Vol. 912 No. 1
51. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine how markets for Irish products will be positively or negatively affected by a British exit from the European Union or by the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, his plans to address these issues to ensure the viability of the food producing sector and its unimpeded access to world markets and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14488/16]
I did not realise the Acting Chairman was in a position to question me.
Some 800,000 jobs are directly or indirectly dependent on trade in the Irish economy. Accordingly, free trade and free trade agreements are very important to us. Historically, the negotiation of access to new markets has been a big driver of economic development in Ireland.
It is commonly recognised that 90% of the growth in the world economy will be outside Europe in the years ahead. I believe we have to negotiate better access and become more committed to those markets where growth will occur in the future. Indeed, Food Wise 2025 highlights the need to expand current markets and develop new ones if we are to achieve the potential growth that the strategy foresees over the next ten years.
This is true also of the potential of the EU-US trade corridor. About one third of all world trade occurs on that corridor so it has significant potential importance for Europe and for Ireland. The US is one of our leading trading partners and we have a large and growing agrifood trade surplus with it with exports of €869 million last year compared to imports of €271 million.
Ireland has significant offensive interests in the TTIP negotiations. For example, we see worthwhile opportunities in the US for cheese, powdered milks and sports products and further opportunities for branded packaged butter if we can remove some regulatory barriers. Prepared consumer foods and fish could also benefit from trade liberalisation. Beef is a unique sector in that we have both offensive and defensive interests. In the long term, any significant increase in beef imports to the EU could have adverse effects on the Irish industry.
In respect of Brexit, it is clear that there are considerable potential negative implications for the Irish agrifood sector, as evidenced by the reports that have been conducted by the ESRI, Teagasc and others. The UK is by far our largest trading partner and there is a general consensus across all the analyses that a UK exit would have the greatest impact on the agrifood sector. However, much of these analyses have been based on a "worst case" scenario and it is very difficult to estimate the actual impact an exit will have on the agrifood sector prior to any post-exit negotiations that must take place between the EU and the UK should the UK decide to leave.
While it may be difficult to predict with certainty what the impact on the agrifood sector would be, impacts are foreseen in a number of areas such as tariff and trade arrangements, the EU budget, standards and customs controls. Potential differences in tariffs could restrict trade in both directions and affect traditional supply practices, particularly for raw materials.
As a net contributor to the EU budget, a UK exit will result in a loss of the UK contribution to that budget of between 5% and 10%, with consequential implications for CAP spending in the years ahead.
I congratulate the Minister and Minister of State on their new roles.
If Brexit were to happen, a weakening of sterling would be a considerable concern for us in the short term. There are broader issues, which the Minister has outlined. There would be challenges to Ireland as the food nation and food island, with our counterparts in Northern Ireland, and I ask the Minister to use his good offices to address those challenges. There are approximately 900,000 citizens with a vote in the UK who have Irish connections and while it is a choice for them, as the Minister, Deputy Charlie Flanagan, has outlined, we should use our good offices here to portray to them that it would have a negative impact on our country. We should also examine any potential positives of a Brexit and how they would feed through.
In terms of TTIP, low commodity prices, which are a very significant concern for the primary producer at present, are an issue and access to the markets is absolutely crucial. As part of TTIP we should make sure we do not trade beef off against other commodities but anything that opens up new markets is a positive.
Much of the public commentary on these trade agreements is slightly worrying because it does not seem to acknowledge that if we do not trade we will have ten year old bullocks roaming the highways and byways of west Cork and other parts of the country. We need to export 90% of what we produce on the island. We can feed 50 million people with the exports we produce here to a high quality and standard. Trade is our lifeblood but it is trade on our terms in a way that protects our primary producers. The more markets we have, the better prices we can extract. I acknowledge that a Brexit would be particularly devastating for the agrifood sector. In consultations with the stakeholders I have met since my appointment I have emphasised that they have skin in the game in this debate and in whatever way they consider appropriate they should reach out to people they can influence, whether it is the 140,000 people living here, the very significant Irish expat population in the UK or many of the major agrifood players who have operations in the UK. They should try to influence that debate in whatever way they can.
I acknowledge the point made by Deputy Heydon on TTIP. We have both offensive and defensive interest in this regard and we need to make sure that any negotiation is concluded in terms that are beneficial to us. We never get everything we want in negotiations but we should not compromise on the standards of food production or on the safety of the food we produce in any way. They are cornerstones of negotiations that will not be compromised.
52. Deputy John Brassil asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he is taking to open new export markets given the sharp drop in live exports in 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14477/16]
I view live exports as serving a vital purpose as a means of satisfying market demand for live animals and providing alternative market outlets for Irish cattle farmers. I attach major importance to the live cattle export trade, and my Department, along with Bord Bia, has been proactive in encouraging and facilitating such exports.
Last year saw high levels of exports of cattle to both Britain and Northern Ireland, largely driven by favourable currency rates, which made cattle from this country very competitive in those markets. However, as a result of a closer euro versus sterling exchange rate, exports to the UK this year are lower by approximately 50%. Exports to Italy, however, are up by almost 20% and exports to Spain have grown by 11%.
The markets currently open to live cattle from Ireland include Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Serbia and Algeria, in addition to other member states of the European Union. Animal health restrictions and geopolitical instability have impeded previously large-scale exports to Belgium and north Africa respectively.
In this regard my Department has agreed health certificates for the export of live cattle to Egypt, Serbia and Algeria in 2016 and is currently investigating the possibility of bilateral health certificates for the export of cattle to Kazakhstan, Montenegro, and Turkey as well as breeding cattle to Morocco. My Department recently hosted a veterinary inspection by the Turkish authorities and is awaiting a report from that exercise.
The exploitation of market outlets, once opened, is a commercial matter for the live export sector and is affected by the usual variables, including the cost of animals at marts, domestic demand for live cattle, the relative cost of beef on the domestic and international markets, currency exchange rates, transport costs and other factors.
There is a strong demand for meat globally and my role as Minister is to facilitate market access and enable Irish exporters to take advantage of the opportunities that arise. My Department engages on an ongoing basis with many third countries, in collaboration with Bord Bia, the meat industry, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the European Commission on various market access issues.
Last year was a very successful year for meat exports and, according to Bord Bia, overall exports of beef, sheepmeat, pigmeat and poultry increased by €140 million to €3.5 billion. Although exports to the European Union account for the majority of meat exports, increasingly, third country markets are an important alternative outlet for the industry.
I will continue to ensure that Irish meat and livestock producers have the option of exporting to as many global markets as possible.
I thank the Minister for his response. He outlined the importance of the live sector trade to the agriculture industry and ensuring there are alternatives available for producers. It is concerning to many of those to see that the numbers of live exports declined sharply in 2016. The reports indicate that live trade numbers are down by over 20% in 2016, and that decline has accelerated in quarter 2, with a decrease of more than 30%. In a recent reply to a parliamentary question I tabled, the Department indicated that exports to the United Kingdom this year are lower by approximately 50%, although I know sterling has an impact in that regard.
Many of those involved in the export of animals to Turkey have purchased thousands of live stores in the expectation that the Turkish market would be open. However, they are now particularly worried that additional delays in market access will result in the weanlings missing the specifications required for this overseas market. The Minister indicated that is something that is on his table. Will he give an outline as to how quickly he expects that market will be reopened to ensure there is not any unnecessary delays regarding the export trade to Turkey?
On the latter, the truth is that the ball is in the Turkish court at this stage. The Turkish veterinary delegation were here inspecting a number of our plants, processes and so on. A substantial number of plants have expressed an interest in this trade. We must wait until such time as the members of the Turkish delegation come back to us with their proposals and we then finalise the administrative arrangements. We must await the response of the delegation who visited here. There is no delay on the Irish side, and I assure the Deputy that once we get feedback from the Turkish delegation, we will move as quickly as is humanly possible to deal with the matter. I acknowledge that live exports are down in some markets this year but that is a factor I reference in my reply in the context of there being many variables. What the State can do is open markets, and the State has opened a substantial number of new markets, but it is up to the industry to respond in terms of availing of those opportunities contingent on the prices that are available for cattle in the factories here, currency fluctuations and a range of variables that impact on whether it is profitable for those exporters to avail of those markets.
With regard to the point the Deputy made about people purchasing cattle at this stage for Turkish specifications that we have not yet had sight of, that would appear to be premature, but we await feedback from the Turkish and will not be found wanting in terms of the speed of our response.
Can the Minister indicate a timeline as to when he expects the Turkish authorities to revert to him? I am sure his Department officials are in ongoing contact with them. Have they indicated anything to them in that regard?
Also, with regard to the opening up of live exports to Egypt, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Montenegro, can the Minister give a timeframe for arrangements to be established for those markets?
The Egyptian market is already open. I will revert to the Deputy with the details for the other areas. I cannot say definitively when the Turkish authorities will come back to us. It is approximately two weeks since they left here and I understand from the officials in my Department that they were quite impressed by what they saw in terms of the specification of animals that would suit their market demands, but we await their response and we will not be found wanting on our side in terms of opening up that market for live exports. There is significant opportunity there because of an outbreak of bluetongue in France, where they traditionally source cattle.
We are hoping to be able to capitalise on that opportunity but it is contingent on the Turkish veterinary authorities responding favourably to what they saw here and doing so in a timely manner that will help the industry. Once we complete all the necessary paperwork, the industry must step in and determine whether this is a viable market in which to operate.
53. Deputy Declan Breathnach asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of applications received, approved and that have received payments to date under the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS II; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14480/16]
During 2015, six new schemes were announced under the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS II. These schemes were launched under the new rural development programme for 2014 to 2020 and are co-funded under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The financial allocation to each scheme for the full rural development programme period is as follows: the young farmer capital investment scheme has €120 million; the dairy equipment scheme has €50 million; the organic capital investment scheme has €8 million; the animal welfare, safety and nutrient storage scheme has €170 million; low-emission slurry spreading has €4 million; and the pig and poultry investment scheme has €17 million.
The schemes are open for applications in rolling three-month tranches. Approvals and part-approvals have issued in respect of 1,300 cases. Approvals are now issuing on an ongoing basis. The numbers of applications received in the first two tranches are as follows: the young farmer capital investment scheme saw 513 applications for tranche 1 and 620 applications for tranche 2; the dairy equipment scheme saw 1,088 applications for tranche 1 and 595 applications for tranche 2; the pig and poultry investment scheme saw 57 applications for tranche 1 and 38 applications for tranche 2; the scheme for low-emission slurry spreading saw 194 applications for tranche 1 and 263 applications for tranche 2; the animal welfare, safety and nutrient storage scheme saw 939 applications for tranche 1 and 607 applications for tranche 2; and the organic capital investment scheme saw 192 applications for tranche 1 and 99 applications for tranche 2. The total for tranche 1 is 2,983 and the total for tranche 2 is 2,222. When the number of applications received in tranche 3 to date are included, the total number of applications to date is 5,342. The TAMS information technology payment claim system is being finalised and payments will be made once the system is in place. I hope that will be ready to run in late July.
Will the Minister clarify the total of part-approvals for the TAMS II applications? Based on a parliamentary question I submitted to the Minister last week, the figure was just over 1,100 part-approvals from a total of over 5,000 applications.
It is 1,300.
From a total of just over 5,000 applications, 1,300 is a very poor approval rate for a scheme that has been open for more than 12 months now. Many farmers were planning on investing this summer and getting works under way. They have been hampered by the fact that approvals have not been forthcoming and they are currently waiting for the Department to get back to them. The process has been much too slow and it has put the farming sector and those who are keen to invest in a position that leads to exceptional frustration. It is also putting additional pressure on farmers in trying to get works completed in a timely fashion. The work is backing up when it could be done in a more orderly way in line with the applications coming into the Department. The figure stands at 1,300 now, but when does the Minister expect the farmers who have applied to at least get initial approval so they can commence a process of investment?
I acknowledge that this has not been our finest hour, but the Deputy should consider this. It was the legitimate ambition of the Department to try to roll out as many schemes as possible at the earliest possible dates, which put significant stress on the administrative capacity of the Department. For example, it would have been easier to defer a number of these initiatives to 2017 and handle the process in a more measured way. Ambition is not a fault, and we are effectively now catching up with the backlog. There are 1,300 approvals from a total of 5,342 applications, but the applications in tranche 3 were only recently submitted. We are rolling out approvals all the time and the first payments will go out late in July. I acknowledge that in an ideal world we would have had the systems in place to deal with all the schemes from day one, but there was much pressure from individual farmers who wanted to carry out investment in early spring on dairy schemes, milking parlours and so on.
In so far as it was possible, the Department tried to accommodate all of them. It would have been easier and maybe in hindsight it was the right thing to do. I am not sure. I think it was right to have the ambition to try to bring the scheme to as many farmers as possible. We are playing catch-up but we are getting there.
A particular problem arose under previous farm investment schemes whereby, as it came close to the end of schemes, there was a backlog in terms of the work that had to be carried out and in terms of meeting deadlines. That led to a very pressurised environment for farmers with regard to being able to get contractors and others who were required where building work was necessary. We are obviously at a different stage in terms of TAMS in that we are at the beginning of the scheme. Having said that, there are many farmers who had expected to have initial approval at this stage. It was a fair assumption for many of them to make. I acknowledge that the Minister is saying the Department has been slower than he had hoped in being able to give those approvals. What assurance can he give those who are waiting on approval at this stage that they will get it promptly? For example, where does he expect to be come July or August in respect of approvals and what assurances can he give those awaiting approval?
The Department is endeavouring to deal with this backlog sequentially, but if there are individual cases where, for particular reasons such as animal welfare, a job needs to be plucked out of the system and brought forward, the Department will look favourably on that. If there are individual cases, I am sure the Deputy would find a willing ear in the Department to deal with them. We are working through this sequentially and we are catching up with the backlog.
I suspect we will not have the type of problem Deputy McConalogue alluded to because anecdotally I am hearing that a number of people who have approval under TAMS are postponing investments for which they have approval because of the difficulty in the commodity markets, particularly in the dairy sector. Therefore, I do not expect that problem of many approved farmers chasing a limited number of contractors to occur in the short term. I do not anticipate it but it is an area that will require constant vigilance and I assure the Deputy that will be forthcoming from me and from my Department.
54. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to annul SI No. 125 of 2016, which imposes penalty points on sea fishery licences. [14502/16]
The Deputy will be aware that Statutory Instrument No. 125 of 2016, European Union (Common Fisheries Policy) (Point System) Regulations 2016, implements the required EU points system, which applies to the licence holder of a sea-fishing boat when a serious infringement of the Common Fisheries Policy is detected within the exclusive fishery limits of the State or, for an Irish vessel, wherever it may be.
The concerns of the fishing industry on this matter are reflected in the programme for partnership Government, which states that, “[s]ubject to legal advice and review, the Penalty Points Statutory Instrument will be amended to reflect the concerns raised with regard to the assignment of points following the completion of the prosecution process, while ensuring that Ireland is fully in compliance with its obligations under EU law”. Upon taking office, I requested that the Attorney General consider and advise me on meeting this programme commitment. I have received this advice and have considered the issues arising. I am satisfied that I am in a position to move on the introduction of a system for the sequential application of EU penalty points in conjunction with the prosecution process, thus fulfilling the ambition outlined in the partnership programme. I also met representatives of the fishing industry last week to discuss a wide range of issues, including their concerns about the implementation of the EU points system, and have updated them on this matter.
This new arrangement is subject to addressing some important legal and administrative issues to ensure compliance with EU law. I intend to report back to the Oireachtas as soon as I have finalised a way forward in the context of dealing with the relevant legal and administrative matters. I am confident, however, that these matters can be dealt with in a collaborative and constructive manner with all stakeholders.
In the meantime, it is important that the 2016 SI remain in force in order that Ireland remains in compliance with the legal requirement to implement the EU points system. Accordingly, I do not propose to revoke the SI until a revised system can be put in place. The Deputy will be aware that the European Commission is empowered to commence infringement proceedings against member states that are not implementing EU law. A negative judgment from the European Court of Justice in this context could cost the State significantly in lump sum and ongoing fines. There would also be serious potential implications with regard to the release of funding for the fishing industry under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF.
I am aware that this question was put by Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, but I have a couple of small points to make on it.
Since that court case, which took place a couple of months ago, things have been up in the air somewhat. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether, in the interim, there has been implementation of the statutory instrument and whether penalty points have been placed on licences of fishermen?
I am not aware of the answer to that-----
Was it in operation?
The revised statutory instrument came in, to the best of my knowledge, on 1 March. Deputy Ferris might be able to confirm that. I am unsure if there would be any prosecutions taken under it. There are some administrative sides to that statutory instrument which have not been put in place by my Department. I am moving to a new system and I intend to replace that statutory instrument. The legal and administrative issues I have raised in my reply relate to whether the new system will be an amendment to that statutory instrument, if it will be a new statutory instrument or if we will proceed by way of primary legislation. All of this is predicated on meeting the EU administrative requirement that the system must be seen as an effective and dissuasive instrument to the fishing community. I have some hurdles to jump yet, but the principle of penalty points only being applied consequent upon a conviction is conceded and is something we are committed to delivering. However, I cannot say whether there have been any convictions or points applied. I suspect not since the introduction of this statutory instrument, which was only signed in March 2016.
There is some comfort in that. I have two more points. Could the Minister indicate a timeframe for getting to that final goal? If there are penalty points in the meantime, would the Minister be prepared to rescind those penalty points?
It is not from me to trespass on the law. There is a separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary. I cannot interfere in that sphere, as the Deputy will appreciate. However, it is my ambition to deal with this as conclusively and as quickly as possible. I did give that commitment in my earlier reply. I have given it to the producer organisations with which I have already met and I do not intend to have this issue hanging around too long.
My understanding, from speaking to the Minister, is that a person would have access to the courts. Could that be applied retrospectively if penalty points had been imposed on somebody's licence?
Sorry?
Could access to the courts be applied retrospectively if the points had occurred under the current statutory instrument?
I suspect that prosecutions would be difficult under the current statutory instrument. I will revert to the Deputy with details. That would be trespassing on the legal issue and I would have to get direction from the Attorney General's office, but I suspect not.
55. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to amend the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 to prohibit hare coursing. [14455/16]
Under the provisions of the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, the regulation of coursing is chiefly a matter for the Irish Coursing Club, ICC, subject to the general control and direction of Bord na gCon. The welfare of greyhounds involved in coursing is provided for in the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 which, inter alia, requires that persons who course greyhounds must have regard to the code of practice in the care and welfare of the greyhound, developed jointly by the ICC and Bord na gCon. The ICC has assured my Department that it has extensive systems and practices in place to underpin the welfare of hares and greyhounds involved in coursing and that it goes to great lengths to ensure the highest standards of welfare are adhered to.
A monitoring committee on coursing is in place, comprising officials from my Department, the ICC and the National Parks and Wildlife Service to monitor developments in coursing and the situation is kept under constant review to ensure that coursing is run in a well controlled and responsible manner.
Hares may only be collected for coursing by clubs affiliated to the ICC in accordance with the terms of licences granted by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. These licences contain 26 conditions which have been refined over the years, the majority of which are central to hare welfare and include a variety of measures, such as a requirement that a qualified veterinarian attends at all coursing meetings to report on the health of the hares, a prohibition on the coursing of hares more than once in the same day, a prohibition on the coursing of sick or pregnant hares and a requirement that hares be released back into the wild during daylight hours.
Coursing clubs are required to comply fully with directives, instructions and guidance notes issued by the ICC in all matters relating to the capture, keeping in captivity, tagging, marking, coursing and release of hares, and the muzzling of greyhounds. I have no plans to ban hare coursing but I have no hesitation in saying that it is critically important that those involved in the sport must operate in accordance with the regulatory framework and with the welfare of both hares and greyhounds in mind at all times.
This is another sort of Irish solution to an Irish problem, because the rules belie a reality that is very different. We have an incredible contradiction where, on the one hand, hares are protected under the Wildlife Act but, on the other, under the Animal Health and Welfare Act all animals are protected with the exception of hares to be coursed. This resulted, in 2015, in a situation where 7,000 hares were taken from the wild to be used in live coursing events. We are one of a minority of countries which allow this barbarity to continue. Contrary to the Minister's statements on the conditions hares face, the reports from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which is employed to monitor this situation, tell us that only 17 of the 75 events held in the country last year had National Parks and Wildlife Service officials in attendance and the state of many of the hares requiring assistance, which were released back to the wild distressed, is evident in its reports, which refute the information given to the Minister by Bord na gCon.
It is an Irish solution to an Irish problem. I am not sure if Deputy Daly is suggesting that we should have an imported solution to an Irish problem. I highlight that a very high proportion of hares netted for hare coursing were returned successfully to the wild. For example, at the end of the 2014-15 season, 99.3% of hares captured were released in a healthy condition back after coursing. We have moved some distance in respect of where coursing was some years ago in terms of the monitoring and high standards of welfare we apply in terms of both the greyhound and the hare, something to which all parties involved can be paid tribute, including Bord na gCon, the Irish Coursing Club, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and my Department. For that reason, we have now reached a situation where we have a sustainable industry and I do not propose to ban the industry.
My solution is to ban coursing outright. I speak as a Deputy who represents the only part of Dublin where this practice still continues. The Irish Council Against Blood Sports has a video of this barbarity in Balbriggan, which is in my constituency. It shows agitated hares running up and down within the confines of a coursing field while coursing members shout and scream at them in that enclosure. With regard to the number of hares released back to the wild, many of those hares are in a very distressed state and die afterwards. This has also been stated by officials from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In Nenagh, for example, some of those released included heavily pregnant hares, which the Minister has told us are supposed to be protected. The rules do not serve to protect the hares in that regard, and how could they when we have greyhounds weighing 60 to 88 lbs and travelling at 43 mph, which can do a hell of a lot of harm, even if they wear a muzzle, to a hare that weighs approximately 6 lbs. The protections are really not worth what is claimed, and this is one of the reasons the Irish hare - a unique race of mountain hare - is now becoming extinct, even though on one hand we say it should be protected.
The Minister to conclude, please.
I have nothing to add to what I have stated already. We have travelled some distance in respect of the supervision of hare coursing and I do not have any plans to ban it. Equally, however, I would add that all parties involved in hare coursing must operate within the law and the terms of licences issued to them in respect of hare capture and so on.
56. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to intervene in the crisis surrounding Irish greyhounds being transported to China; and if he accepts that he has a specific role to play in prohibiting Irish greyhounds from being transported to countries where they face cruelty and abuse, given his funding of Bord na gCon. [14518/16]
Parliamentary Question No. 56 is in the name of Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and it is being taken by Deputy Clare Daly.
All exporters of dogs are required to provide animal health and welfare certification in respect of compliance with identification requirements, fitness for the intended journey, health status and rabies vaccination requirements. Once these animal certification requirements are met, dogs, including greyhounds, may be exported internationally. Exporters are also required to comply with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1 of 2005 on the protection of animals during transport.
I am aware that a very small number of greyhounds have been exported to Macau in the past two months. I understand that Bord na gCon, which is responsible for the governance, regulation and development of the greyhound industry in the Republic as well as the well-being of greyhounds, has developed a code of practice on the welfare of greyhounds. This sets out specific standards that all individuals engaged in the care and management of registered greyhounds are expected to meet. The code emphasises that owners and keepers must take full responsibility for the physical and social well-being of greyhounds in line with best welfare practice.
Oversight mechanisms in place regarding greyhound exports include inter-agency co-operation, co-operation with fellow members of the International Greyhound Forum and mechanisms relating to intelligence and information which is received from welfare officers during the course of investigations carried out under the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011. Where any breaches of welfare standards are identified under that Act, Bord na gCon takes stringent actions and prosecutions ensue in accordance with the Act.
Officials of my Department have recently met with representatives of Bord na gCon and the welfare members of the International Greyhound Forum - represented by the ISPCA and Dogs Trust here in Ireland - to consider the issues surrounding the export of greyhounds. Bord na gCon advises all owners involved in the export of greyhounds to export only to destinations with high animal welfare standards and that provide the expected levels of greyhound care and management as defined under the code internationally, and I endorse this view. I point out, however, that international trade takes place in a legally complex environment and that national legislation is not legally binding on activities in other states.
If the Minister of State has met representatives of the ISPCA, he will know that it, the Irish Blue Cross and Dogs Trust are implacably opposed to the export of greyhounds to China. The Minister of State's response today is contradictory, as were the responses of his predecessors. On the one hand, as the Minister of State has tried to do today, we have been told previously that once the appropriate animal health and welfare certificate requirements are met in transit it does not really matter what happens to them at the end of their journey. However, contradicting that is the fact that in March of this year the Department blocked the Irish Greyhound Board from exporting dogs to China because of animal welfare concerns.
The reality is that the practice, which poses significant danger to the dogs involved, is continuing. The practice has been highlighted internationally by animal welfare organisations and has got quite a lot of global attention. Deputy O'Sullivan's question is seeking the intervention of the Minister of State in this situation and for him to play a role. To be honest, he can, because his predecessor has done it before, and the circumstances mean he should do it in this case, particularly to be in line with the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011. This Act states that anyone who trades, transports, rears or trains a greyhound has to have due regard to a code of practice. It includes situations where they are being traded and transported, so the final destination is key. If they are going to end up at a destination where they are going to be discarded, mauled and end up undoubtedly dead, we should stop that practice.
As the time available has elapsed, I ask the Minster of State to correspond with the Deputy on the question.
