I should like to say to the Minister of State, to be conveyed to his Minister, how disappointed I am at the speech with which he introduced the Bill. It is so short as to be contemptuous of the House. It shows a total disregard for the importance of the subject matter involved. It is probably without precendent in regard to what it does not say because of the importance and scope of the subject under discussion. I hoped the Minister would have taken the opportunity in his introductory speech to review the non-thoroughbred industry, to indicate his thinking on the demise of Bord na gCapall — if he agrees with the decision to terminate it — and, more importantly, to indicate his thinking on what administrative procedures and financial arrangements are to be put in place to ensure that the work allotted to Bord na gCapall will be continued and improved.
I recall that in 1970 we had a long Second Stage and Committee Stage debate on the Bill that initiated Bord na gCapall, a Bill that was brought to the House following a survey of the non-thoroughbred industry. That survey analysed the industry in some depth and made recommendations which were by and large implemented in the Bill which set up Bord na gCapall. Now, 17 years on, the Government have taken a decision to terminate that board. The Minister, in the course of this debate, has an appropriate medium to indicate to the House, and the industry, what is to be put in its place. The Minister has an opportunity to indicate to the House his analysis of the problems of the industry, his review of the performance of Bord na gCapall in the last 17 years, whether that review shows defects in operating procedures, whether Bord na gCapall achieved the objectives of the survey team which initiated the setting up of the board and, if not, why not. The Minister should indicate how he, as the person responsible for this important sector of the agricultural industry, is going to improve and change things.
I must say that the Minister's speech is nothing less than an insult to the House because he must have known that a debate of this brief Bill but fundamental in its nature was going to range over the entire non-thoroughbred breeding industry. To initiate a Bill with a perfunctory script of one-and-a-half pages of superficial comment is an insult to the House and an insult to the industry concerned.
If this Bill is indicative of official thinking and official regard for the industry in question, then God help that industry because its future must be bleak indeed. The Minister will have an opportunity at the conclusion of Second Stage to reply to the wide ranging debate that has taken place in the unusual circumstances that we do not know his policy and we are not in a position to comment on his views of the industry. However, I hope he will take the opportunity when replying to this debate to cure and repair the omissions of his introductory speech and that he will deal comprehensively with the industry. It is appropriate that he do so because the vehicle for the debate, consideration of the Horse Breeding Bill, is apposite for that purpose.
Possibly the Minister thought that because the Bill was short all the proceedings in connection with its passage would be short. That is a serious mistake on his part and the lack of seriousness in his approach or in the official approach to this important subject is very worrying and must be a matter of great concern for the thousands of people throughout the country whose livelihoods depend on a flourishing, viable and healthy horse breeding industry. I appeal to the Minister to deal comprehensively in his reply with the industry, with all the consequences of what is encompassed in this Bill which have been adverted to by Deputies on all sides of the House. This is very fundamental legislation. It repeals the Horse Breeding Act, 1934. When stated like that, possibly it does not sound much, but should this Bill become law we will have for the first time for many years, possibly for the first time in this century or thereabouts, a position where the breeding of non-thoroughbred horses will be totally without licensing controls. That in itself is a change of tremendous magnitude, and the reasons that were given in the Minister's speech perfunctorily and superficially do not justify the passage of a Bill making such a fundamental and far reaching change.
One has to ask why there was ever a licensing system, and the answer is obviously that licensing systems generally, and particularly in relation to the breeding of livestock, are designed to ensure that the highest standards will be achieved and then maintained in the area which is the subject of the licensing regime. That is why licensing was introduced in this country as far back, as Deputy Abbott reminded us, as 1918. There may have been control of some sort earlier than that. Licensing is to ensure that standards will be maintained and the very best quality will at all times be available in that sector of the industry. I am certain that it was not introduced for the sake of having bureaucratic control. There had to be a more cogent raison d'être than merely a neat bureaucratic arrangement. It is quite clear, and I think nobody will disagree that the reason for having licensing arrangements is to ensure that proper standards are applied centrally and uniformly and that when those standards are met they are maintained. We need high standards because if we are breeding livestock we need the best possible class of livestock.
The Minister should know that from the unfortunate experiment in relation to the deregulation — let me put it that way — of the licensing of bulls and how disastrous lack of controls in that area proved for the quality of the cattle stock. It is no answer to say that the market will ensure that standards will be maintained in relation to the non-thoroughbred industry. Probably it is a good answer in regard to the thoroughbred industry because that industry is so highly capitalised, the amount of money involved in the value of stock is so large, that people cannot afford to take the short cuts that might tempt them in ordinary commercial activities in the high priced area of the thoroughbred breeding industry. Furthermore, in that industry there is constant performance monitoring on the racecourse which of itself ensures that the breeding standards have to be maintained. There is not an analagous situation with regard to the non-thoroughbred industry because there you do not have, first, the tremendous financial involvement and, secondly, you do not have the constant monitoring by public performance as you have in the case of thoroughbred horses. Therefore, for the Minister to say that thoroughbred stallions were never licensed and suggest by implication that because they do not have to be licensed there is no need to have non-thoroughbreds licensed either is evidently and obviously fallacious. It is not a good argument but it is typical of the perfunctory, superficial and unanalytical nature of the Minister's introductory speech.
It is important that we continue to maintain the best possible standards in the non-thoroughbred sector. One way to ensure that is to have a system of the control of the standard of breeding stock, and a way of doing that is to have a system that would have some validity, nevertheless the existence of the system has meant that horses going to stud have had an official inspection to ensure the basic requirements of proper conformation and sound health. It has also had the effect of ensuring, at least up to recently, that, and this was urged strongly by the survey team who produced the report which led to Bord na gCapall — that half-bred stallions should not go to stud.
The non-thoroughbred Irish horse for generations has been a cross between the thoroughbred sire and an Irish draught mare. The survey team to whom I referred set their face against half-bred stallions on the basis that to introduce them was to introduce into the area a certain amount of mongrelisation to compound the harm that had already been done by letting too many Clydesdales get into the non-thoroughbred horse area. A system of licensing would ensure that stallions other than thoroughbred stallions could be included.
I am apprehensive that if there is a free-for-all some people for commercial reasons will begin to experiment with the introduction into this country of continental warm bloods. When one considers the lack of control that would exist in a non-licensing regime, if that happens, then the individuality of the Irish horse is doomed and we will no longer be able to market a typical Irish sports horse. No purchaser will know whether that sports horse will have a large element of Hanoverian, Dutch, Cleveland Bay or some other such type of blood in his veins. It would be a disastrous commercial decision and would be bound to reflect badly on the reputation that has endured for many generations. That is a real danger in removing the licensing regime and is a very strong argument for the Minister to reconsider the proposal in this Bill.
It may be argued that the demand nowadays for the sports horse is such that the traditional type Irish horse is becoming old-fashioned, out-of-date, no longer suitable. That is not a good argument. It has its basis in success which the warm bloods have achieved in the showjumping area. I would remind the House that showjumping is an artificial equine sport. Horses do not jump obstacles by nature. They have to be trained to it, and for a horse to jump a variety of coloured obstacles of unnatural size in a small area requires a particular type of docile horse. I would not go so far as to say a circus horse, but if I were forced I would say that that description might not be altogether out of place. It so happens that these continental horses have proved to be suitable for that type of artificial equitation exercise and that has tended to cause people to question the efficiency of the traditional Irish horse which does not seem to be able to compete at the very supreme level with its continental counterpart. People have come to the conclusion, erroneously, that the traditional Irish breed is old-fashioned and unsuitable for modern requirements. The traditional Irish breed may not achieve the highest standards in showjumping as consistently as do the continental warm bloods but that is no reflection on the traditional Irish non-thoroughbred horse because it is bred for a different purpose. It is bred to endure and people at the top level of showjumping will always say that if they can get the top class Irish horse they would prefer it any day to the top class continental horse because it has endurance and it lasts.
For ordinary sports activity the traditional Irish horse is handy and courageous, is a much safer mount and will give better value in terms of longevity than the continental warm bloods. It would be disastrous if the new non-licensing regime proposed in this Bill were to permit the standing in this country of continental warm bloods so as to invade to their detriment the traditional bloodlines in this country. It would be a disaster if the purchaser of an Irish horse could no longer know if he was getting the real thing. One regularly sees an advertisement saying "quality Irish horses for sale" in the Horse and Hound magazine which is the major equestrian magazine in the UK and here. That is an advertisement that would disappear because the dealer advertising those horses, having bought them in Ireland, could not be sure what he was going to buy. That is a very cogent argument, if there were no other arguments for not doing what this Bill proposes to do.
The Minister in his speech purported to give reasons why licensing was no longer necessary. He said the reasons for licensing no longer obtained but the argument he used is no justification for the change. The reasons that were there from day one are still pertinent. The fact that the position of the horse is different now to what it was 30 years ago does not mean that we should not have as high, if not a higher, standard of horse today. The increasing sophistication of the market into which the horse is now to be sold means that it is more important to ensure we have the highest standards of breeding available and that they should be constantly improved. It does not follow that because the horse was mainly a source of draught power on farms and an important means of transport in rural Ireland and that is no longer the case, it is a reason for doing away with licensing. I cannot see the logic in that although that is one of the arguments the Minister puts to us in his speech.
The Minister also says that the breeding goals and objectives have altered. I suppose they have in the sense that we do not want to breed as many horses for draught work or for the trap. We want to breed horses for riding, although there is nothing wrong with a draught horse for riding. A draught horse can make an excellent hunter for a heavyish man who is inclined to be dropped occasionally. The point I am making is that while the breeding goals and objectives may have altered, the need to have the highest standards has not changed. It gets back to the fundamental raison d'être for having a licensing system, and that is to have controls to ensure the maintenance of the highest standards. The fact that the horse is now used for sporting and leisure activities rather than working activities is not a justifiable reason for ending the licensing regime.
The Minister also says that modern animal breeding techniques incorporating objective measures of performance have been introduced into horse breeding programmes in this country and throughout the world. That may well be in the thoroughbred industry where there are objective measures of performance. Those very visible objective measures of performance ensure that only the best will be bred to the best. I do not know what the Minister means by modern animal breeding techniques, because so far as I know the technique for breeding horses has been the same since God invented horses and it will continue to be so.
There are, of course, more sophisticated hygiene arrangements and the like in the thoroughbred industry but essentially in the half-bred industry the modus operandi practised in the small stud farms up and down the country has not changed. I do not know to what modern animal breeding technique the Minister is referring to justify the abolition of licensing. He is hardly referring to artificial insemination. There have been successful experiments carried out in that regard in the non-thoroughbred industry. We may well have a future in that area. I cannot ever see it having a future in the thoroughbred horse industry and I do not think the industry itself would be keen on it. If it is that to which the Minister is referring it still does not do anything to diminish the strength of my argument, that the sire to be used for the implementation of such techniques should be licensed and be of the best possible standard.
The Minister in the course of his remarks mentioned that the licensing inspection itself was confined to clinical examination and had little real impact on breeding merit itself. I do not know quite what that means. I know what the clinical examination means; I presume that a horse would be seen not to be suffering from any disease and had a good conformation, something that can be established by clinical examination and by visual inspection. But the Minister says that system of inspection had little real impact on breeding merit itself. Undoubtedly that is true because what has an impact on the question of breeding merit is the capacity of the sire to get the mares into foal. That is the main consideration of a person going to breed his mare.
It has not been possible in the half-bred industry to have, if you like, performance-testing because the uses of the half-bred horse are so varied and inconsistent that it is not possible in the same way that performance-testing can be done on a racecourse. For example, take the question of showjumpers. It has not been proved possible to date to breed showjumpers, as such. Clearly it seems to be a lottery as to how good a showjumper any particular horse, thoroughbred or non-thoroughbred, will turn out to be. Attempts have been made to identify particular stallions as being pre-potent in regard to getting showjumpers. I do not think there is any scientific basis for any conclusion along those lines. Some stallions became fashionable and were well sold with that reputation but I do not think it is anything more than that, as Deputy Davern said when he instanced the case of the famous pony, Dundrum. Obviously it is very much a lottery, a freak of nature, whether a horse will be able to perform supremely well in that particularly artificial form of equine activity, showjumping. Likewise, the horse that is bred for hunting does not have to perform to any particular consistently measurable standard. He has to be a safe ride, a courageous and a handy horse that can jump normal obstacles reasonably well.
Therefore, we do not have to have any system of performance observance there to decide on breeding policy because we know from experimental observation which has gone on for generations that that type of sport activity — the traditional cross of the licensed thoroughbred sire and the half-bred mare — has produced the best hunters to be found in these islands. The performance of those hunters up and down this and the neighbouring country, generation after generation, is all the proof one needs of their performance capacity. That, of course, has taken place under our system of licensing which kept out of the breeding area the half-bred, the warm-blood and any other non-traditional breeds. I wonder, if we allowed the warm-bloods and the half-breds to go to stud, what sort of performance we would get from their progeny in the hunting fields in the years to come. The other area of growth for the sports horse is in eventing. All the indications are that the traditional cross, or possibly the three-quarter bred horse, is and will be the ideal horse to perform in that difficult sport to the maximum extent possible.
If we were to remove licensing and its attendant controls and standards in spite of the fact that the Minister was, to all intents and purposes, denigrating the licensing system that has been operated here for the past 50 years — if we were to remove those controls which have worked in practice, we would do immense damage to the Irish sports horse and would not be able to take advantage of the new market emerging for the event horse. There are all sorts of competitions taking place under the general unbrella of events, various cross-country rides. They do not have to be in the form of threeday events with the three disciplines dressage in cross-country and showjumping. Hunter trials are now becoming a very popular form of sport, cross-country riding over made obstacles and will become an even larger sport. In Britain it is becoming a very big sport with teams competing over manmade courses, a cross between a point-to-point and a three-day event without the formality of the latter or the competitiveness of the former, an ideal form of active leisure riding with a growing market for the traditional and typical Irish hunting horse.
If we allow our traditional types to be eroded by permitting the introduction of untypical stallions we will not be able to service that market. It may be argued: why should the introduction of untypical stallions follow the end of the licensing system? I suppose one could argue it should not follow but, having regard to human nature, people will experiment, there will be commercial pressure from the Continent to try to get their types introduced into our horse scene. Possibly they could be sold as an attractive commercial proposition for a breeder who would want to be first to take advantage of or to use one of these new sires. Before we knew where we were, they would be in position, servicing mares and the harm would have been done. As sure as day follows night we would have sires of that type coming onto the Irish non-thoroughbred scene. That will follow if the licensing system is abolished, as proposed by the Minister.
I do not know — because the Minister did not tell us — what are his views on the future of the non-thoroughbred industry. Bord na gCapall are being put away. We will be anxious to hear what will happen to the implementation of the recommendations of the survey report of, I think, 1969 designed to put in place a regime which would restore the non-thoroughbred breeding industry to a healthy state. One of the ambitions of that survey was to improve and expand our stock of draught mares. Certain steps were taken in that regard which have been moderately successful in that they halted the rate of decline in the availability of such mares but did not halt the actual decline. The reason was perhaps a lack of precision in identifying true Irish draught types.
I recall visiting the Horse Show in Ballsbridge where there is a class for draught mares and looking at that class of mares one could not say there is such a thing as an Irish draught type because in that class there were what we traditionally regard as Irish draught mares, slightly feathered, plainish and not very big but with plenty of substance. On the one hand there were mares of that type and on the other hand there were clearly what were half-bred mares with a lot of thoroughbred blood in them. Yet they were parading in a class confined to typical Irish draught mares.
The identification, selection and retention of the typical Irish draught mare was not tackled as it should have been by Bord na gCapall. I do not know whether the people in charge have thrown their hat at the possibility of restoring the predominance of that type of breeding mare. It would be a pity if they did because if that type of mare was bred out it would only be a matter of time before we would have all quasi-thoroughbreds. At that stage the only alternative, if one wanted a non-thoroughbred horse, would be the introduction of the continental warm bloods. It would be a great pity if we were to let that fundamental part of the horse industry disappear. The vigour that comes from that cross of mare cannot be replaced by any other cross. It is very important for the future of the non-thoroughbred industry that it is retained.
We are anxious to hear the Minister's views on the problems facing the non-thoroughbred horse industry. We would also be very glad to hear more comprehensive views from him, views with more of an analysis and depth to justify the ending of the licensing of stallions for non-thoroughbred breeding.
The views the Minister gave us in his perfunctory introductory remarks do not stand up to any sort of analysis. If licensing is to be abolished what controls will there be with regard to the physical environment in which a stallion will be standing? What controls will there be over its management and so on? If there are no such controls will the lack of them have a detrimental effect on the fertility level which is already less than we would like it to be? There could be a poor environment, poor hygiene and poor feeding because there are no controls proposed for the future. Will that mean that the already poor fertile rate will become even worse?
The short answer is that the commercial necessity of having a sire that can get its mares in foal will ensure proper standards but unfortunately that does not necessarily follow. Even the standards of environment of some licensed stallions leaves something to be desired. That position will be compounded if all controls are removed. Unfortunate owners of mares will bring them to be serviced by stallions who, because of their unhappy environment, will fail in a large number of cases to put the mares in foal. By the time the word percolates through the district about that stallion the harm will be done. The stallion owner will then possibly be forced to get rid of it. Very often it may not be the fault of the stallion but because of bad management. If we are to abolish licensing controls that danger will become a real one. If everybody who owns a stallion managed it according to the highest standards there would be no need to worry but unfortunately human nature does not operate to the very highest standards, even where there are commercial considerations such as the stallion fee. Where the fee is paid that is the end of the matter unless the owner offers the service on a "no foal, no fee" basis. Having regard to the small fee charged for the non-thoroughbred mare that requirement is very often missing.
Another problem relates to the profitability to the person who breeds the sports horse. He wants to get the best price possible for that horse. It is unfortunate that one has to wait a number of years before the full value of the horse can be realised. The yearling is more valuable than the foal as regards non-thoroughbred stock and the two year old is more valuable than the yearling but the three and four year olds are worth real money because the purchaser who wants to keep that horse for some specific equestrian purpose can start to work on it immediately, breaking it and preparing it for riding. No purchaser will buy a yearling or a two year old because he will have to feed it for another two years before it is ready to break. In those early years the animal will have to be left with the farmer. Very often he does not get the proper value for the horse because when it is sold, it is sold, to use commercial jargon, without any value added. It is sold unbroken and raw. Some consideration will have to be given to devise a method whereby some added value can be provided for the farmer who decides to breed a non-thoroughbred horse so that he will get the maximum value for his work, whether that system will involve instructing the farmer or whether it will involve some sort of centralised facilities where he can bring his young stock to have certain preparatory work carried out on them. That problem must be addressed if the breeder is to get the maximum value. Unless he gets the maximum value it is possible that his breeding operation could be uneconomic. That would be the case if the horse is not prepared to the required standard to ensure he achieves maximum growth and so will look well when put up for sale. As regards the quality of mares, as I mentioned earlier, this will have to be looked at because it is important that the result of breeding will be horses of good conformation, good temperament, a decent size and that they would be straight movers. All these matters can be the subject of breeding providing care is given to the foundation of stock.
This gets back to the basic objection we have, and an objection which was expressed by some Members on the other side, to this Bill. In this important sector of the agricultural industry, the controls to ensure the best standards are being removed and no good or cogent reason has been offered to this House for removing them. I urge the Minister to look again at what is proposed here. If he has more convincing reasons, we would like to hear them but I doubt if he has because it would be incredible for him to come before us and keep his ideas up his sleeve. There is no point in doing that. I am sure he would want to make the best case possible for his Bill. I have to assume he does not have any other reason and the reasons he put forward this afternoon do not make a case for bringing in such a fundamental change in this important sector of the agricultural industry, a change to a regime we have had since the beginning of the century, a change which impacts on the entire industry.
Because of the impact this change will have on the industry, it behoves the Minister to give us his views on the industry — how he sees it developing in the future, what trends he thinks will show, what market will emerge, how he thinks the Irish farmer could serve that market and how he is going to encourage the farmer to get into the budiness. For people engaged in this industry this has to be more a labour of love rather than a venture for commercial profit, and they are entitled to know what their future is.
It is extraordinary that the non-thoroughbred industry is as strong as it is because the returns are very marginal economically speaking. Horses are bred on many farms for reasons of family sentiment, there was always a horse around the place, and every generation is loathe to be the last to have a breeding mare. That particular sentiment more than harsh commercial reasons has kept non-thoroughbred breeding alive here for so long.
I am glad that hunting is in a healthy state and that more and more farmers are taking part in it because the more who do, the more will want to breed horses for their own use. It is only appropriate that one should pay tribute to the landowners who permit hunts to cross their land. Because of the changing nature of farming, there are difficulties arising in parts of the country, but in my experience these difficulties are usually overcome with a certain amount of goodwill. As I said, this sport is in a healthy state. It has been my experience that in areas where there are hunts farmers are glad to see them because they are part of the tradition of the area, part of the rural scene and they have the very important consequence of keeping down the fox population. For somebody who suffered from that predator, any farmer would be glad to see that under control.
I urge the Minister to rethink on this Bill. I impress on him the need when replying to the Second Stage debate to give better reasons than he gave when introducing the Bill. He should give us reasons that will justify to all of us here, and more important, to all in the industry, that what he proposes is a good thing and is for the good of the industry as a whole.
