Since there are no amendments on Report Stage, we will proceed to Fifth Stage in accordance with Standing Orders.
Horse Breeding Bill, 1985: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Deputy Connaughton rose.
If Deputy Connaughton or any other Deputy wish to speak on the Fifth Stage, they are so entitled.
We have not much time at our disposal this afternoon. I understand the debate is guillotined and will finish at 5 p.m. However, I wish to ask the Minister about some points I raised on Committee Stage a few weeks ago. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be aware that on that occasion I went to great lengths to request the Minister to seek the considered views of the members of the advisory board, who had been appointed two days previously, on whether we should have licensing of stallions. I felt the Minister did not particularly want to accede to my request, but I could not see any reason for this. I would now like to know whether this matter was put to the advisory board and, if so, their views on the matter. However, if the Minister did not seek the views of the advisory board, I would like to know why not. As has been said, this Bill has been kicked around in all Chambers since 1985. I sought certain guarantees with regard to the importation of semen, etc, but I will not go into that at present.
I would be much happier if I knew that the various sectors in the horse breeding industry were as near to unanimous as possible, that this legislation is good for the horse breeding industry. I would like the Minister to outline what he found as a result of these discussions.
It was pointed out in the course of the debate that the legislation is very short. One begins to wonder why we are spending so much time on it. On Committee Stage I pointed out that the Bill was first circulated in 1985. As a result of the recommendations of a sub-committee which Bord na gCapall had established at that time, the then Minister for Agriculture decided to circulate the Bill. Quite frankly, Deputy Connaughton's assertion that it should be referred to the advisory committee does not stand up to examination. It is neither practical nor necessary to do so.
What are the reasons then?
We have outlined the reasons. I might reiterate that the continuation of stallion licensing is a non-issue. This Bill is merely a technicality to deal with the reality, that licensing has not been operated since 1984. There are really no compelling reasons for its continuance. Therefore, it is only right and proper that the 1934 Act be repealed.
I think the words I used about this on the last occasion were something to the effect that I would not remain awake at night worrying about the issue. I can understand the Department's attitude to this whole question of the licensing of stallions. We covered all of that ground on the last occasion here in so far as visual assessment was concerned. Incidentally, I wish the Minister's colleague, his senior Minister, well and I hope he will be back on his feet shortly. However, I cannot understand why the Minister should select a group of people — no doubt with great care and attention — involved in the horse industry from all over the country and then not consult them about the first Bill appertaining to their industry that has come before this House in my time here. I cannot understand why the Minister would not have sought their opinion and then inform the House fully in that regard. I am surprised and disappointed he did not see fit to do so.
I am not objecting to this Bill and will not be calling a vote on it. Were I a member of that new horse advisory body I would begin to wonder why I had been appointed to it. I would have assumed that matters concerning horse breeding and related matters would have come within their ambit. I contend that that lack of referral is a bad start for them while accepting the concept and necessity for the establishment of that body, to bring all of the various vested groups together within the industry. I thought I had made my views particularly clear on the last occasion on which we had this discussion. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle may have felt we overstressed the point but that is neither here nor there at present.
I was actually telling the Deputy what he already knew.
I contend that the Minister missed a valuable opportunity to avail of all of the expertise in that advisory group. The Minister of State said he could not understand why it had taken so long for the Bill to be introduced in the House. I might remind him that there were general elections and so on that intervened. A delay of a day or two would do no harm at all to allow for an airing of the views of Members on the horse breeding industry. I do not hear the matter being discussed very often and I would not consider it a waste of time. I hope that Members' contributions over the past few weeks and before that will be of some use and help to those people involved in the Department and the industry itself.
I recognise that the Bill is a very short one, its main provision being the repeal of the Principal Act. What that provision basically meant was that stallions which had to be inspected visually heretofore will not be from now on. I know there will be no uproar nationwide whether or not such an inspection is carried out. However, when discussing those matters I would have thought we would have seen fit to discuss other matters relating to the horse breeding industry, which was what we endeavoured to do to the best of our ability on the last occasion.
It is my hope that all of the views expressed here will be taken on board by the people who count because, one way or the other, there is a huge task to be tackled in regard to horse breeding.
There is great need for a shake-up in the entirety of the horse breeding industry particularly since the announcement of the five-year plan in agriculture, something about which most Government Ministers seem reluctant to speak. That is another matter——
A horse of a different colour.
But the horse enters into this in the sense that, hopefully, many farmers will derive a substantial part of their income from horse breeding. It is my hope that the advisory group established by the Minister will work well in the interests of the industry as a whole. It is also my hope that in the future more people, in particular, small farmers at the lower end of the scale, will earn more from horse breeding. I hope we have managed to draw attention to that need in the House in recent months.
In view of the nature of the Committee Stage debate on 22 November last, it is appropriate to recapitulate on the reasons for this Bill. First, let me remind the House that this Bill was initiated by the Coalition Government of 1982 to 1987 and first came before this House in April 1987 following the change of Government in that year.
The reasons for this Bill are straightforward. The horse industry has changed dramatically since the enactment of the 1934 Act. The licensing inspection was confined to a clinical examination and had little real impact on breeding improvement. Once licensed, stallions were not reinspected. The number of stallions licensed declined from 1,000 in 1970 to 500 by 1984. On the advice of their sub-committee on breeding, Bord na gCapall recommened that licensing be abolished, stressing that the examination for registration of stallions — which, of course, is voluntary — is more thorough and effective from the point of view of breed improvement.
The fact of the matter is that licensing has not been operated since 1984. The Opposition have argued that circumstances have changed since then, principally because of the dissolution of Bord na gCapall. I shall deal with that issue in a moment. Let me say there has been no demand whatsoever from any sector of the indudstry to return to licensing. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that the quality of horse breeding here has suffered over the past five years as a result of the cessation of licensing.
As the House knows, the Bill to dissolve Bord na gCapall was enacted some months ago. We need not waste time reiterating the background to the dissolution of that board. Nonetheless it is important to dispel the notion that because of the demise of that board a vacuum in horse breeding matters has been created thus presenting an argument for retaining the 1934 Act. Of course, that is a spurious argument.
Conscious of the needs of the industry generally we felt it necessary to redefine policy on the one hand, against the background of restoring confidence to the sector and, on the other, that in the present economic climate the scope for financial incentives was limited. In the event we believe a fair balance has been struck in the new national programme we announced last November.
For the benefit of the House I should like to reiterate the objectives of that programme, which are to maximise output and exports by exploiting to the full our national resources in breeding stock, soil, climate, expertise and reputation, to maximise returns to breeders and to develop further the equestrian and leisure side of the industry.
With regard to conservation of the Irish draught breed, I should say many of the qualities and much of the international reputation of the Irish sport horse derive from the breeding system whereby Irish draught and draught-type horses are crossed with thoroughbreds. The continued breeding and production of such horses is dependent on the maintenance of a viable nucleus of the Irish draught population. However, the future of the breed may be endangered if insufficient numbers of mares are being bred pure to maintain population size and enable selection within the breed for quality improvement.
I should point out that a grant of £400 will be paid to the breeder of each pure Irish draught foal registered in the Irish Horse Register. This will compensate for the difference in value between pure Irish draught and thoroughbred horses. The scheme will operate for a five-year period commencing in 1990. From this year headage payments are made in respect of eligible registered mares in all disadvantaged areas in which cattle headage grants are paid, at an increased rate of £70 per head for up to eight mares and £66 for the next 22 mares. These payments are calculated separately from any other headage payments to which the producer may be entitled.
Question put and agreed to.