Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 2001

Vol. 545 No. 5

Written Answers. - Animal Health.

Dan Neville

Question:

117 Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development his response to the views of the Consumer Association of Ireland of 28 November 2001 regarding the EPA report on animal health problems in Askeaton, County Limerick; if he will address the deficiencies in the report; the reason the report was released three years after it was compiled; the reason it cost £4 million; the reason it was released in August when the Dáil was in recess; the reason the report did not highlight the fact that uterine cancer for women aged 0-64 years is over 400% above the average in respect of Tipperary North Riding; and his further views on the 29 different comments which were expressed by the Consumers Association of Ireland. [31084/01]

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Mr. Walsh)

Having taken a consistent interest in the Askeaton investigations, the Deputy will be aware of the scale and complexity of this particular exercise and of the fact that it was the largest of its kind ever undertaken in this country. It was co-ordinated and managed by the Environmental Protection Agency, which also dealt with environmental aspects, and involved other agencies such as the Mid-Western Health Board, Teagasc and my Department. Other parties, such as Coillte Teoranta, were asked to assist as required on particular aspects.

The investigation spanned a range of areas requiring particular specialist expertise, monitoring and analysis, from human health through environmental quality, soil, herbage, feed and water to animal health. Within the context of the overall investigations, each of these areas was addressed by the agency with the competence and expertise relevant to it. For example, human health issues were addressed by the Mid-Western Health Board and animal health issues by my Department. The report on the investigations was published by the EPA on 9 August 2001. Given the work which was necessary to bring the report to a form appropriate for publication, I understand that the EPA could not have published it sooner. It must also be recognised that during the conduct of the investigations, the EPA published a series of progress and interim reports, which provided all interested parties with a picture of how the exercise was progressing. Simultaneous with publication of the final report, the agency presented the report to the people of the Askeaton area at a meeting specially convened in the locality for that purpose. Representatives of each of the participating agencies were present and, after a global presentation had been made by the EPA, each agency representative dealt with that component of the report which was most relevant to his or her agency and answered questions from the local people. I do not know whether any representative of the Consumers Association of Ireland had the benefit of being present at this public meeting to receive the extensive briefing given by EPA and the other participating agencies.

The report contains a number of findings and recommendations. As I indicated at the time of its publication, these fall to be considered by the relevant Departments and agencies. Inquiries as to progress in this regard and on further examinations being undertaken should therefore be directed to the individual Departments and agen cies in question. The CAI document to which the Deputy refers is by and large a series of assertions, statements and questions. These in the main involve the areas of environmental quality and human health which, as far as the investigations were concerned, were areas of speciality dealt with by the EPA and Mid-Western Health Board respectively. It is for these agencies to comment on the points which fall under such headings. As far as animal health issues are concerned, it is difficult to express a view since the CAI comments are essentially assertions or, in one case, a quotation. The final report and the other reports referred to outline the position in relation to animal health and I have the fullest confidence in the thoroughness of the work done by my Department in that regard.

As to the overall cost of the exercise, the EPA, which managed it, is in the best position to provide a breakdown. My Department's share of expenditure, excluding salaries, was of the order of £1.7 million. A very considerable expenditure of time, expertise and money was undertaken in a committed effort to get to the root of the problems in the Askeaton area which were the reason for this exercise. The investigations were scientific in nature and great care was taken to ensure that findings and conclusions would be scientifically based and therefore justifiable. Those undertaking the exercise could, as is the case with any scientific investigation, work only with the evidence available to them and not on the basis of hypothesis or unsubstantiated theories. The report reflects this necessary reality and I have confidence in it on those grounds. In contrast, no scientific evidence has been brought forward to support some of the simplistic comments and allegations which have come from certain quarters before and since publication of the report.