Would the Minister care to comment on the disclosures this morning in relation to the animals purchased by Bord na gCapall with obvious defects and shortcomings.

Some defects are more obvious than others.

It was a matter of concern. Anyone who is interested in the industry must be concerned at the information which my Department disclosed this morning. I do not know if it is appropriate at this point that I should give any further details but if the House wants them I can give them. It does underline the fact that we must have a very comprehensive, efficient and reliable system in relation to the register and the purchase of stallions and supervision in the interests of what is an essential element of the industry. I can say that the three animals concerned were very inadequate in many respects.

Some essential respects.

Some essential respects, yes; if the Deputy wishes me to give the details of all the essential respects I shall be happy to do so if she is to listen.

Thank you. Do not feel in any way restrained.

Malibu Beach has, broken wind, is a whistler and roarer as they say, two defects which under the Horse Breeding Act of 1934 render a stallion unsuitable for breeding. It also has what is called a parrot mouth, which is known as the overshot. Transmission, one of the other horses, is also a whistler and, in addition, is a rig: I am sure the Deputy, is aware that is the term used of a stallion that has only one testicle. He also has a parrot mouth, being overshot. French Wilt also has chronic broken wind and is infertile. It is a matter of great concern that these three stallions, two of which were purchased in 1986 and one some time earlier, have been found to be so inadequate for the purposes for which they were purchased. My Department have demonstrated in the action they took that the priorities of the half-bred industry are being protected and promoted in the interim by them.

May I pursue that last point first. I raised this matter on the Order of Business this morning but did not get a reply from the Taoiseach——

It is not appropriate on the Order of Business.

Perhaps it is appropriate to the present situation. Can the Minister give us an assurance regarding item No. 19 on the Order Paper, the Horse Breeding Bill? I accept that there are drawbacks and some antiquities in that Bill, but at least it gives us a framework to handle issues which now, with the abolition of Bord na gCapall, are before us in regulating this important industry.

Many Deputies are both informed and interested in this area because there were some other related questions this afternoon. In so far as we are talking at European level about alternative sources of farm activity and in so far as we have such natural advantages in terms of tradition, knowledge, breed or whatever in this area particularly, I share the view of every Member of this House that this is a priority area for control and development. Let me for that reason assure the Deputies, particularly those interested in this area, that I had a very detailed consultation, as part of a series of consultations, with all the interests concerned. Part of the problem was that there were too many interests concerned, 13, all legitimate in their own way. One can see the problems there. I assure the Deputy and all others that it is my intention in the foreseeable future to bring forward the final proposals which can in time be incorporated into legislation. I do not want to do anything in a hasty way. I support in every respect what the Deputy has said.

In view of the serious defects of these animals, some more obvious than others, and the fact that Deputy Sheehan would have been an examiner and would have known immediately what some defects were and where they were——

All these things happened since the Deputy's party came into Government.

They were purchased in the Deputy's time.

Deputy Sheehan walked into that one. In view of that fact that this was a board charged with monitoring this industry and promoting it and in view of the very obvious serious defects, even to non-qualified veterinary personnel, will the Minister have an inquiry into the purchase? Will there be an inquiry to find out from whom the animals were purchased, who examined them and will the Minister lay that information before this House because of the seriousness of buying animals of this nature with such obvious defects as a parrot mouth, which is something that can be seen immediately? This is a board statutorily charged with this responsibility and there is need for an immediate investigation.

I can tell the Deputy that I do regard this as a very serious matter; we all do. It is particularly serious in view of the fact that the purpose of this scheme, and particularly the leasing of the stallions, was to enhance the breeding strain in the half-bred industry. I have already conducted some inquiries, and to the extent that I will need further inquiries I shall undertake them, too. How I should put the matter before the House is another question. Certainly, when we come to introduce legislation I will have no reason to withhold information from any Deputy who has a legitimate interest in this industry, and that means everybody here. During the course of a recent informal meeting of Agriculture Ministers we were invited to visit a half-bred breeding and equestrian school outside Brussels. Belgium is a country that started far behind us and had nothing of our tradition, advantages and knowledge. It is important that we recognise that other countries are catching up and passing us out and that nothing but the best standards will be acceptable here.

I am glad the Minister has made such a clear statement of commitment to this industry which is of vital importance to agriculture, to our exports and to our standing in sport throughout the world. Will the Minister agree that this matter of hilarity here today is not the first cause of concern about the operations of the board and would he agree that whatever the fault of board members there was no evidence of any problems among the staff in regard to any chicanery that might have gone on? The Minister said he had communicated with or spoken to all concerned but is it not a fact that the Minister did not meet or speak to the staff who were made redundant as a result of whatever had gone on, and that the Department refused to meet them and saw no reason to meet them, although they wanted to discuss their redundancy terms, pension funds and so on?

The actions of the board are history. We can learn from them. That is all I have to say on that. In relation to discussions, the Deputy will appreciate that it is not a matter for a Minister to meet individuals involved in matters that arise as a consequence of redundancy or of the termination of the activities of a board. I do not suggest that it is not a matter of vital importance for the people concerned, and even for the Minister, but the Deputy will appreciate that it is not part of the procedures of Government that the Minister and the Department would meet individuals in each of these cases.

Who was responsible for the purchase of these defective stallions? Was it an employee of Bord na gCapall or an agent? Have there been any claims for compensation from the disappointed owners of the disappointed mares?

That question, for obvious reasons, does not arise on the original question. That matter only became known yesterday. In the short time now available to me it is not appropriate for me to make a definitive statement as to who is responsible. As yet there is no question of compensation. I am not trying to short-circuit this question but there are many other questions on the Order Paper.