In order to be consistent with the Second Stage debate I want to put down a marker and say I have serious reservations about the repeal of the Principal Act of 1934 in so far as it means that henceforth no stallions in any category will be licensed. There are a number of reasons we should travel this road very slowly. First, this is a most inopportune time to ask this House to deal with this Bill. I know it has been in abeyance for quite a long time and that there have been suggestions from the various factions of the horse breeding industry about which I will speak in a moment.
I note from a press statement today the announcement of the new horse advisory body. I note that the Minister has appointed the members of the board and has set up this new non-thoroughbred advisory committee to advise him on the industry. I see nothing wrong with that; that is reasonable in its own way. No matter how good or bad they may be — as far as I am concerned — they will be just as good as Bord na gCapall, although the Minister went to great lengths to point out that this new body do not constitute a replacement of Bord na gCapall. I am sure all the members are professional in their own right. I wish them well.
I have no hang-up whatever about the composition of the board. However, as there is always likely to be on such occasions, I note there are one or two omissions. I am somewhat surprised that the Irish Shows Association are not represented on that board. They do much good work at various agricultural shows. Now that they have brought their organisation to a professional pitch — they hold all-Ireland finals for yearlings and so on — it is difficult to understand why they have not a representative on the board.
The kernel of this Bill is the repealing of the 1934 Act whose provisions stipulated that stallions in excess of two year olds, other than thoroughbreds, who had to be licensed to date will no longer have that obligatory requirement applied to them henceforth; in other words it will be, as it were, open season with no control as such. I know that opinions within the horse breeding industry differ as to whether that is a good or bad thing. I have never yet met two people in the horse breeding industry who were of the one mind in that regard. Obviously the advice given the Minister is to the effect that the Principal Act should be repealed and that henceforth there be no licensing system at all.
I would ask that scrutiny of this Bill be the first item on the agenda of the new advisory horse body. They are entitled to examine its provisions. It is not reasonable or fair to deny a group of people as committed to the horse industry as are those nine or ten members of the new body the possibility of examining this Bill. That is tantamount to saying: we will first change the laws and then we will give you a look in on the sideline. So much expertise resides within that group — from a reading of the list of names — it would be of benefit to the Minister and the House that we ascertain their views.
While I do not profess to be an expert in this field I was born and reared with horses. Because the whole of the horse breeding industry is so important to us, and is likely to become even more so in the future, I do not think we should rush through this Bill even though it has been in abeyance for many years and has fallen with Dála and had to be reinstated.
I believe there should be some form of control. I will give the House an example. When I served as a junior Minister in the Department of Agriculture it was decided that we should forget about all sorts of controls so far as bulls — breeding animals — were concerned. The thinking at the time was that if a farmer wanted to cut off his nose we should allow him to do so because he would be doing so in the full knowledge that he was inflicting injury on himself. I have to admit that many farmers did inflict injury on themselves. At the time I must admit I felt it was better to have a free-for-all, no licensing, no bull inspections or whatever. I was of that opinion for commercial reasons. I genuinely believed that if somebody was seriously engaged in this industry he would have to take note of the fact that the market required a certain product and that he would use the best breeding facilities available. I have to say many of them did not, so much so that even now the Department use a certain system of inspection. It has been contended that, unless one has such inspections, we would be left with the worse specimens the various breeds could produce. I know it is not fair to equate that example with the horse breeding industry but my genuine fear is that, if we abolish the policing methods obtaining as far as stallions are concerned, we will wind up in a worse position from a quality point of view.
If ten or 12 mares or stallions are being inspected, whatever they are being inspected for visually, it is okay if they are being inspected by keen eyed judges. I am not saying I am that keen eyed because it is a while since I was involved with horses but it could be argued from a genetic and breeding point of view that the judges did not have a clue what they were looking for other than that the horses conformed well to their breed type, that they looked well, had solid legs, etc. I have noticed over the years, as have many others who have an interest in this industry, that a man who had no accreditation other than that he made a living from dealing in horses — the real university of life so far as this industry is concerned — would recognise a problem that perhaps five departmental or Bord na gCapall officials would not have seen in a month of Sundays. Some people are very sharp and there are none so sharp as those who are involved in the horse industry.
I accept that it is very difficult to legislate for this area but I ask the Minister to take on board the proposal I am making. Before we make a decision on the Bill the Minister should hand it back to the advisory horse body he has appointed so that they can have a look at it for a month or two. If the Minister then brings their recommendations back here I will gladly facilitate the passage of the Bill. Since I have become Opposition spokesperson on agriculture I have spoken to a number of people involved in the horse industry and I must confess that they are equally divided as to whether the 1934 Act should be repealed. Not everybody agrees with the Minister, or for that matter disagrees with him, but there are a couple of technical questions I should like to get answers to, and I hope the Minister will have the answers to these questions when he replies.
As the Bill stands at present there is an exemption from inspection for thoroughbred stallions. I understand this provision has been in force for years. It is not right to say that because they are exempt the same system should apply down the line. There are far more stallions down the line which are not as expensive and may not be treated in the same way as the thoroughbreds. Artificial insemination is very important at present both in horse breeding and cattle breeding, and even in regard to sheep. However, with present technology people will have no trouble importing semen. If we do not have a licensing system how can we be sure that semen came from the source it was supposed to have come from? How are we going to check the source and where is there certification? Many people are worried that a coach-and-four could be driven through this legislation. I read with interest the contributions of Deputy Doyle and Deputy Davern when they spoke last year or the year before and it is obvious that they take the horse business quite seriously. No answer was given on that occasion as to what would be done in those circumstances. I do not have the answer either but I hope the Minister has. If he does not have it, obviously it is time for him to go back and have a look at the Bill again.
