I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on Ireland's Foot and Mouth Derogations.
Report of Joint Committee on EC Secondary Legislation — Foot and Mouth Derogations: Motion
The House will, I am sure, be aware that at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels on Tuesday a package of measures concerning the harmonisation of legislation in the veterinary and agricultural sectors was adopted. This package included some decisions which had been taken at the previous Council in June of this year. One of those decisions relates to the ending of certain derogations from the provisions that applied to trade in live animals and fresh meat both within the Community and externally. Those derogations were granted as a temporary concession to this country and to the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland at the time we acceded to the Community.
Straightaway I would like to emphasise that while these derogations will cease with effect from 31 December 1984, we will have until 1 October next year to adapt our legislation and formulate administrative procedures to enable us to adopt the EC systems for intra-Community trade and trade with third countries in live animal and fresh meat. This interval means that there will be no immediate changes in our import procedures and we will have nine months in which to put all necessary arrangements for careful operation of the new regime in place.
It will, I think be helpful to put the changes I speak about in context by giving the House some background on the foot-and-mouth derogations which this country has had since we joined the EC in 1972. As I mentioned, at that time Ireland and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland were permitted, by way of temporary derogations, to retain national rules on imports of live animals, cattle and pigs, and fresh meat as a protection against foot and mouth disease. For us, this concession arose because we were free from the disease for many years and had maintained a policy of not vaccinating our livestock. This policy and our long freedom from the disease meant that our herd was totally susceptible to the disease. Other member states had had numerous outbreaks of foot and mouth disease over the years and had resorted to a policy of vaccinating susceptible animals as a protection measure. It was therefore conceded at that time that Ireland should not be immediately exposed to the danger of importing diseases by having to dismantle its import controls on live animals and fresh meat. It was very clear, however, that this was purely a temporary concession pending an improvement in the disease situation in the other member states which would obviously greatly erode the risk for this country when the derogations would end.
Foot and mouth disease has long and rightly been regarded as one of the worst calamities that could befall the farming industry in a country like ours which is so dependent on agriculture and on agricultural exports. We have had a long standing traditional policy of blanket prohibitions on imports of animals, with the exception of pedigree animals under quarantine, or fresh meat. From the moment Ireland joined the Community, the days of that absolute policy were numbered. The temporary derogations we obtained on accession were attacked relentlessly by other member states and indeed by the EC Commission also. The derogations were seen as an unjustified negation of the free trade principle and as being excessively protectionist. The position in regard to foot and mouth in other member states has improved enormously in recent years. Moreover any such isolated outbreaks which have occurred have not been linked in any way to trade in animals and meat. The other member states are quick to point to these facts. They point also to Britain where, despite its large imports of meat, from places like South America where foot and mouth disease is much more common, there has been no outbreak in the past 15 years except one which was attributed to wind born infection from France via the Channel Islands. This particular one occurred and was contained in the Isle of Wight.
The derogations were extended by the Council on four occasions — in 1976, 1982, December 1983 and for the last time, for six months, in June 1984. For the reasons I have mentioned each extension was resisted more vehemently than the previous one, and as already indicated the most recent extensions were secured only with very great difficulty and then only for shorter periods and on an increasingly restrictive basis.
While the ending of the derogations will mean that we will no longer be able to prohibit imports of live animal and fresh meat, we will nevertheless be entitled to certain guarantees which will minimise the risk of importing disease. For example in the case of live animals, the permanent system will still enable us to demand rigorous testing and quarantine conditions for livestock imported from other member states.
As regards fresh meat we will, of course, have to face the prospect of trade with other members of the Community. Here too we will be entitled to certain guarantees in relation to maturation and deboning until 31 March 1987. For the information of the House, what maturation is is that immediately after slaughter a chilling process takes place which in effect does away with any bugs in the meat. In other words, even if there was some problem with it this particular maturation ensures that the meat is safe. After that date, in the event of an outbreak of the disease anywhere in the Community we can immediately invoke the Community's emergency measures to prohibit or restrict imports from the member state or from the region concerned. Any imports that do arise will be supervised. We will, for example, be designating the specific ports or points of entry through which such imports may be effected. We will be seeing to it that the practice of non-comminglement will be observed—that is that imported material will not be allowed to come in contact with meat or products destined for export. These and other general arrangements will be put in place over the next nine months.
I should say that our cattle prices here are, in the normal course, at levels which should make the Irish market unattractive to continental exporters of meat.
In so far as imports from third countries are concerned we will continue to benefit from arrangements under which we need not import from South America, South Africa or Eastern Europe where exotic foot and mouth disease is endemic.
As regards our exports to third countries, particularly of meat, the Ec Commission have given solid assurances that our full participation in the intra-Community trading regime will not impair our "white list" status vis-à-vis our major export outlets such as USA, Canada, Japan, etc.
Another important element of the agreement reached was the extension of the Community's Emergency Fund to cover outbreaks of all types of foot and mouth disease. Community funding will now be available for compensation — 50 per cent of the cost — for the eradication of the first 20 outbreaks in a country. This financial underwriting by the EC was insisted on by us as a prerequisite for the ending of the derogations.
Having regard to the guarantees, already mentioned, which we have succeeded in obtaining under the permanent Community trading system and to the arrangements, legislative and administrative, which my Department are now proceeding to formulate in relation to post-importation supervision and control procedures, we can be very optimistic that Ireland's long history of freedom from foot and mouth disease will continue unbroken.
In the absence of a Community system — this is very important — we would have faced a free-for-all system with no rules applying. That would be a recipe for disaster leaving us much more vulnerable to risky imports and more importantly leaving us open to artificial restrictions by other countries seeking to restrain trade, our trade, on one kind of spurious ground or another. What we have now is a balanced regime supported by guarantees that will afford good protection, the facility to act quickly if danger threatens, financial support if we should face an outbreak, and a system which allows trade to move within those safe conditions.
I am not sure that the ending of derogation for live animals and meat is the right decision, because cattle and meat exports account for a major part of our national income. Any concession of our national prohibition measures in favour of the Community regime would be serious. I am not satisfied that the safeguards built into the Community proposals are adequate to project Ireland's disease-free status. There are compelling arguments for the continuation of the trade derogation in the absence of adequate protection for Ireland's unique foot and mouth free status. It is very important that until such time as the other countries in the EC reach the standards we have attained, then we have a genuine case for continuing the derogation. We know what it has cost over the past 20 years to try to rid our national herd of TB and brucellosis and we still have not got rid of the problem. We have been very fortunate over the years that with the exception of one or two cases, we have been free from foot and mouth disease, which is a dreadful disease and which has created problems for any country which had the misfortune of having foot and mouth disease among its heards. We must do everything we can to keep our country free from that disease.
When we joined the club, in this case, the EC, we must abide by its rules. It is obvious that eventually those rules will be tightened to ensure that we are brought into line with the other member states. Ours can be cited as a special case because we depend so much on exports of cattle and meat to Europe, North Africa and so on. It is really more important for us than for any other member state. For that reason we are entitled to demand an extension as far as possible of this derogation. Nevertheless, it is obvious that it is going to come. At that stage all we can do is try to make sure that everything possible is done to protect our national herd and to keep foot and mouth disease out as far as it is possible. I am sure that the Minister and the Department will make every effort to ensure that that is done.
The IAOS and the CBF have made submissions to the joint committee. I have been reading some of the arguments put forward by them in support of the extension of the derogation period. They have put forward some very compelling arguments. I am sure the Government have taken account of those arguments, because the CBF and the co-ops are the people who understand the problem. I would urge the Department of Agriculture to look at the views expressed by the IAOS and CBF. Perhaps there is something there that could be of benefit to them in protecting our national herd against foot and mouth disease.
This decision is inevitable. Seeing that we have got the derogation up to now, every effort must be made at our ports of entry by the Department of Agriculture to ensure that our herd is kept free of foot and mouth disease. There is the added problem of Spain and Portugal joining the EC. Both of those countries have had a long history of foot and mouth disease among their cattle herds. That in itself will create possibly more problems for other members of the EC and for our Department of Agriculture and the Government. I hope for all our sakes that every effort will be made to ensure that this disease is kept away from our counttry. I also hope that the standards that we have managed to obtain in the past will be maintained in the future.
I would like to thank the Minister of State for his very full explanation of the procedures which it is proposed to introduce. However, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. Those of us associated with farming and agriculture business in general acutely realise the importance of our status as far as contagious diseases are concerned. I barely recall the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 1941. It is suggested that it may have been only a racket, there was no foot and mouth outbreak at all. We were all very much tied down. I was very young at the time. When we were changing pigs from one house to a new piggery a few of them escaped. There was a hullabaloo about it. The LDF were involved at the time and we were sure we were heading straight for Mountjoy.
It is important that we should have the best possible regulations. It is a source of regret that we have not been able to have derogation continued. It would be much easier. I know that the Minister and his officials have certainly fought a good case to try to conserve this situation for us. Now that we will not be able to have all the restrictions as easily as we have had for years now, does it mean that some time in the future Irish farmers will be faced with carrying out vaccinations against foot and mouth disease, and will the derogations have any effect on the restrictions that have been so effective to date in keeping rabies out of this country? Will it be possible to import any kind of pets or dogs? Are they allowed to come in and go out quite freely or is there any tie up between those two?
On the question of Northern Ireland, I take it, even though the Minister has not said so, that the derogations are running in tandem and what goes for this part of the island will also obtain in the Six Counties. If we have vaccination, it is an important point to know who will foot the bill. Will farmers be expected to pay for this service or will it be a new scheme comparable with the bovine brucellosis scheme which has been so effectively dealt with over the last number of years? Do I take it that it will now be necessary for the Department to have a new section dealing with this aspect having regard to the importance of our disease-free status to the country? Does the Minister envisage setting up a new section in the Department to look at that or will it come under the animal diseases section that seems to be under such pressure at the present time from the veterinary council and the veterinary union on the question of proposed changes which, I might say, I do not agree with? As a farmer I would jealously guard the right to nominate the veterinary surgeon of the farmer's choice in dealing with my own livestock.
It is all right to look at this report and to say that Seanad Éireann takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on Ireland's Foot and Mouth derogation — that is very simple — but what will the effect of that be on the ordinary farmer? I will accept when the Minister said so, that they have fought for an extension of the derogation. They have done quite well. From my knowledge of the workings of the Community I am satisfied and understand that these things cannot last forever. It is important that farmers should know what these changes will mean to them financially, especially by way of additional cost of vaccination and also the kind of machinery that would be set up to do that whether the Department are going to extend their own veterinary section to carry out vaccinations if they are necessary or if they are going to make some deal with the veterinary council to have it done on an agency basis.
I do not wish to say any more at this stage except to assure the Minister that their efforts in these regards in order to safeguard the national herd will have the support of all the farming members of both sides of this House, as every successive Government who have worked in this area have enjoyed in the past.
I welcome the speech of the Minister of State which sets out the position very fully and frankly. I do not welcome this foot and mouth disease derogation which comes into effect at the end of this month. I am sure nobody else in the country will welcome it either. The position seems to be that as we are a member of the Community we must accept this situation. I am under no illusion about the tragedy that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease would cause. I remember in my youth an alleged outbreak. At that time all the crossroads were manned by the local defence forces. Everybody would realise the tragedy it would be to an agricultural country like ours, if there were an outbreak. I am satisfied, however, from what the Minister has said that we have inbuilt protective measures which we can rely on. As he stated, Community funding will now be available for compensation, 50 per cent of the cost for the eradication of the first 20 outbreaks in a country. This is most important and very welcome. The Minister stated that we will now have a balanced regime supported by guarantees which will afford protection with which he is satisfied, the facility to act quickly if danger threatens, which I think is very important and as I said, the financial support which is also very necessary.
I do not welcome the situation. Nevertheless, in view of what the Minister has stated I do not think there is any need to have great apprehension.
Ideally if we lived in a perfect world we would like to see a continuation of derogation. We would all be very happy. The matter could be very well summed up in the last paragraph of what the Minister said, that in the absence of a Community system which is now envisaged and proposed here it would be a free for all position and we would be at serious risk of having a chaotic position thrown upon us.
The other point I would make very, very clearly is that in 1972 when joining the EC we knew that the protection we had enjoyed was going to end. It was a matter of when. We have succeeded over the 12 years since in getting derogations.
The very important thing that I would conclude by saying is that we must monitor on a very regular basis the whole progress of the new situation. By that I mean that we must have our finger on the pulse at all stages, whether to do with the importation of live animals, meat or whatever, and if there is the slightest indication of any risk whatsoever of this terrible disease approaching our shores because of any changes that are introduced, then the matter would have to be taken up once more at EC level. In the meantime I am satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister, realising that outside the Community or without the Community rules and regulations which obtain here, we would be in a far worse situation and knowing that, in fact, this is part and parcel of being part of a greater Europe.
Very briefly, I would like to thank Senators for their helpful contributions and their understanding of the reality. Even from a business point of view the more protection we can get the better, but at the same time we are satisfied that our safeguards are adequate. Animals in quarantine can be blood tested and go through even more stringent testing but it is apparent that these would be pedigree animals. Quarantine would cost over £1,000 per animal, so basically we would be talking about pedigree animals that would have to go through very stringent testing.
We will never agree to vaccination. We will maintain our own disease free status and we will not accept animals that have been vaccinated. Part of our testing in quarantine will be to ensure that they are not vaccinated and we will have to get guarantees in advance.
The rule with regard to rabies still holds in relation to dogs or any other animals. This applies to cattle. Northern Ireland is following the same line as ourselves. Quarantine and all the other procedures will have to be paid for by the people who are trying to import pedigree animals. This will be dealt with by our veterinary section and by our animal health section.
Senators Hourigan and Fitzsimons rightly pointed out the importance of ensuring that we maintain the controls. We have achieved another nine months to look at every possible aspect of how we are going to look after our inspections and our quarantine rules. Everyone in the Department is happy that we have taken adequate steps and that we are getting the co-operation of members of the Community to ensure disease free status. Senator Hourigan rightly pointed out that the alternative is that we would be thrown to the winds and would lose all disease free status. This involves a very important factor that we did not dwell on, our right to export to certain countries that insist on disease free status. Of course we are watching this very closely. In my youth I heard my parents talking about an outbreak of foot and mouth disease and the troubles we had in the area at the time. I share the worries of the Members but I am satisfied that we are protecting ourselves adequately.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 2.35 p.m. and resumed at 2.55 p.m.