The issue we are dealing with today relates to resolutions before both Houses of the Oireachtas seeking approval for the continuation of section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 for a further 12 months. This section was inserted into that Act by section 2(1) of the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Act 2001, which was passed into law on 9 March 2001. Section 2(2) (a) of this Act provided that section 17A would remain in force for 12 months from the date of its passing. However, section 2(2)(b) provides that section 17A may be continued by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas, passed before its expiry, for such further period as is expressed in the resolution. In 2002 and 2003, both Houses agreed to extend section 17A to 8 March 2003 and 8 March 2004 respectively. I now seek the agreement of both Houses for the necessary resolutions to extend the section for a further 12 months.
Agriculture is a most important activity in this country. The economic and social well-being of many thousands of people throughout Ireland is directly or indirectly dependent upon it. Livestock and poultry farming are key components of our agricultural sector and the health status of our cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other farm animals is of critical importance. The events of 2001 provided ample illustration of this. When addressing the committee in early 2003, I reminded members of the fact that an independent economic analysis undertaken after the foot and mouth disease, FMD, crisis of 2001 found that had there been a more widespread outbreak here, the effect could have been to reduce GDP by between €1 billion and €5.6 billion. Job losses would have ranged from 550, in a best-case scenario of a 3-month export ban on animals and certain agricultural products, to over 12,000 in the case of a 24-month ban. These effects would have been compounded by longer-term damage to the reputation of the Irish agri-food sector, which is valued at €9 billion annually.
The report also indicated that there would have been additional and significant negative implications for the tourism sector and the agri-tourist related industry in particular. This serves to illustrate the consequences of inability or failure to deal effectively with serious animal disease outbreaks. Foot and mouth disease is not the only threat.
Since 2001, we have witnessed outbreaks in other countries of diseases affecting animals and poultry which have the potential to cause enormous losses and damage to the sectors concerned, and to other countries if such disease outbreaks were to spread. The most recent such examples are the outbreaks of avian influenza in the Far East and now in the US. We live in a world in which increased mobility and ever freer trade, notwithstanding the great benefits they confer, have the potential to bring diseases of this kind in our direction, thereby exposing our agricultural sector, our economy and society to the risk of losses and damage on a major scale.
There will always be those who for personal financial gain are prepared to put the livelihoods of others at risk by engaging in criminal activity in regard to farm animals. It is therefore imperative that my Department is fully equipped with the powers necessary to act immediately and with maximum effect where action is required to deal with any threat to the disease status of our national flocks and herds. We can never say that we will not again be confronted with a serious animal disease outbreak, nor can we predict when we might be presented with such a challenge, in all probability with little or no notice. People may think that avian influenza in the Far East or North America is of little consequence. However, 50% of day old chicks coming into the European Union, including Ireland, come from America. A disease outbreak in any of those locations has immediate consequences for Ireland.
In that context and despite the powers which already existed under the Diseases of Animals Act 1966, I brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas in March 2001 proposals to amend that Act to improve the State's capacity to deal with animal disease issues generally. In the context of 2001, with an ongoing foot and mouth disease crisis, such proposals had a particular immediacy. On foot of such proposals, the Oireachtas agreed to enact the Disease of Animals (Amendment) Act 2001, which added a number of stringent measures to the Diseases of Animals Act 1966, including section 17A. This is the section which I ask the Oireachtas to renew for a 12-month period.
Section 17A provides for the appointment of authorised officers by the Minister and confers extensive powers on them in cases of reasonable suspicion that an animal disease is or may be present or that an offence is being or may be committed under the 1966 Act or EU rules. It is important to stress that the provisions of section 17A do not relate solely to foot and mouth disease but are applicable to other animal diseases covered by the Act. Under the provisions of section 17A, authorised officers may inter alia enter on and search land or premises, stop and search persons or vehicles and seize, detain, mark or examine an animal, animal product, fodder, litter or vehicle. In the case of entry to a private dwelling a search warrant is required. An authorised officer is empowered to require a person to produce documents and give information.
Section 17A also provides that an authorised officer may dispose of animals, animal products, fodder or litter. Compensation is not provided for in section 17A on the basis that where such losses result, either directly or indirectly, from breaches of the Diseases of Animals Acts or other wrongdoing, the taxpayer should not have to pick up the tab for such losses. Section 17A also provides for penalties for obstruction or non-co-operation with an authorised officer.
It was appropriate, given the wide-ranging powers conferred by section 17A, that the Houses of the Oireachtas should have the opportunity to re-examine them at appropriate intervals. Accordingly, the Government proposed an amendment to the 2001 Bill to allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to review section 17A after 12 months. The Oireachtas has on two previous occasions agreed to renew the section, for a 12-month period in each case.
I am pleased that in all likelihood this will be the last occasion on which I will request an extension of 12 months because I remind the committee that the general scheme of an animal health bill has been approved by the Government. Drafting of the Bill is at an advanced stage. My objective is to produce updated and consolidated legislation which will retain many of the aspects of the 1966 and 2001 Acts but which will also contain additional features. It is my intention that the Bill, subject to the agreement of the Oireachtas, will subsume the provisions along the lines of section 17A of the existing Act, which is the subject of our deliberations today.
I stress to the committee that it is essential that we remain prepared to tackle and defeat any disease threat which emerges. The time and circumstances are not right for discarding any of the legislative armoury we have and which has served us well. I firmly believe that the powers contained in section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act continue to be necessary and should be retained for a further period of 12 months and I am accordingly asking the committee for its support.
