Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 1963

Vol. 201 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Export of Horses for Slaughter.

Mr. Donegan

The question put to the Minister today with the answer to which we were dissatisfied, asked that the Minister amend any recent change he had made in the limitations on the export of horses so as to avoid any serious losses to the Irish farmer. There are many ways of amending a particular matter. Any amendments to be made are up to the Minister and the purpose of the question was to give the Minister an opportunity to amend the limitations as he saw fit. However, the Minister, in the supplementaries to the question seemed to avoid the entire point at issue. I quote the supplementaries as follows:

Mr. Donegan: Does the Minister not realise that this means a minimum loss of £15 per head on horses sold by the Irish farmers, that as a result fewer farm horses will be bred and that if this continues there will not be a horse in Ireland in ten years?

Mr. Smith: I do not realise what the present policy or the day to day policy of the Fine Gael Party is but in 1953 that Party voted for a motion to prohibit the export of all horses.

Mr. Dillon: Not true.

Mr. Smith: It is on the records of the House. They voted for the prohibition of the export of all horses at a time when there was no means of processing horses in this country, and now they are concerned about an order I make altering the age at which horses may be exported from seven years to five years.

I would answer that as Deputy Dillon did by saying "not true" and would refer the Minister to Volume 143, Columns 597 and 598 where he will discover that this was a free vote of the House and that over one-third of the members of the Fine Gael Party voted for the motion as he has described and that none of the members voted for the other side. He will also find that a Minister and some Deputies of his Party voted with them on that motion so confirming the fact that this was a free vote and had nothing to do with Party politics.

The duty of any Irish Minister for Agriculture is to get the best price possible for the products of the Irish farmer. The farmer must pay for everything he gets in the open market and therefore he must get the highest possible price available to the Minister to get for him. The sole responsibility devolves on the Minister in that regard. One finds from the Statistical Abstract for the last years for which one can get accurate information that, in 1958, live horses were exported to the value of £2,233,000 that in 1959, the value was £2,389,000 and that in 1960, the value was £3,265,000.

I do not suggest that these were all exported for slaughter but I do suggest that a large proportion of them were and if there is to be a loss, as there seems to be, of £15 a head, then the Irish farmer is losing something in the region of half a million pounds a year. We on this side of the House must clarify our position exactly. We are not concerned as to how the Minister gets over that position. Our consideration is to see that the farmer gets the highest prices. How that is to be done, the marketing and the humanities, is the Minister's concern. On that he will be judged. That is his responsibility.

If the Minister wants to say that the decent humanities are not being observed and that export must be stopped, it is his duty to see that the farmer gets an equal price at home. If he wants to prohibit the export of horses, then it surely is his responsibility to provide, by subsidy or other means, the difference that will mean that the Irish farmer will get the same price.

The last paragraph of the question asked:

And if he will now amend this recent change, so as to avoid serious loss to the Irish farmer?

We do not mind how the Minister amends it but it is the right of the Irish farmer, if he has to buy his goods in a free market or behind a tariff wall, to sell in a free market. Therefore the responsibility devolves on the Government to see that he gets the same price.

The British Government want to give their industrial workers cheap meat and they allow free export of cattle to the British market but they provide subsidies for their farmers so that they will not lose money. There is no reason why the Minister cannot do that. If he takes a certain action which interferes with the profits of the Irish farmers, it is our duty, as a responsible Opposition, to see that he answers for that and we will do just that. Is this to be the start of many such things? If there is to be trouble in relation to cruelty to livestock, and I would be the last to encourage cruelty to any animal, least of all to the horse, then are we to be told that we cannot export our cattle? Are we to be told that we will have to take a lower price and slaughter them at home?

A definite precedent has now been established and there is only one action open to the Minister as I see it. If he is going to kill the trade, and that is what he is doing, then he must provide a subsidy to ensure that the Irish farmer will not be at any loss. That is the reason we are raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

This half-hour is available to Deputies to raise matters arising from Parliamentary Questions, when Deputies claim that they have not received all the information they should receive. I have been here in this House on a good many occasions when this half-hour was used for that purpose but I can say truthfully that I cannot recall an occasion when a question was raised on the Adjournment with less reason. On a matter of this nature, it is all very well for Deputy Donegan to have views of his own. However, I am quite sure the proposal he suggests here would not have the support of the majority of his Party. When a Deputy is elected to this House, what he says and the questions he asks should reflect what the Party as a whole are thinking.

I referred today at Question Time to the fact that a motion was discussed here—I gave the volume and the column numbers—in 1953. A division was taken on that motion. The motion was to the effect that a prohibition should be imposed on the export of horses, without qualification or limitation. I agree that the vote was a free vote but if you look down the list of those who voted for and against, you will find that as usual the Fine Gael Party, in the main, absented themselves. That has been their history and a long-established practice of theirs in my own memory. On this occasion, many of them who did not want to commit themselves, who did not want to be for or against, absented themselves but the important thing is that all the Fine Gael Deputies who were here voted for a prohibition on the export of horses. They did that, although they as a Party, as the major element in a Government we had here for two periods, closed down the only place that was established here for the export of horse flesh. With no facilities of any kind available except the facilities Fine Gael destroyed by deliberate act, the irresponsible ones amongst them voted lightheartedly for a motion for total prohibition.

I should not be expected to take the antics of Deputy Donegan seriously in this matter. I pride myself on having handled this whole business of the horse trade magnificently. I say that not because it is a conclusion I have arrived at myself but a conclusion that is supported by the evidence, written and otherwise, that has passed through my Department to myself. This is a subject to which I gave very serious thought and on which I took a very firm and intelligent stand, keeping in mind all the time a number of vital considerations.

I shall try to recount from memory what these considerations were. First, in this House and outside it, I have strenuously defended the principle that horses should be exported the same as any other animals, that is, after those who are responsible for their export have taken all possible precautions to see that the animals are not exposed to any undue hardship. Secondly, I take the view that it would not be a bad idea if we built up here a means of handling most of these animals through processing and through the development of a market for horseflesh.

After the Government which Deputy Donegan supported had closed the first attempt at providing that service, this Government announced their willingness to permit, subject to the approval of our veterinary people as to the type of premises, and so on, the establishment of a number of concerns here to handle this trade in the way I have described. Because for some time after that announcement of policy there were no developments, I used to have to take jibing questions here from the members of Deputy Donegan's Party. When three concerns capable of dealing with this problem of the export of horses made their appearance, I then made an order as from a certain date providing that horses over the age of seven years would not be allowed to be exported for that trade. I selected the age of seven not altogether because it was possible to determine with certainty that the age of an animal was seven but because I was anxious to preserve the principle that horses should be exported, that there was really nothing objectionable in exporting them. I was also anxious to ensure that those who had provided the accommodation to handle horseflesh in the way I have briefly described would not secure a monopoly, that there would be at least some check on the prices they paid for live horses.

When I made that order, I made it clear on a number of occasions that it was my intention to review it, and after a period of two years and without pressure from anybody interested, with the knowledge that I myself had of what was taking place, I reviewed it. I amended the order and changed the age from seven to five so as to avoid confusion. At five, it is not necessary to have an expert to read, as it were, a horse's mouth to know he is five years and more. I did that because there was an inclination to offer horses for export that were more than seven years old. There is always the prospect of disagreement amongst those who might examine the animal as to whether he was seven, eight, nine or ten years of age. The age of five years was a clearcut age and the fact that an animal was that age would be discernible even to those who were not fully expert in judging horses.

I do not take this question on the Adjournment really seriously. I have looked over the discussion that took place in 1953 and have read some of the contributions made here by Deputies of the Party opposite. I should like to give some useful advice to that Party. I have referred to it as the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. That is what they were called when I first knew them. They changed their ways and their name so often that one is inclined to lose track of them. I would give them this advice, that in an important matter such as this, they should try to have some policy. I hope they would like to have themselves regarded as a responsible Party and, as such, the major part of their work here is to take their responsibility seriously, not to be always so frivolous, not to be always seeking the jibe, irrespective of whether it fits in with any pattern of policy as far as they are concerned.

I pride myself on the fact-and I am supported by quite a few people who have shown a great interest in this business from every point of view, even by those who were interested in it from the cruelty angle— that I have tried to preserve the principle that the horse, like any other animal, should be and can be exported. I have tried in the case of those who have established themselves here to handle horseflesh to put the only brake on them that I could impose to ensure that they would not secure their raw materials without some form of competition.

It amazes me that Deputy Donegan should be allowed by his leaders and by those who, I hope, are more responsible and who take a more reasoned and solid view on these matters, to indulge in antics like this and commit his Party to such an irresponsible course.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21s March, 1963.