(South Tipperary), Mr. Rooney and Mr. Donegan asked the Minister for Agriculture his reasons for the recent change in the regulations regarding the export of live horses; and if he considers that the decision to prohibit the export of horses over five years old is in the best interests of the Irish farmer.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Export of Live Horses.
34.
The change was made following a review of the arrangements announced in November, 1960.
Is the Minister aware that these arrangements, prior to the date mentioned, resulted in a loss of about £10 a head minimum to the Irish farmers and that this further restriction will mean even greater losses?
I am aware that there are three processing factories in this country and I am aware, too, that on the other side of the House in the Deputy's Party, when it was announced some years before that permission would be given for the slaughter of horses, great play was made of the fact that no effort resulted in respect of the establishment of any of these business concerns. Now that they are established, one would expect after their establishment that some order would be made affecting the number of horses allowed out of the country. Such an order was made by me in 1960 and I fixed the age limit of seven years over which a horse could not be exported. I let it be understood at the time that in a reasonable period, I would review that decision. I was not asked to review it but I have reviewed it and I have changed the age limit from seven to five years.
Is the Minister aware that permission to slaughter does not affect the farmers' price but prohibition to export does and that further and more stringent measures will further affect the farmers' prices?
The Minister is aware that Deputies who are asking these supplementary questions are really play-acting.
Only some of them.
When was the play made——
We put you out of the field because it was the Deputy who made the unfair play.
What in his review influenced the Minister to change the age limit from seven back to five years?
Was I not a wonderful man, having given an assurance that I would review, that I did review?
If on what the Minister conceives or says he conceives to be humanitarian grounds, he decides to prohibit the export of horses, surely there is a corresponding obligation on him to require the domestic factories to pay the same price as these horses would fetch for export or to bridge the gap by a suitable Government contribution? Is it reasonable to impose a penalty on the producers for what, as Deputy Clinton says, the Minister considers to be humanitarian grounds?
That is a horse of another colour. I am surprised at how all the Blue Cross campaigners of whom I have had experience have come to change their attitude in this matter. In fact, I did tell the Deputy that the considerations that played on my mind when I first made the order prohibiting the export of horses of under seven years of age were very active ones and I tried as best I could, consistent with doing what was right and fair, to ensure that the price of horses would not be determined by any monopoly. It is a strange thing in this House that when a Minister obviously takes that line, he must be subjected to all sorts of misrepresentation as if he had not a problem to contend with.
The question is simply this. If the Government decide to restrict the export of livestock from this country and as a result the price of that variety of livestock declines, surely there is an obligation either on the monopoly that controls the slaughter of these animals at home or on the Government to see that the price secured by the producers is not reduced for the benefit of the export monopoly? Either the Government ought to provide a subsidy to bridge the gap or require the domestic monopoly to pay the export price for the livestock.
That is no proper analogy at all, and the Deputy knows it very well. It is quite a distortion of the real position. An order was necessary at the time these three factories were established. I was faced with the question of whether I should put on a total prohibition. That thought, for several reasons, did not ring true or genuine to my mind. I then marked the prohibition at seven years and I said: "I can have a look at this." I made that known. Now I have had a look at it and I have reduced it to five years. I was under fire for two or three years on this question, at a time when some of those cross-examining me now were blowing hot and cold. They were not thinking of this as a serious problem, although it was a serious problem. I have no doubt that the way in which I am handling it is the right one.
(Interruptions.)
I will discuss it with you for an hour.
What factors influenced you?
Reduce the price of wheat, reduce the price of livestock, freeze the price of milk.
(Interruptions.)