said that horses have been going out of the country.
Mr. Walsh
I said the horses we have had for slaughter in the last few years have been going. I also said that at the present time it would not pay anyone to breed horses for slaughtering purposes. I have said that I believe this matter will solve itself, and so I am opposing this motion to prohibit the export of horses.
It is quite clear that it is the easiest thing in the world to make this motion, and the movers of it appear very foolish from the point of view of realism, economics and of its practical possibilities, and in that respect the Minister, in my opinion, has succeeded fairly well. The one thing which I give him credit for is that he has not sought to base his objection on the issue that, even if there is cruelty, it must be condoned if it is going to result in an economic setback for any section of our people. Nevertheless, I am going to support the motion, even though I think it is, possibly from the point of view of realism and practical possibility and, still more, from the point of view of economics, an unreal motion. Of course, at times it is necessary forpeople to be a little unreal and idealistic in their attitude to life.
I am supporting it from the point of view of conscience. I want to disassociate myself from certain views that were expressed against the motion. I agree that the horse is not any more a sacred animal that the cow, the sheep or the pig is.
In my opinion there is just as much, or probably greater, cruelty inflicted on those other animals in our own country than on horses outside the country. I do not think we should take particular pride in that. You have only to drive a motor-car on any road and follow a cattle truck coming into Dublin and see the conditions under which cattle, sheep and pigs are handled here. That being so, and it being the case in regard to horses, that allowing for a certain, if you like, a physiological difference in the animals as against cattle, there is possibly no greater cruelty, it is still the fact as far as I am concerned in the case of the export of horses that there has been avoidable cruelty just as there is avoidable cruelty in the handling of other live stock in transporting them up and down our own country and outside our country.
Because that is so, it is probably a good reason why the motion should be voted against or denied support. On the other hand—and I am more concerned with this than anything else— while we may argue against the motion on behalf of the relative claims to our consideration of the horse, against other live stock, and while it may be argued that there is a difference in the horse going for slaughter and the blooded horse going for export as part of our live-stock industry; and while we may argue that the volume of export of horses is falling and that the problem is not so great, it seems to me that the one argument that is not defensible is that if there was a case proved in regard to the export of horses that we should not interfere with it because it would represent an economic loss to our people. That is an argument I cannot support or accept.
It is the same type of argument we have had to contend with in regard to many other features of our nationallife. We have had it in regard not only to animals but to human beings. We could not help the people in the slums because of the proprietary rights of the owners. We could not interfere with child-labour in factories because we would interfere with the rights of the owners to exploit them. It is also suggested now we cannot interfere with any trade in live stock whether horse, cattle, sheep or pigs because we may interfere with the economic interests of those who breed those animals. That is an argument that from the point of view of our own consciences we cannot accept.
I can understand the attitude of members on the basis of the case made. I may not agree with it, but it is an argument against which I cannot find any objection in principle, but I have strenuous objection to the idea that we dare not interfere because of its economic significance. For that reason and that alone, I would vote for the motion, even though I might make myself look foolish in voting for a motion that has many practical difficulties involved. My attitude might be criticised as unreal, but it is a good thing sometimes to be unreal, and sometimes it is a question of trying to adhere to an ideal that cannot be realised. It is good for the soul and conscience sometimes. In this case, whatever may be the difficulties in regard to the possibility of applying the motion many of us would at least commit ourselves to the view that if this is a case of cruelty, then we should make our protest against it even though we know the protest will not be effective, and to that extent we are making a stand not merely in the defence of the horse but equally in defence of live stock that is cruelly treated inside our own country.
I propose to be very brief. I rise to congratulate Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll and Deputy Dockrell for the manner in which they have successfully focussed public attention on this very important matter.
Listening to the pitiful and painful reply of the Minister for Agricultureto such an important motion as this and listening to the manner in which he described the horse, one would imagine that the Minister shared the oats and lived in the stable with the horse. But at the same time while you would imagine that the Minister was so closely connected with the horse he was not prepared to extend any facilities whatever to protect the horse against the evidence of cruelty which Deputies Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll and Dockrell have offered. There is no doubt whatever about it and if the Minister wants evidence based on the sight-seeing of people who have witnessed cruelty to horses exported from this country he has a number of important citizens who are members of the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Anmals who at the request of their executive went to the Continent and elsewhere and investigated and witnessed the cruelty inflicted on horses. The Miniser tells us that the horse is no more important to him than any other animal and that it is just the same as a cow or donkey. I challenge the Minister to name one other animal that is associated with so much employment and such useful work as the horse. Is it not true to say that the horse is an important factor in transport? We have him under traps, carts, drays, and bogies. Is it not true to say the horse is the most important animal in sport to-day? We have him in the hunt, in the steeplechase and in the flat race. Is it not true that we have the horse figuring in the most important industry that is deteriorating very rapidly under the administration of the Minister who is against giving facilities to stop cruelty? Is it not true to say that the horse is engaged in the sowing of seeds, protecting crops, in the haulage of moving machines, and that the horse is the most important animal that the farmer has to-day?
Is it not true that the horse gives employment to blacksmiths in rural Ireland and that we have a hum of industry at the cross-roads in the forges which comes from the frequent visits of horses to be shod? Does not the horse give employment to the harness-maker who has to provide and keep the harness in repair? Does notthe horse require stables and stable boys? Are not jockeys and training staffs employed because of horses? Is there any other animal that can be mentioned that is more associated with transport than the horse? Yet the Minister puts him in the same boat as the rabbit. All animals are one to him.
I think the Minister's reply is not alone silly, but he has not made any attempt whatever to justify his opposition to the very reasonable motion that has been put forward by Deputies Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll and Dockrell. For the purpose of the record I want to make myself very clear on one issue in connection with this motion. I support the motion. I am going to vote for the motion. But the motion suggests that the horse is to be slaughtered at home and the dead horse meat exported. Ireland is a country that has a great continental and world reputation for its dead meat trade. I would be opposed to horse flesh being exported from this country under the pretence that it was food for the Continent, but I would suggest to the Minister as a way out in meeting Deputies Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll and Dockrell that the horses could be slaughtered here. They could be used for manure, for bone meal factories and for the manufacture of glue.
There is an old story often told—it is a true story but perhaps the Minister is not aware of it—that the bows for fiddles are manufactured from horses' tails. The Minister for Agriculture knows that these horses undergo severe cruelty in being exported for slaughter when they could be slaughtered at home under humane conditions. If they were slaughtered at home, there is no reason why the farmer and the horse jobber could not be paid as good a price by the Irish Government as that paid by any continental concern. Why not buy the horses from the dealers and from those who sell them and pay an even more attractive price than is paid for them on the Continent?
Mr. Walsh
I am glad to hear the Deputy advocating more taxation.
I would like to direct the Minister's attention to a report of a member of the Bloodstock Breeders' Association. There is evidence given there from eye witnesses who witnessed the conditions under which these horses are slaughtered on the Continent; they are slaughtered on floors two and three inches deep with blood. I have read descriptions of some of the most pitiful cases.
I want to congratulate now the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for the very gallant work they have done. There is one point I want to make clear. Deputy Murphy said last night that if this export was stopped there would be no market for the worn-out horses and the country would be full of old crocks who would suffer more here than they do on the four days' journey to the Continent. He said, in fact, that no horses can be shipped from this country over 15 years of age and that they must be fit horses. Therefore, the horses that are being shipped at the present time are good horses.
I cannot see why the Minister will not accept this motion. He has evidence from very responsible people in relation to this matter. The motion has been moved by a member of his own Party and I cannot see why it is not falling on more sympathetic ears. I expected that this motion would be accepted and I am disappointed that it has not been accepted. If I were sitting in the same seat as the Minister I would have no hesitation in accepting it on purely humanitarian grounds. The Minister's contribution to this debate was a contribution in favour of the continued cruelty to and inhumane slaughter of animals that have given good service to the Irish farmer and the Irish sportsman. The statement made by the Minister makes sad hearing for those associated with horses and those who admire horses. The Minister said that the day of the horse is coming to an end. Yet, he is the very man who paid £250,000 for a horse in order to encourage the breeding of good horses. He says horses are being replaced by machinery and that sooner or later there will be no horses here. That is a lamentable statement comingfrom an Irish Minister for Agriculture and it marks a sad day for a country with such a long tradition of horse-breeding.
Mr. Walsh
I happen to be realistic.
This country has produced the finest and greatest horses the world has known. I recommend this motion to the House and I hope that we shall not witness to-night the unfortunate spectacle of Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll going one way and the Minister going the other.
I am sorry a little bit of common sense has not been used and that more Deputies who were anxious to contribute to the debate in the short time available did not get a chance of doing so. I listened to the speeches made last night by both Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll. They made a very sound and a very good case for this motion. I was disappointed at the contributions made by Deputy M. P. Murphy and Deputy Corry, both Cork representatives, strange to say.
As far as I am concerned I do not believe in treating any animal cruelly and the fact that pigs, cattle, vermin, etc., are treated cruelly does not excuse the cruel treatment of horses. We should have no cruelty at all. For some reason or other there seems to be a sadistic streak in some people. Cruelty to any animal is bad and objectionable and I think it is dreadful to read of the conditions under which horses are sent from this country and they were not such young horses as the Minister says they were. I do not even like the thought of slaughtering horses because I have such a profound love for horses. I do not like the second part of this motion which suggests they should be slaughtered here when their useful life is over.
Last year I observed two incidents myself in connection with horses. I was coming from Clifden from the pony show. Quite a number of ponies were sold there and a truckload was being brought away. There was one particular pony I had seen and admired loaded into this truck. A certain distance out from Clifden Imet the lorry pulled up and here was the pony with its leg right down between the box and the chassis. A couple of weeks ago coming along the Lucan road I saw a most beautiful horse, quite obviously bloodstock, which had been carried in one of the ordinary lorries; he was standing on three legs and the fourth leg was cut off. Something should be done to prevent the cruel manner in which our horses and cattle are carried about the country in lorries that should never have been licensed or permitted to carry them. I hate cruelty of all kinds. I abhor sadism.
One would have expected a serious contribution to a motion of this kind rather than the inconsistent performance to which we had to listen to-night from Deputy Flanagan. Deputy Flanagan said that the slaughter of these animals should be carried out here. Deputy Flanagan was one of those who supported the closing down of a factory under the Minister for Agriculture in the inter-Party Government. That factory was established for the purpose mainly of slaughtering horses and converting them into dog food. That was closed down by Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture; he said most emphatically at the time that he would never allow the slaughter of horses for the purpose of converting them into food for human consumption because that would affect the beef trade of the country. He, therefore, closed down this factory which could and would have dealt with these horses, and thereby forced the reopening of the export trade. That is one inconsistency.
They were selling the meat for human consumption.
That is one inconsistency.
They were.
The Deputy need not try to get away from the point that the factory would have been directed and controlled to carry out operations in accordance with ministerial directions. We could have saved thiscountry from the export of live horses by having them slaughtered here for useful purposes.
And sell them for human consumption as "con biadh".
They were not so sold —that is what the Deputy is trying to get out under—an insincere performance. Nobody likes cruelty of any kind. We are from year to year introducing in this House measure after measure to try to provide improved methods of dealing with these matters. One of the things that most of us in this House revolt against is the idea that horses should be used for human food. That is what is most revolting to all of us, although it has not been expressed. We are so close to the horse in his working life that we cannot conceive doing with the horse what some countries do with bullocks. Bullocks are used in some countries to plough the land, to do all the work that the horse does here, and when he reaches the age when he cannot work any more he is slaughtered and eaten. The revolting thing to us, although it has not been expressed, is the eating of horse flesh. We cannot see ourselves or cannot tolerate seeing anybody else eating horse, that we regard as man's friend.
Deputy Flanagan talked about this Minister for Agriculture here referring to the time when the horse would cease to be used to the extent it has been used on the farm. Let him read the speech of Deputy Dillon, when Minister for Agriculture when he held up to the ridicule of the whole world the farming community in this country in that they were continuing to use the horse to do the work on the farm.
Were not you interested in the Clonmel swindle?
I object. The Deputy will withdraw that. I had no interest whatever in that. I was not interested in a swindle. I demand a withdrawal.
Deputy Flanagan will withdraw the statement he has made.
If the Chair so desires, I will withdraw the statement.
It is because it is not true, like your lies in court.
There was a swindle.
I was not in any swindle.
There was a swindle, and you did not get away with it.
If you suggest that I had anything to do with that factory I will come down and deal with you as Deputy Flynn did.
James Dillon put a stop to that and James Dillon was right to put a stop to it.
Hypocrisy and insincerity.
Order!
I should like to complient the proposer and seconder of this motion. They are both young and able men. They have made a well-reasoned and good case in support of the motion, and nobody can say that they put down the motion for motives other than the best. It is well to know that we have in this House some people who are at least idealistic enough to hope for better things in our treatment of animals and, in setting an example in that way, perhaps to hope for better things in the treatment of men by their fellow-men.
There are other people opposing the motion who are just as idealistic.
I deeply regret that the motion as worded is not acceptable and could not be acceptable to the majority of this House because, first of all, there is reference to export to the Continent. If we are to stop the export at all we must stop the export to Great Britain as well as to the Continent. Why should we single out continental countries and pillory them as the people who are criminal in this regard and pass over another country,Great Britain, where it was admitted that even greater suffering was inflicted upon horses in the course of slaughter?
Then, again, is it right or justifiable to have in a motion such as this a proposal for rigid prohibition of the export of horses? Prohibition in any shape or form is bad, and it is bad in this case. If you prohibit the export of horses it means that a farmer who has a horse to sell will lose from £20 to £40 on the sale. Does any Deputy stand for that? Does any Deputy stand for the farmer being robbed of that amount of money without having the clearest assurance that some useful purpose would be served by that?
There is cruelty in the world, far too much. There is cruelty in the treatment of horses, not only in the manner of export but in the transport of horses in this country, as has been pointed out. Therefore, I say, we cannot prevent cruelty by the course suggested in the motion. At the same time we can compliment the Deputies who have brought forward this matter and have given us an opportunity for a very useful discussion.
Are you supporting them?
Are you supporting them?
I cannot support the motion.
You are always trying to have it both ways.
It would inflict a loss of £20 or £30 on the sale of a horse on every farmer in my constituency, and in every other constituency.
The most striking thing about the case which has been made against this motion is that those who spoke against it did not deny that there was cruelty. That is the most striking thing about it. When we discussed this matter with the Minister in the House before he denied that there was any cruelty but the two Deputies, Deputies Michael Murphy and Corry, who spoke against it, did not deny there was cruelty. They wentfurther. They went to prove and tried to assume that because more cruelty existed in so far as other animals were concerned we should dismiss the fact that cruelty exists in regard to horses.
This motion has been of tremendous advantage because for the first time the admission has been made by Deputies who represent farming constituencies that cruelty does occur in the handling of animals.
That was known before to-day.
We have no evidence that there is any wilful cruelty.
The Deputy must allow Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll to conclude.
The suggestion was that nothing should be done about that cruelty because farmers were getting good prices for the horses. In other words, we had the motion placed on a cash versus cruelty basis. I do not want to criticise adversely the farming community. I am anxious to see them prosper and to see the country prosper through their prosperity but it is only fair, as Deputy Larkin very ably put it, that the farming community should adopt the principles of humanitarian justice, that they should treat their animals properly and should be obliged to carry on their business and their way of life in the same way of fair trading as every other section of the community does.
The shopkeepers recently had to comply with certain food hygiene regulations. It cost them money. They had to renovate their premises. It reduced their profits. Why cannot they turn around and say: "We will make less money if we have to renovate our premises?" We have building standards. The builders would make much more money if they put thinner walls in houses, cut down foundations and put on cheaper roofs. A responsible Government and civilised country demand certain standards. I claim that we are entitled to ask for certain standards, where farmers are concerned, in the treatment of animals. It is perfectly possible for farmers totreat their animals properly and to make a good livelihood out of farming.
That is a very unfair statement to make. Farmers are treating their animals properly.
Deputy Murphy spoke at length and should allow Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll to speak now.
I stand over the statement which was made that legislation——
Now come back from Belgium and come down to Ireland.
——that legislation which has been adopted in other countries to see that animals are properly treated should be adopted here. I am not asking any more than that.
They treat animals better than humans are treated in this city.
It is only right that farmers should have to carry on their business in the way of fair trade and fair conditions as other people have to do. I am not denying anybody their right to make their contribution to the life of this country but we should have the highest standard possible as far as the treatment of animals in this country is concerned.
The Minister points out that, assuming we are not going to deal with this, after a while there will be no horses left in the country. That is a simple way of dealing with it, but what is going to happen when there are no horses left in the country? What will take place if there is a war? How will we manage the tractors? Then what is going to happen to the factories set up in this country to manufacture animal feeding stuffs?
We will never be short of asses anyway.
Are they going to have to turn around and pay exorbitant prices because there is an artificial scarcity in this country? Deputies have pointed out that thismotion is not practical. I agree that there are defects in this motion. The motion had to be put down a year and a half ago and circumstances have changed a good deal since then. If Deputy Dockrell and myself were redrafting the motion to-day we would possibly put certain things in it that would be more acceptable to the House.
Would you take out the second motion? Seriously?
That is a difficulty as far as a Private Members' motion is concerned. There are one or two points I want to deal with— first of all, the question of Deputy Corry and his reference to pigs. Deputy Corry knows a good deal about legislation for agriculture in this country. I am sure that he has heard of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935. The only animal which it is not compulsory to kill with a humane killer in this country is the pig. Why? Because at the time when that legislation was going through the House the vested interests of that trade claimed that if the pig was killed by the captive bolt the flesh was defective afterwards.
Quite true.
I think that this House should turn around now, when the evidence is there that that allegation was not correct, and see that a captive bolt is used in the killing. The suggestion was that if the pig was killed with the captive bolt there were haemorrhages into the muscles of the carcase afterwards, and it was subsequently proved that the only reason those haemorrhages occurred was because the pig was not bled quickly enough after killing with the captive bolt. There is no substance in that allegation to-day, and no reason why the captive bolt should not be used to kill the pigs and all other animals. That is one of the advantages of this motion, because not alone has it exposed cruelty as far as the export of live horses is concerned but it has exposed a certain number of other matters in considering the treatment of other animals. You have Deputy Corry boasting that when a farmertakes his horse in from a field he gives him food and puts him up for the night. What else could he do? If he did not feed the horse——
Before he attends to himself.
Is he not feeding something which is a valuable piece of property and which naturally he does not want to lose? The suggestion was also made: "All right, there is cruelty, but if there is cruelty and if they were not exported to the Continent they would be sold to travelling people in the country who would treat them more cruelly." Is that the way to face up to one's responsibilities? The Deputies here from the country are not facing up to their responsibilities, I think. They are taking the easy way out, saying that we will be hurting the farmers in this thing and that what we should do would be to ignore our responsibility.
There is not very much time; there are a lot of things I want to deal with. One is the question of the transport of animals. Deputy Cowan has mentioned that he saw animals being transported through the country here and saw them being carried in small vans and falling through the floor of the vans and so on. In England there is legislation which prescribes the size and the form of transport for every type of animal. It is absolutely illegal in England to pile animals of various sizes into a cart or a van or a lorry and leave them there to jump on top of one another. That is something that there should be here in this country.
They have not room in the wagons to jump on top of each other.
The report on the investigation carried out in England into cruelty to horses clearly points out where legislation was effected there to cover this point.
The Minister made one or two amazing statements. He said that youcould not stop the export of one type of horse. There is no foundation for that. It was stopped without the slightest difficulty in England. I have the thing here in front of me. It is the Exportation of Horses Act, 1937. They just laid down that horses over a certain age and under a certain value should not be exported, and that stopped the export of horses for slaughter. It was just as simple as that. There is no truth in it whatsoever.
The Minister suggests that where there is blood there is cruelty. What he meant is beyond my comprehension. I am a city Deputy and the only thing I can say is that I have not had sufficient experience to understand a statement like that.
The suggestion that the death rate on the ship journey is low and that, therefore, there is no cruelty is quite fallacious. You cannot assume that just because the death rate is low there is no cruelty. We are not going entirely on the actual deaths that occur, and the death rate is not at all an indication of the amount of cruelty taking place.
One other suggestion of the Minister was that the horse is the same as the cow. I cannot understand it. Surely every Deputy in this House realises that the horse is not bred for slaughter whereas the cow is, and surely that is a fundamental difference that everybody must realise straightway. I cannot understand the case that has been made here, and to me, throughout, the whole opposition to the motion has been cash against cruelty. They do not deny that cruelty is there, but there is cash for the farmer and what is a good thing for the farmer is good for the country so we must close our eyes to the whole thing and wait until the export is finished.
You are the best member I saw in Fianna Fáil for a long time. You are able to tell them off.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Belton, John.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Deering, Mark.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough)
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hickey, James.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget, M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Spring, Dan.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies ffrench-O'Carroll and M.E. Dockrell; Níl: Deputies Hilliard and Gilbride.
Question declared lost.
Mr. A. Byrne
Might I announce the fact that I was paired with the Lord Mayor of Dublin? I kept my word. Deputy Tom Byrne was paired with the Lord Mayor of Cork.
And some of the Fianna Fáil fellows were allowed to vote freely. That was to put a gloss on it.
Mr. A. Byrne
The two Deputies I have mentioned had important public engagements.