It has not been easy and in many cases the hours have been long and the weather inclement. The work has been arduous and there has been significant inconvenience, but clearly it has been worth it.
While this gigantic national effort has been under way, and dedicated people in voluntary and sporting organisations throughout this country have contributed to it, it has also become clear that others, very few in number, have, through their commercial operations or in some cases through illegal activities, put our agri-food industry at risk. This is why I am before this House today presenting this Bill. I am seeking support to put in place some important enhancements of the controls which are provided for in the Diseases of Animals Act so that we can exercise better control of and, where appropriate, eliminate such activities.
I now propose to introduce the different sections of the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Bill, 2001, to the House. Section 1 provides for the definition of the words and phrases used in the Bill. Most of the terms used in this Bill are defined in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, and therefore do not require re-enactment.
Section 2 provides for the insertion of a new section in the Act of 1966. This section allows the Minister to appoint a wide range of persons to be authorised officers for the purposes of enforcing the section. The section also confers extensive powers on authorised officers. These include powers to stop persons and vehicles. They also include the power to enter land or premises where there is a reasonable suspicion that an animal may be infected, or has been in contact with an infected animal, or that an animal has been moved either illegally or through a place where infection may exist. An officer may also detain and mark any animal, animal product, fodder or litter.
Section 2 gives extensive powers of search, seizure and detention in respect of vehicles, animals, animal products, fodder or litter. A person may be required to produce documents and give information. This section also provides that an authorised officer, where he considers it reasonable, may dispose of any animal, including by slaughter, or any animal product, fodder or litter. This provision is not linked with compensation. There is already provision in the Act for slaughter with compensation. Slaughter without compensation would only be appropriate in rare cases. It is important to make this provision because taxpayers would rightly be very unhappy if compensation was paid in a case where there was clear wrongdoing.
The constitutional position on a person's residence is safeguarded by a requirement to obtain a search warrant prior to entry to a dwelling. Obstruction of an officer is made an offence, for which a person may be arrested. On summary conviction, a person guilty of obstruction is liable to a fine of up to 1,500 euros and-or imprisonment for six months. On conviction on indictment, a person is liable to a fine of up to £100,000 and-or five years imprisonment.
Section 3 of the Bill inserts a new section in the Act to address the issue of dealers. It gives the Minister the power to approve and register dealers and their premises, and to regulate their activities by order. I intend to make an order on this matter very soon.
The Bill also provides that, in certain specified circumstances, the Minister may by order ensure that a person who purchases an animal may not move that animal, save under permit, for a period of 30 days. This is necessary to prevent the outbreak or spread of disease. This section is intended to eliminate some practices that have put the health of the national herd at risk. It is my intention to ensure through the permit system that this restriction does not interfere unduly with normal and reasonable commercial activities, including assembly of animals for live export. The details of the permit arrangements will be worked out in consultation with relevant interests.
Section 4 and section 5 are inserted on legal advice to confirm by statute the foot and mouth order of 1956 and the various orders and regulations made since the onset of the present crisis. It also provides for increased penalties for breaches of the foot and mouth order. The new penalties are in line with those in section 2 and those in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, as amended by the National Beef Assurance Act, 2000.
Section 6 and the Schedule to the Act deal with miscellaneous amendments to the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966. The main thrust of these amendments is to extend the provisions of the Act to areas and animals infected or suspected of being infected, and to cover areas and animals at risk of infection. This is highly relevant to the current situation in which we do not have a confirmed case but are obviously at risk because of the situation in Britain and Northern Ireland.
Section 7 of the Bill provides for the forfeit on indictment of vehicles and containers used in the commission of an offence.
Section 8 of the Bill provides that a court may, in addition to any other penalty, ban a person or company from agriculture related activities. This is similar to the provision in the Animal Remedies Act, 1993. It is important to make provision for this penalty which a court might find appropriate in some cases where, for example, deliberate action by a person, farmer, factory manager or mart manager led to an outbreak or spread of infection.
There are a number of technical amendments to the Bill made on legal advice. Section 9 provides for an offence by a body corporate. This is a standard provision of more recent legislation. This means that, for example, where a factory is found to have breached the Act, the officers of that company, as well as the company itself, shall be liable to proceedings, including disqualification.
Section 10 relates to the important issue of interference with ear tags. It creates a presumption of illegal removal, switching or tampering of an ear tag or, as appropriate, illegal importation of an animal, in relevant proceedings. Ear tags are a vital part of our control systems for cattle and a similar system is being introduced for sheep. As they play such a vital role, it is important that we ensure that there is the tightest possible legal enforcement of the rules relating to tagging. This section of the Bill will facilitate this. Section 11 provides for the short title and citation of the Bill.
It is clear that the new powers and controls introduced in this Bill are significant. I stress that these provisions are targeted at a relatively small group of people. It is not my intention to interfere with the normal business of farming and the food industry in any way, but rather to protect them from the risks caused by the operations of less responsible elements. The stakes in the battle against foot and mouth disease are very high. The agri-food sector is of enormous importance in economic terms. It accounts for 10% of our GDP and 11 % of our employment and constitutes a much larger share of the Irish economy than almost any of our EU partners.
These figures alone do not capture the full importance of the sector to us. Even in purely economic terms, the sector is more important than the basic figures suggest because of its deep internal linkages in our economy. The agri-food sector has a very low import content and a very high expenditure within the Irish economy. It, therefore, accounts for up to 27% of our net trade earnings, when one allows for imported inputs and repatriated profits. That is an enormous share of our trade, and it is this trade that is put at risk by foot and mouth disease. It is clear that the short to medium-term impacts of a major outbreak of disease would be considerable, and there would also be long-term impacts, as markets lost are not easily regained.
For this reason the Government put in place from day one a comprehensive range of measures to guard against the disease and the damage that it would do to the Irish economy. The action taken was swift, decisive and well focused, and the resources provided have been considerable. The measures implemented in this country go beyond those in other countries and have been implemented with a very high degree of professionalism and effectiveness.
I am aware that there has been criticism of some perceived weaknesses in our systems. In so far as that criticism is positive and contributes to the development of our defences, I welcome it. I do not pretend that our systems are perfect – no systems are. I believe, however, that in the time available an extraordinary amount has been achieved and we owe a great deal to those who have manned the barricades. I regret that, in addition to the positive criticism, there have been entirely negative contributions that have belittled the tremendous work undertaken by those on the front line and were damaging to the national interest.
The measures proposed will add significantly to our defences against foot and mouth disease during the current crisis and will also bolster our ability to deal with any future problems. They will be implemented with the same vigour and effectiveness as the other measures that we have taken.
A number of issues have been raised by Members with my officials. These matters are being examined by the Attorney General's office and I hope that Government amendments and other amendments will be brought before the House as soon as drafts are available. The Government amendments relate to the following matters: that provision will be made for the review of section 2 of the Bill by the Oireachtas after a period of 12 months; that the definition of a "dealer" in section 3 will be amended to refer to 45 days rather than 100 days; that in section 3 a right of appeal against any decision not to provide a permit under section 29A(5) will also be provided, and this will be done by amendments to the Agriculture Appeals Bill, 2001, which will be considered in Dáil Éireann, it is hoped, tomorrow.
A number of amendments have been put down by Senators O'Meara, Costello and Ryan. I accept the general spirit and thrust of their proposals, but am advised by the Attorney General that some are not necessary from a legal viewpoint as the matters are covered by existing legislation or in jurisprudence. The Attorney General has also advised against two other amendments dealing with penalties.
The proposal to insert a new section 2(9) is unnecessary and is governed by fundamental practices and decisions of the Supreme Court involving the National Irish Bank. In respect of the proposed amendment to section 2(13) the legal advice available is that the provision should remain as originally drafted. It is important that officers who acted in good faith, and so far successfully, to avoid the spread of foot and mouth disease should know that the Government stands behind them. The Attorney General has been advised that six months is the appropriate limit.
I do not accept the amendments to section 2(15) and section 4(2)(a). I can accept, however, the reference to "affirmation" in section 2(17). As it is important to provide for the possibility of applying conditions to dealers generally and individually, I cannot accept the proposed amendment to section 3. I am strongly advised by the Attorney General that section 4(1) is necessary to remove doubt as to the legal effect of the powers conferred by the Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1956. He also advises that section 5 is necessary to give legal effect to the orders and regulations referred to in this section which are made at very short notice to avoid a national catastrophe. I cannot, therefore, accept the proposed deletion. I accept the substance of the proposed amendment to section 8. I am advised that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in this matter is provided for in general legislation. I can also accept the proposed amendment to section 10.
