asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will state in respect of each year since 1950 the value of (1) cattle and (2) sheep slaughtered in the Dublin Corporation abattoir for (a) home use and (b) export.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Corporation Abattoir.
35.
Slaughterings of cattle and sheep at Dublin Corporation Abattoir are available by number only. With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report a statement showing, by number, the information requested for the three years 1963 to 1965. Full particulars for earlier years are not available as there is no ready breakdown of a substantial section of the slaughterings at the Abattoir between disposal for home use and export.
Following is the statement:
SLAUGHTERINGS at Dublin Corporation Abattoir.
|
Cattle |
Sheep |
|||
|
Year |
For Home Use Number |
For Export Number |
For Home Use Number |
For Export Number |
|
1963 |
39,230 |
1,690 |
128,860 |
59,420 |
|
1964 |
40,590 |
3,290 |
138,600 |
39,100 |
|
1965 |
41,820 |
15,000 |
140,670 |
50,410 |
36.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will lay all the correspondence and regulations concerning the cancellation of the licence of the Dublin Corporation abattoir for exports to the EEC before Dáil Éireann.
It is not customary to circulate correspondence of this kind by my Department with third parties.
I did not ask the Minister to circulate it. I asked him to put it on the Table of the House.
In view of the fact that the Minister is not prepared to publish the correspondence, would he be prepared to furnish evidence to support his allegation last week that Deputy Cluskey asked him to issue false certificates?
I said in my reply that what Deputy Cluskey was asking me to do when he came to see me in the Department was equivalent to asking me to issue certificates to a foreign Government which would not be correct.
Is the Minister saying now that he did not allege that Deputy Cluskey asked him specifically to issue false certificates?
I am afraid I have not got the exact record here of what I said in the Official Report but whatever I said there I stand over.
Does the Minister therefore say that Deputy Cluskey asked him, when he received him on a deputation, to issue false certificates?
As I say, I have not got my exact words now but I will certainly look up the record and see what exactly I did say. The position as I saw it was that Deputy Cluskey came in to me to the Department with a deputation urging me to retain the abattoir on the list of premises which I would certify to the EEC countries. That, to my mind, as I explained to the House, would have been tantamount to my issuing certificates to these countries which would not be correct.
When the Minister looks up the record, he will see that one of the interpretations could mean a serious reflection on the character of Deputy Cluskey.
That is not what I intended. What I intended to say—I have not got my precise words here— was that if I did what Deputy Cluskey was asking me to do, it would be equivalent to issuing false certificates.
Then there is no reflection on Deputy Cluskey.
Would the Minister not consider the request that he table the correspondence involved because there is no doubt that the Minister the other day offered no explanation of his complete failure between December, 1964, and June, 1965, and, in the the absence of the correspondence, one can only assume that the personal and vindictive attack the Minister made on Deputy Cluskey was solely for the purpose of covering up his own messing.
If we are talking about personal and vindictive attacks, I think I was the recipient.
You were not. You made it clear that it was a political attack on you and you were personal to Deputy Cluskey.
It is also now quite clear from the statements which have been made by officials of the Dublin Corporation and which have been reported in the press that the corporation at no time considered it either necessary or desirable to effect any improvements which would ensure that these premises would conform.
It is also perfectly obvious that the Minister did nothing from December to June.
That is the Deputy's interpretation and is entirely incorrect.
You fell down on your job and lost £1 million of exports.
Would the Minister agree——
Question No. 37.