Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 2001

Vol. 165 No. 12

Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, and join him in complimenting the farming organisations and companies. I also commend the tremendous civic spirit that has been evident since the outbreak in Northern Ireland. People have responded well in terms of preventing an outbreak here that could be disastrous. I hope such an outbreak will not occur, but it is worth reminding ourselves of the dire consequences if Ireland is contaminated by foot and mouth disease.

I understand why the legislation is necessary, although some people said it is draconian. We have witnessed the country almost coming to a halt in terms of the movement of people in an effort to prevent the disease spreading, but we should consider what would happen if there was an outbreak. Ireland would lose its disease free status and, as a result, most of its food export markets. The ban would remain in place for at least six months and this would have dire consequences for the country. It is important to understand the consequences and the need for the implementation of the legislation as soon as possible.

Some economists suggest the potential loss to the economy could be approximately £1 billion in terms of our exports, which account for 90% of our food production. One should consider the number of people who would be affected, particularly farmers and workers in the food processing industry. There would be a domino effect in rural Ireland in addition to the problems of the shrinking population and the decline of services. There would be an effect in relation to the money that passes through rural areas and this would impact on services there.

Regarding consumers, Senator Quinn said certain people who do not have links with farming and the country are unclear about the nature of foot and mouth disease. They were concerned that it would affect humans. They just about understood the position in relation to BSE, but they linked that problem to foot and mouth disease. There should be much more proactivity on the part of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in this regard. It should use libraries, local authorities and schools to make the importance of farming to the economy clear. It should also produce various notices about diseases that can spread and place them in schools. This is done in relation to human diseases and it should be done in relation to animal diseases given the extreme importance of the food industry and agriculture to the economy.

The public do not want much, but they will demand traceability – they should do this as of right – and safety in relation to food. They should be guaranteed it. If they do not get it, the level of meat consumption will fall. Undoubtedly, the level of meat sales and consumption fell as a result of BSE. People will now worry about poultry because the Bill refers to animal and poultry products. People may be confused in relation to the legislation, but I hope that is not the case.

In terms of the need to make the position clear to people, consumers should get as much information as possible in a simple manner. There has been tremendous media coverage, much of it negative, including widespread coverage on television. The small excerpts presented nightly by Mairéad McGuinness probably did much more to help than all the documents and newspaper articles. The information was direct and consistent and Ms McGuinness repeated the message, which was important.

I worry about smuggling, but the problem will be difficult to resolve. The Bill does not mention how many authorised officers will be located along the Border. It will be a major challenge for them, but I am sure we will get that information at a later stage. There should not be such a big problem in relation to the Border. At a plenary session of the EU agricultural committee, it was stated that Border surveillance was a matter for member states, but if evidence was found, the member state concerned must investigate. It was also stated that the Commission has a direct interest in ensuring that is done. In reply to questions from British MEPs about whether criminal charges could be brought against fraudsters, the Commissioner said that while it was not his duty to require prosecutions, he felt they could be appropriate in the circumstances. This was stated during a discussion in the European Parliament about the outbreak of foot and mouth disease at the end of February. I am most concerned about this aspect. Senator Ross spoke about the problem of smuggling for much of his contribution and he said it happened not only in Armagh. He also said it would be difficult to stamp out.

During the discussion in the European Parliament, the EU Commissioner, Mr. David Byrne, said that imports from third countries were subject to extremely strict controls and had to be certified as coming from regions free from foot and mouth disease. I would like to know how the disease entered the UK. It was reported that it arose from swill from airlines, but it has also been stated that the disease entered the UK through an airport. As I said during the Order of Business on many occasions last week, I am concerned about reports of people hill walking in Northumbria and then singing in choir competitions in Wales without taking any precautions in terms of disinfectant. The measures in this regard should not be relaxed, although I do not know how long the Minister intends such measures to continue. When the crisis has diminished, I hope we will continue to be as concerned and thorough in this regard as we are at present.

The Bill provides that a person who purchases an animal may not sell or move that animal from his lands, save under permit, for a period of 30 days. Perhaps the co-operatives and marts could be more proactive in linking farmers. For instance, if farmer A has good calves for sale, the co-operative should put farmer B, who is anxious to buy the animals, in contact with farmer A. This would mean minimal movement, even though a haulier would be involved. I would like marts and co-operatives to be more proactive.

I was in Iowa this time last year, which is an extraordinarily important state within the United States in the context of farming. I visited one farm where the farmer was doing all her business through e-mail. I would think there are very few farms at the moment where there are not computers. Children use computers all the time and any farms in Limerick East which I have visited had computers. Many young farmers and farmers' children use computers to check many items, including the weight and feedstuffs of animals. The farmer in Iowa was doing all her buying and selling through e-mail. While I was visiting her, she had been on to three marts to buy animals. This is essential in a large state which has a population approximately the same size as Ireland. There was no problem in this regard. The farmer did not just do her wheeling and dealing in the state of Iowa, she bought her animals in other states also.

They do their dealing through local television also.

Absolutely. Given that Ireland is a major IT exporting country, many people, including farmers, are very familiar with computers. Computer courses are held and a lot of farming activity is done through computer. The time has come for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to take on board this aspect. This new information technology should be used. This would stamp out a tremendous amount of wheeling and dealing and smuggling. If one does business through e-mail, one can discuss matters, know exactly who they are dealing with and carry out surveillance and spot checks. One can also link in instantly with other farmers. While I do not wish to cut out the dealers or hauliers – there is a place for them also – one to one contact can take place readily. This is a small country where everyone knows one another and e-mailing would be no big deal. People would then be dealing with reputable dealers and farmers. If there is a bad apple in the bunch, this will be much easier to trace through the e-mail than the way it is happening at the moment.

Even though I missed some of the Minister of State's contribution, I am pleased he agreed to review matters.

Members asked for my agreement.

I thought the Minister of State agreed. Perhaps I am anticipating his agreement because I know he takes a positive view in this regard. I hope there will be a review of this issue. This is necessary given the speed with which people have responded to this emergency legislation.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, to the House. I realise he must be here to bring the legislation through the House. However, I wonder if the Minister and Minister of State were in both Houses last week for too long, given that they may have had other matters to attend to in dealing with this crisis. Of course, we understand that parliamentary accountability must be at the core of our democratic system.

While I am not sure if the Bill is welcome, it is absolutely essential. I am aware that extreme situations demand extreme measures and the State must protect itself, its largest industry and the annual £5 billion worth of food exports, given that 20% of our net trade earnings come from this sector. That is the context in which the Bill is essential. If legislation is required to deal with certain defects which may have been apparent from a legislative point of view, the Bill should be disposed of quickly, go to the other House and be enacted into law so that the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, and the Minister, Deputy Walsh, can do everything necessary to protect the country from the scourge of foot and mouth disease.

I am very conscious of the pressure the Minister, Deputy Walsh, the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, the officials in the Department, the Garda, the Army and other agencies involved are under. These people have responded very well in difficult circumstances. As the Minister said in his opening statement, there may have been deficiencies but, where deficiencies are pointed out in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill, they are taken on board. I have pointed out some of these deficiencies and I hope they were taken on board in the spirit in which they were intended.

We are dealing here with a major national crisis. There are aspects of the Bill which may result in an infringement of civil liberties but, in the national interest, this must be allowed, even to the extent that an appeals procedure may have to be restricted so that people cannot use legal devices to impede the authorities when it is apparent that speed is of the essence in terms of responding to the foot and mouth crisis. I agree with other speakers who referred to the marvellous national response to this crisis from the sporting organisations, including the Irish Rugby Football Union, racehorse trainers, the Gaelic Athletic Association and other bodies, even though there have been a few exceptions. The general public have also responded magnificently. They have been very prudent in what they have done. If meetings were thought to be a potential source of spreading the disease, they were called off without pressure being put on people to do so.

The Minister said that the perceived weaknesses which were pointed out in a reasonable way would be dealt with effectively. I had reason to phone the Department last Saturday afternoon and as I was unable to get through on the main switchboard, I got through on the helpline. The young lady involved was extremely helpful. She undertook to contact the Assistant Secretary of the Department to ask him to phone me. She is to be applauded for the way in which she responded.

As the Minister pointed out, a great number of people have willingly played their part in a concerted national effort to keep the disease out of the country. However, we must acknowledge that some people did not co-operate and this is the focus of the legislation. When the legislation becomes law, I hope it will be implemented and enforced to the degree necessary to ensure its success. If we look back at previous efforts in relation to growth promoters, BSE, animal remedies and other aspects, it has not always been apparent that the will has existed at official level to ensure these measures are implemented even-handedly and rigidly and that there are no exceptions. One can only have respect for the law if it is even-handed and all are subject to it.

Extreme difficulties demand extreme measures. In many respects the legislation mirrors the animal remedies Bill, 1993. As far as I recall, there was considerable controversy at the time about conferring powers on the authorities to enter premises without warrant on suspicion that illegal growth promoters were being used or stored on the premises. There is an exclusion in the legislation regarding the dwellinghouse. I am not sure if that was included in the original animal remedies Bill and there may be strong constitutional grounds for this. In any event, I do not think many people keep sheep or cattle in their dwellinghouses. Nevertheless, this issue struck me and perhaps I am correct that it is a constitutional issue.

I also have reservations about emergency legislation. It is useful that it should be reviewed. While the debate may be long and detailed, it is very important that the House gives proper scrutiny to these matters. In my experience it frequently happens that something can slip through which had not occurred to anybody as a problem and become law but for the scrutiny of the Oireachtas.

Foot and mouth disease is not amenable to legal wrangling. Every effort must be made to ensure that individuals who wish to subvert the will of the Department or officials to prevent the spread of the disease cannot resort to illegal devices. Last Friday evening, in the knowledge that sheep were to be removed from the Curragh plane I drove across it where many sheep were grazing. Two hundred yards from the plane was a field in which a large number of sheep were enclosed behind wire. Some of the Curragh sheep were interacting with them. That is a recipe for the transmission of disease. Early on Saturday afternoon I contacted the assistant secretary in the Department and that evening I took another look and saw a very large tract of the Curragh with no sheep on it. However, in the area between the Ballymany roundabout and the racecourse there was a large flock of sheep. I detected somebody who might be associated with the flock talking to some officials and asked if it was not the case that the sheep were to be removed from the Curragh. The official sources said yes but the other answer was that while the Department of Defence wanted them moved the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development did not. Irrespective of whether that was correct, it indicated that the individual concerned was going to use every possible device to ensure that a reasonable request was not complied with.

The animals should not have been moved from the Curragh other than to one secure location, because being aware of the scattering of farmers with sheep there I considered there was a potential for infection in distributing them among other herds. However, once the decision was made it was for every responsible citizen to comply with it regardless of whether they agreed. This situation went on over the weekend. It is indicative of an attitude of a minority within the industry to obstruct, to regard themselves as exceptional and to take the view that while other sheep might get the disease, their sheep would be exempt. I made the point to the individual concerned that he would be the first to seek compensation if the disease broke out.

Anybody responsible for that type of activity should not qualify for compensation. The legislation covers this. While there are responsibilities to innocent parties who suffer severe misfortune, that could be extended to other industries affected by the foot and mouth epidemic.

I agree with Senator Costello's view that the legislation does not adequately deal with the factories. It covers individuals, corporations, companies and so on, but it is framed in the context of people who are dealers and farmers acting as corporate entities. We must accept that factories are part of this problem. The farming organisations have repeatedly brought to the attention of the authorities the fact that these sheep are coming into the country. If the figure of 8,000 sheep entering the country from the other jurisdiction, reported in The Irish Times today, is correct, I cannot understand how not one of those sheep appears to have been the subject of detection by somebody at a meat plant operating on behalf of the State. This again indicates what a journalist described as a voluntary blindness operating at certain levels. That must stop. We cannot decide that because of the nature of the business or because it generates a certain amount of revenue, there must be a blindness to animals coming into the country, with tags removed, being presented at factories and treated as if they were Irish.

The Bill should deal with the factories explicitly and not just indirectly. They are part of the equation. If the dealers and farmers must be dealt with, so must the factories. I see no difference between these different categories in terms of their responsibilities under the law. As may have appeared to be the case, it is not a question of a partnership between the Department and the meat factories. That is not how it should be. There are precedents with regard to angel dust, growth promoters and BSE. Has that culture been, or is it being, eradicated?

Extreme penalties are rightly provided for in the Animal Remedies Act, 1993. They were increased when the Bill was under consideration by the Oireachtas. The remedies provided for in this Bill are also severe.

The Minister of State said that section 4 provides that the order of 1956 is confirmed to remove doubt. I am not clear what is meant by that. Perhaps he will explain it in greater detail. The purpose of section 5 is to give legal effect to orders and regulations made during the current foot and mouth crisis. Last week I was assured by the Minister that they had a proper legal basis. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify the position.

Section 8(1)(a) provides that a convicted person may also be disqualified from keeping, dealing or having charge of any animal or class or classes of animal. Experience teaches that the removal of a herd number from a person does not necessarily stop him from trading, even though it should be the case that without a herd number animals should not be able to leave the land. This brings us to the matter of traceability about which we all talk and to which we give lip service. If there is to be traceability all these measures must be in place. Following that there is the question of slaughter.

I am not clear about the question of ear tags. Is ear tagging to be introduced for Irish sheep or is it the case that penalties will apply for removing tags from sheep coming into the jurisdiction? That is my understanding of the legislation.

There are practical difficulties, of which I am sure Department officials are aware. We are coming into a period where there will no longer be enough feed to keep cattle in sheds and they will go out to grass. The transfer of calves from the dairy to the suckler herd is another difficulty. While this can be done under permit, logistical difficulties will arise. What is the position regard ing milk which is sent to the North, to Strathroy, and which is returned to the South? Is it advisable for this to be happening in the present circumstances?

We must debate the culture of the industry and whether the Department sees itself acting on behalf of the industry or as a regulator. Is it possible for it to act in both capacities and, if not, what should be done to address this? We have seen past examples of the failure of the regulatory authorities to act – it was pointed out in the beef tribunal report and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We must decide if it is time to ensure that these failures cannot recur.

The reputation of the industry is at stake. What is involved is our ability to sell on international markets and to stand over the product we produce which should be regarded as clean and free of disease. It would be helpful if the Department of Health and Children was to state, as the Taoiseach did in the Dáil, that Irish meat is safe and that the health of our meat has nothing to do with foot and mouth disease.

I welcome the Minister of State and will start by answering Senator Dardis's second last question. It is no longer possible for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to deal with the issue of food safety from the point of view of both the consumer and the producer. The first thing we must do is realise that we must transfer the food section of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to a separate area as consumers have lost confidence in our products in the light of the current situation.

I look forward to debating the issue next Wednesday week.

I thank the Senator. I make that point in case there is not enough time for me to make a contribution on the night. The Senator is aware that I feel strongly about the issue.

The Senator also asked the Taoiseach and others to speak out about food safety. The Senator may have heard me on the Order of Business earlier this week encourage people to give blood when the Blood Transfusion Service comes to Leinster House. I have given plenty of notice in order that they can eat plenty of good healthy Irish beef in order that their haemoglobin is well up to the required level.

It is fine for people like me to say that Irish food is healthy, but then we get another smack in the face. I have repeatedly been contacted about the quality of Irish food. While the BSE issue was extraordinarily serious, it is not the only one. I am delighted that other Senators have said that more than a few are involved, there are widespread problems in the industry. They are not confined to farming only; they appear to extend to the meat industry. That is the reason many have said that they very much regret that meat factories are not covered under the Bill.

I had better say that I welcome the Bill, but I am not sure whether I do. How many of the regulations recommended in the beef tribunal report, which I have read, were enacted? Nothing has happened as a result. We are in much the same situation now as we were in before the beef tribunal. There has been no change in philosophy on the part of those within the industry. It appears that the message has not yet got across to those who produce or process beef that someone must eat it. I presume that was the position because beef was sold into intervention for so long, but EU taxpayers are fed up. The first thing they want is safe food. The main aspect is that it is a minor miracle that foot and mouth disease does not have any effect on humans, but who among us wants to eat diseased animals?

I have had to devote much time to reassuring people about the quality of our milk. In the period before Christmas when there was more bad news about BSE, people began to contact me about the safety of our milk. This was particularly important as the then Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy O'Keeffe, had a dairy herd on the same farm as a herd of pigs, to which he was feeding meat and bonemeal. People contacted me to ascertain if the cattle had inadvertently been given meat and bonemeal, if they could get BSE and if BSE could then appear in the milk. I had to send them World Health Organisation updates from December 2000 which state that one will not contract BSE from milk. It is ridiculous in a food producing country that we are reduced to having to try to reassure the public in this way. Growth hormones and angel dust have been found in beef cattle, both of which affect human health. It is not a joke. If the Americans want to eat synthetic hormones, that is fine, but we do not know what effect those by-products have on human health. The European consumer does not want to eat them, and in a market economy, the consumer has a say. We must make sure that what we produce does not contain those by-products. It would be great if we could enforce the regulations in place. I am sure there will be trouble in enforcing the regulations provided for under the Bill.

When Departments are asked to do additional work it is important to ensure additional resources are made available. I have repeatedly found that has not been the position in the Department of Health and Children. Fresh projects are taken on or hospitals are told to do this, that and the other without additional resources being put in place. We need to make sure the necessary resources are made available to provide for the implementation of the provisions of the Bill.

Many farmers are extraordinarily good in dealing with this issue, but on Sunday a friend of mine from the country telephoned to say that her next door neighbour was spreading slurry. She also telephoned the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, which I am delighted to say acted rapidly that afternoon. Is it not outrageous that a big farmer would spread slurry in an area near an urban population? A friend said, "Everyone around here is being so good they are not even letting their dogs out." Yet the farmer in question spread slurry on a Sunday afternoon. We cannot simply say that only a few rogue operators are involved. What is happening is outrageous.

There is not a philosophy among a large proportion of the farming community that we must supply to shops what the consumer wants. To quote Senator Quinn, they do not seem to understand that the consumer is king. There is no point in producing products no one will buy.

The current situation appears to have been addressed from an economic point of view, which I can understand, rather than from the point of view of restoring consumer confidence in our food. More needs to be done.

Some Senators expressed concern about the Taoiseach's call on Ministers travelling abroad for St. Patrick's Day to tell everybody that we are dealing with the situation much better than the United Kingdom. That is a mixed message. I know everyone present will be delighted to hear that I cancelled my St. Patrick Day's travel arrangements to the United Kingdom. It might have been better if Ministers had been advised to stay at home as well.

I will relay three anecdotes to give Members an insight into the level of consumer confidence in our products abroad and how it is being adversely affected. There is a sandwich fair in Paris at which a friend of mine has a stand. She had no problem bringing her samples with her, as they were in jars and were vegetable and so forth. At the beginning of the week, the Dairygold stand had no samples, as it was unable to get its products through French customs. I do not know if the situation was rectified during the week.

On Monday I invited a French businessman to lunch in Leinster House. He transacts a good deal of business in Ireland to which he has been coming for about 30 years. He said to me:

Tell me Mary about this story about the lambs. Is this the situation, lambs come from Scotland to Northern Ireland, then they come down here, they go to a meat factory here, immediately they are Irish lamb and then they are exported to France as Irish lamb. I see them advertised in Paris in a shop or on a menu. I remember Connemara and Donegal and I buy my Irish lamb, but that is not so Mary, is it? They could be lambs from anywhere.

I was obliged to say, "Alain, you are right".

The next anecdote relates to trying to differentiate ourselves from the United Kingdom, a very serious matter, as the United Kingdom is dealing badly with the situation. A friend of mine was in a large butcher shop in Paris about a month ago. The butcher knows that she is Irish as she has lived in Paris for a number of years. There were about 12 people in the shop and suddenly the butcher turned on her and started shouting, "You Irish, you are all the cause of the trouble with the BSE". She said:

No, we are not. That came from the United Kingdom. It is not us. We have been very careful about it. We have had very little in the way of trouble.

He kept shouting at her, "No, you are all the same, you Irish have caused this problem". She left the shop as it was not the time to start a major EU argument.

We have a serious problem in trying to show that our meat is of good quality. The emphasis appears to be on quantity and headage payments. I listen to the prices paid and the emphasis is on the price per pound, not on whether one receives more for producing quality beef or lamb. I was astonished by the story about the lambs. I had not realised what was going on and always told people that Irish lamb is terrific, it is absolutely safe and they would have no problems with it.

There is one area of the Bill in which we could do a little more, that is, section 10, to which I have tabled an amendment. Although I am delighted about any measure which will improve traceability, ear tagging is an old method of traceability. I want the Minister to tell me with what the holes in the lambs ears were filled because I know many plastic surgeons who would want to know the name of the compound used. One of the most difficult procedures is trying to repair earlobes which have been pierced. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, can tell me the name of the compound so that I may advise these plastic surgeons.

Perhaps the Senator should send her clients to south Armagh.

The Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, thinks the British Army should go there and ask these smugglers what they are doing. I am sure the Minister, Deputy Davern, will find out the name of that compound because I do not believe that those ears were inspected. All those sheep's ears were not filled in. Plastic surgery is slow and there was not enough time. I look forward to hearing the name of that compound.

The amendment I tabled states that we should make sure this legislation covers all forms of identification of animals. For example, the EU may suddenly decide tomorrow that they all need to have microchips inserted or that DNA testing is necessary, which is another possibility because ear tags are old-fashioned and there is a great deal of work involved in changing them from one ear to another and in filling in the holes with plastic surgery. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, will accept my amendment because it would be worthwhile.

As a university Senator, I have plenty of constituents in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The Department has always policed itself and I wonder about the value of intra-departmental policing. We must keep the food safety area separate. I know that the food safety area is under the Department of Health and Children, but the whole food area must be removed from the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. I presume this is what is behind the Progressive Democrats' motion which we will debate in two weeks.

I hope this Bill will do some good because I know many terrific people who are involved both in farming and in agri-business. When one thinks of the economic devastation caused by this disaster to other areas of the economy, I pity those involved in tourism. They are having a hellish time and they will not receive compensation. This issue will drag on for months because of the way the British are going about it, and I regret that very much indeed.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, to the House. I welcome the Disease of Animals (Amendment) Bill. Many important points have been made by Members already. I wish to associate myself with those who praised the efforts of many people and the decisions of sporting organisations, such as the GAA and the rugby and soccer organisations, to cancel matches, and the decision of other organisations to cancel functions. They have done their bit to ensure that the State remains free of foot and mouth disease. We must also recognise the efforts of the farming organisations, the IFA, the ICMSA and Macra na Feirme. We must recognise the efforts of the Department and the district veterinary offices, which have done great work in providing advice locally. Teagasc has worked around the clock and provided helplines to keep people up to speed and to give them the information they sought. That has been very important.

Regarding the fact that sheep have come into the State from the North, it is important that we recognise the efforts made by the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture, Ms Bríd Rodgers. I have listened to her speak forcefully on television on a number of occasions about the problem in the North and she has done her bit to ensure that sheep and cattle will no longer come here through the North.

This is vital legislation to protect the integrity of the agriculture and food industry. The Minister outlined the importance of agriculture to the economy in this age of the Celtic tiger. It is easy to forget the role of agriculture in the economy at national and local levels in terms of the maintenance of vibrant rural societies.

Our agricultural economy is based on sound animal health policies and this is the first step in guaranteeing the integrity, safety and wholesomeness of our food. The control of the movement of livestock is critical to the process. This Bill, together with other measures, will help to protect the Irish livestock industry. The existing national beef assurance scheme allows full traceability of cattle and guarantees compliance with all statutory animal health regulations. The existing quality assurance scheme only requires independent accreditation to make it the best in Europe. My information is that the question of this independent accreditation is being examined at present.

Speaking of quality assurance, as long as ten years ago Senator Quinn's business was providing quality assurance. He was sourcing his product from certain farms and since then his supermarkets, like many others, have been able to give assurances regarding the source of their products. It must be recognised that many companies have carried out their business in a proper manner.

If we add to the above two measures to which I referred the fact that most cattle come from farms participating in REP schemes, the picture which emerges guarantees traceability, food safety, quality assurance and environmentally friendly production. No other EU member state can claim a better system. The Bill is a critical addition to the measures to which I have referred.

In case anybody is in doubt about the importance of agriculture and the food industry to local communities, I will outline to the House a few facts about my county which we discussed recently. Some 25% of the population of County Offaly live in farm households. Farms in County Offaly produce a total of £140 million of product annually. Farmers spend almost two thirds of that sum buying goods and services for the farm businesses. The remainder is spent on living costs. That is a substantial sum of money and it gives some sense of the importance of the sector to the national economy. Few of the goods and services bought by farmers include imported content. I hope this provides a picture of the agriculture sector in my county.

The Minister addressed the concern about the movement of animals. Initially many farmers were concerned because they thought a 30 day restriction would be imposed. That would have caused many problems at this time of year when many dairy farmers must sell or move stock.

While there are a few rogue dealers, there are many well organised dealers. Those dealers bought cattle for farmers at marts and it was important that difficulties were contained in areas which had been closed. We have to realise that dealers are at ringsides in marts until 1 a.m. buying stock for farmers. A farmer would be unable to spend that amount of time in the mart. That has been the case for many years and they will continue in that.

The biggest problem is the illegal movement of animals, a factor that has been commented on by many speakers. Section 2 refers to slaughter without compensation where people are caught trading illegally in stock. At one time farmers did not get paid for cattle found in factories to have illegal hormones. That stopped the use of hormones to a degree. In the early days there were factories that looked for cattle that had been given hormones. There has to be a major responsibility on the procurement officers in factories, the people who source the livestock and check it when it comes in. They should know where stock comes from and if there is anything wrong they must carry a major share of the responsibility.

What we thought were our national newspapers talked about a plague being here. That was very wrong. They should have made a public apology to the people, the farmers and the Department for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, who have done so much to ensure that a plague does not get in here. Those newspapers have a lot to answer for and certainly did a lot of harm to the industry. It was commented on in an interview today with the infamous Mr. Walsh on the Joe Duffy show. I did not hear the programme but I know without having done so that, while he might come across as a very plausible type of fellow, he is no fool and he has been in that game for quite some time. He and a small number of others like him have done untold damage to the industry. Given what he has done to farming he should not be interviewed on the airwaves.

I support this Bill and compliment the Minister and his officials who have worked hard to bring it before us so quickly. I hope we will see benefits for the farming community as a result of its introduction. It contains many important measures and will stand us in good stead for many years to come.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation and express the support of this side of the House. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Davern. The people have shown their support for the work being done. If advice was given from time to time it was not by way of criticism of anything that he had done or not done. There is so much at stake in this matter that all of us wanted to make sure that we would not be looking back and regretting we had said this or not done that. The Minister has dealt with a very serious problem. We are winning the battle, even if we have not yet won the war.

Various points in this legislation are particularly relevant to a small percentage of people who, seeing a short-term gain for themselves, want to carry on regardless. It behoves us to thank all the people who have spearheaded the effort in recent times, the Garda, the Defence Forces, the various State agencies and the Minister of State's Department. It has not been easy, particularly if you are on duty. We should compliment, in particular, members of the public who have responded very positively. At a time like this it is important that we look at exactly what has happened and where we are going. Will we come out of the other side of the tunnel having escaped the problem?

The Minister of State has stated that there does not seem to be the same concern across the water. Maybe it is a percentage thing. It is important that at every level we put across the very serious way we are taking this issue. It behoves all of us to make this effort. I was slightly disappointed that his speech did not refer to some pertinent matters like the match last Saturday between Scotland and England. I know it is outside his jurisdiction but I am sure he would have a certain viewpoint about 70,000 to 80,000 people gathering in London with so many coming from Scotland, so many from the south of England and possibly quite a number from farming backgrounds. I do not know what remedies were taken at the ground but it behoves the Minister to convey that there is concern here.

The match in Cardiff was called off. We have cancelled racing and the England-Ireland match will probably be called off. We are making every effort, particularly in relation to what is close to all our hearts, the commitment of the members of the grand alliance to our famous horse. He may not be a great horse but, to quote the Minister, he is certainly a good horse. We are all supportive but is there a slight weakening in the resolve? Is the Minister of State confident that no member of the Government will go Cheltenham next week? I understand he himself has cancelled some other engagement. I think I speak for most Members on this side of the House when I say that we will not go.

There seems to be a slight weakening of resolve. There seems to be a move to let Istabraq run, but no other horse – certainly noble sentiments and in an ideal world, we would all support that. I hope the Minister will get the message through to the trainers. There is, I suppose, a certain amount of scout's honour in relation to this. We have to be slightly concerned that a number of jockeys will go to Cheltenham, even though they will not come back. The word I have is that quite a number of people will travel, of which I am sure the Minister of State is aware. It is clear that they are not all from urban areas and that those travelling may include members of the IFA who, despite the best intentions, may decide to travel and to do whatever they have to do. What discussions has the Minister had with Mr. Parlon and others to ensure the message is being sent out that people should not travel this year as there is too much at stake? I hope we will see the races on television.

It appears there has been a mood change among the French within the past 24 to 48 hours and that some of the famous French horses will travel to Cheltenham. I do not want to be totally parochial in this but there is a danger that there will be a mood change in relation to this and that we will take our finger off the buzzer, even though there is still a risk. I am sure the Minister of State will confirm this. When he is replying, the Minister might respond positively by saying he has taken on board what I have said and that the message is still being sent out by his Department that we do not want people to travel next week. I declare an interest in that I will be slightly out of pocket, although not fatally, as a result of not travelling next week.

Not as much as if the Senator travelled.

Not if Arctic Copper won. People will be out of pocket. Some people have acted responsibly and maybe the Minister will convey to his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, the need for some gesture to reduce cancellation fees in respect of the airlines and hotels. I am not saying we should abandon them. I have heard Mr. O'Leary of Ryanair look for the devil and all and talk about Aer Rianta, but apparently to date he has done nothing. People do not necessarily want a refund of their money but perhaps they might be given a voucher for a trip at a future date or some quid pro quo where one might lose 20% or 25% but would get a voucher. People do not necessarily want their money back, we all accept that. That is the way in which people have entered into the spirit of things.

By and large, people have taken this crisis on board and they support the farming community. Many of them probably have relatives and friends among the farming community and they recognise the need for care. The Minister might suggest to some people that they could do a little more at this time.

Is the Senator including the bookies in the refunds?

Some have declared what they will do, but we still await a response from others. I have not seen many poor bookies, as the Minister will know. I do not want to focus totally on Cheltenham as there are a lot of other serious issues.

What is the position in relation to tagging? Is it being introduced? Will it be introduced over a period of time? I do not come from the biggest rural constituency in the country and declare only a dozen small to medium size farmers, who are probably not totally dependent on agriculture. Questions need to be asked about some of the factories. Following from the beef tribunal, there are matters which have not been fully addressed. I suggest to the Minister that there has never been a better time to put certain things in order.

This side of the House, including my colleague, Senator Hayes, our spokesman on agriculture, support the Minister in all he is doing. It has not been an easy time and he has been sent up front. As he said, using his own inimitable words, he is not the plumber in the airport. If the Department says that certain things have to be done, I hope that is conveyed down the line. If they are not being done further down the line and a report or complaint comes back to the Minister, it will be up to him to get them done. The Minister cannot be at every port or airport. People are flying to England and Wales, and while I am not saying they are putting anything at risk, there must be a realistic appraisal in this regard.

I return to a hobbyhorse. I have a friend who runs buses to Newgrange and Glendalough who is out of business at the moment. There are people who depend on racing, and they are not all like Ruby Walsh or Norman Williamson. They are not getting fees at the moment, although trainers may be getting fees. I will not speak for the owners because I probably have a vested interest, but I hope we are slightly in front for the year.

The Cathaoirleach cannot rule the Senator out of order.

A balance needs to be struck. If people are responding positively to members of the farming organisations, there should be a quid pro quo. If this crisis passes in four to six weeks, the Minister might have discussions with the racing authority about staging extra events at a later date, whether extra maiden hurdles or a few extra point-to-points because some people are taking a hit at the moment. Obviously, we do not want to take the biggest hit of all but everybody involved has to play their part. I know the Minister has not been found wanting in the past. As a fellow member of the alliance who is slightly disappointed about not travelling to Cheltenham next week, I suggest that maybe 2002 will be even better.

May I share my time with Senator John Cregan?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to put in place this legislation for the minority of gangsters involved in this illegal activity for their own financial gain. It is, however, necessary legislation. As somebody who has lived along the Border and grew up on the stories about smuggling across the Border, I am fearful that, regardless of what legislation we introduce on any aspect of smuggling, there will always be individuals who will find a way to avoid being caught until something like this happens. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain is possibly a blessing in disguise as it exposes the activities of a number of people.

It appears that this Bill places the emphasis on dealers. We have to acknowledge that farmers, dealers and factories have been involved in this activity. Some of the blame is with the people in the factories because this would not be possible without the co-operation of all these people. It is important to enforce this legislation. Unfortunately the enforcement of legislation is not as good as it should be. The public has a perception that this Bill will prevent the ordinary farmer, who has been operating within the law, from carrying out his daily work. We must emphasise that it is dealing with specific people during particular outbreaks of disease.

Section 3 of the Bill covers dealers and mentions people who purchase an animal and sell it on within 100 days. Many farmers fall into that category. We need to specify that they are not necessarily included. These are not draconian measures that will prevent them from carrying out their work.

Section 3 also mentions that the Minister could provide for the approval and registration of dealers and dealer premises. I have some difficulty with that. Our aim is to keep the island free of foot and mouth or any other disease. We need to look at co-operation between Northern Ireland and the South. I suppose, up to now, we prided ourselves in having all the rogues around the Border counties, but I am pleased to hear in the last few days that they are throughout the country. It may not be necessary for the legislation to specify co-operation, but it is essential to strive for registration that is recognised both north and south of the Border.

I have heard Senators, over the last couple of years, speaking about various crises. I feared that at some stage we would have a crisis and, having cried wolf so often, nobody would believe us. Over the last week, I have witnessed considerable panic among ordinary decent people who work hard seven days a week for a basic living and we all know there is not much in farming now.

Over the last day or so there has been an air of optimism that we have managed to keep the disease out of the south of the Republic. Considerable credit is due to the Minister for State, Deputy Davern, and the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and all those involved including the Civil Defence and the Department officials who have played their part so efficiently. I fear that there is a certain complacency and as time goes on we will ease the restrictions we have imposed.

Senator Cosgrave mentioned that it is a difficult time for other people and industries particularly as we face into the main part of our tourist season. It will be difficult for another couple of weeks but we must hold a tight rein during that time. There may be difficulties in the short term but we have to get over this hurdle for our long-term benefit, particularly in agribusiness.

Section 2 deals with authorised officers. Some of my constituents have been hounded by officers from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development particularly over the Animal Remedies Act and its regulations on sales of veterinary products. Sometimes the investigation will drag on. There should be a time limit applied to these authorised officers. Who are they answerable to? Sometimes they seem to be involved in a power game and they run away with themselves. They have to be held back. This may seem contradictory but I am concerned about people having too much power without having guidelines.

I welcome the legislation but it has to be enforced. We cannot let complacency set in during the next couple of weeks.

I welcome the Minister for State and the legislation. It is unfortunate that this Bill is necessary but the small number of people who knowingly break the law for their own greed have to be stopped and dealt with. It appears that we have succeeded in keeping this dreaded plague out. Senator Ross said earlier that he felt it was God's will that kept it out and not any precautions implemented by the Minister and his Department. I vehemently disagree with that. We put measures in place as soon as was humanly possible. Both the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and the Minister for State, Deputy Davern, have worked exceptionally hard at every opportunity to advise the farming community and the public. They have done an excellent PR job for our country.

Some people questioned whether we got off the mark on time. This was much discussed in the media in recent days. On "Questions and Answers" last Monday, the four people on the panel along with the Minister all agreed that we did introduce the necessary measures on time. Foot and mouth disease was not here and we were taking precautions in case it might arrive. It was on the island, a couple of miles across the Border and, with due respect to the man above, God's will was not good enough to keep it out. The precautions put in place were absolutely necessary and I compliment everybody because I feel we have succeeded. As my colleague Senator Leonard said, this is not a time to be complacent but at least we can be optimistic and continue working to ensure that this dreaded plague will not come here.

Some people in the media were very critical of the Minister and his officials in recent weeks. It was disgraceful for a national newspaper to carry a banner headline saying that the plague had arrived here. That was not the case. It has not arrived yet and I believe, because of the measures taken, it will not reach us. The day after the Minister stated this in the Dáil, a scurrilous editorial was written castigating the Minister. This was totally unjustifiable and there is an apology owed to the Minister and to everybody who has worked so hard to ensure that the disease is kept out.

I welcome the Minister's speech. There has been obvious confusion among genuine cattle and calf dealers who are on the road making an honest living. It is ironic that on a recent RTÉ television programme, there were two such cattle dealers interviewed who were at pains to point out that they were genuine. They did not have to convince me of that. They were mystified by the fact that they were all being tarred with the one brush. As politicians, we know how hurtful this is when there is corruption by a tiny minority. I fully sympathise with them. The vast majority of cattle dealers and buyers are genuine and trying to make an honest living.

The Bill provides that in certain specified circumstances the Minister may, by order, ensure a person who purchases an animal does not move that animal save under permit for a period of 30 days. This is necessary to prevent the outbreak or spread of disease. The section in question is intended to eliminate practices which have put the health of the national herd at risk. It is also the Minister's intention to ensure, through the permit system, this restriction does not interfere unduly with normal and reasonable commercial activities. I welcome this because there was confusion. It is reassuring that honest persons can conduct their daily business without restriction except in exceptional circumstances where there is a threatened outbreak of disease. It is important for me to say what I have said as a representative of the rural Limerick West constituency which depends hugely on the agriculture sector.

When the Minister spoke in the House last week he said that both he and the Department could only do so much and that there was a responsibility on every individual in the country for which he was criticised by a member of the Opposition. The public, as individuals and members of organisations, has responded magnificently. Many have made huge sacrifices at their own financial expense on which they are to be complimented. We need to keep the control measures as tight as possible in coming days. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, and the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, will be commended if we succeed in keeping out of the country foot and mouth disease. It will boost farming and enhance the reputation of our beef trade abroad.

I welcome this necessary legislation and I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on it.

I wish to share my time with Senator Connor.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Last Wednesday I was faced with the decision in my organisation as to whether the Northern conference should take place in Newry. I sought advice in two places. I sought advice from the Minister for Agriculture in Stormont and former Senator, Bríd Rogers, as to whether it should go ahead, but could not receive clear advice from her office. I also spoke to the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, and his office from which I received clear and unambiguous advice which allowed me to organise the cancellation of the conference. I make that point to illustrate that, regardless of early or late intervention, there was clear advice available.

I remind the Minister of State that before this crisis started he discussed the issue of food in the House when I pleaded with him to examine the case for amendment of the legislation dealing with abattoirs. It should allow the slaughtering of beef by licensed local butchers in order to ensure traceability from grass, to butcher to table. It is important that this be done in order that the people will have confidence in their food sources.

I welcome the Minister of State's response in bringing forward the legislation which I hope will not experience the same fate as many other reactionary pieces of legislation, including that dealing with wandering horses and dog muzzling.

The Control of Horses Act is working well and effectively.

It was brought forward by another party. The legislation dealing with dog muzzling was brought forward by the Minister of State's party when the Evening Herald carried a headline indicating that someone had been savaged by a dog.

I intend to bring forward two amendments on Committee Stage to which I ask the Minister of State to be open. Section 10 is almost incomprehensible. I had to read it four or five times to figure out its meaning. It does not require the ear tagging of sheep here. I suspect, however, that the Minister of State does have authority under the principal Act to provide for this under regulations. For that reason, I intend to propose a new section requiring the Minister within one month of the commencement of the legislation to bring forward a protocol or regime for the ear tagging for sheep. Section 10 is almost inoperable in a situation where there are both tagged and untagged sheep. It is only when there is a requirement to tag all sheep that section 10 will operate effectively. I urge the Minister of State to commit himself to the introduction of ear tagging within one month of the commencement of the legislation.

I also intend to propose a new subsection to section 10 to make the owners of licensed abattoirs and meat factories responsible for the failure to detect breaches of the section which they could reasonably have been expected to detect. That is very important. The country is outraged by what happened last week. I do not make a judgment, but a phrase in section 10 states that it shall be presumed in any proceedings, until the contrary is shown, that the accused unlawfully brought the animal into the State. That is a presumption of guilt and ignores the presumption of innocence. While my liberal tendencies react against it, it is required on this occasion. I would like to be reassured, however, of its constitutionality with which there may be a problem. I would not like to see it being challenged in the Supreme Court. It seems to set aside the presumption of innocence. I have used the same phrase in the section I intend to propose dealing with factory owners and hope it is constitutional. I ask the Minister of State to accept these proposals in the spirit in which they have been brought forward and to show that the legislation is supported from all sides. The Minister of State can be assured of our full support.

I welcome the general thrust of the legislation. It is very important that the Minister of State tighten the regulations on the movement of animals. I come from County Roscommon where there was an incident that could have led to Armageddon. Sheep from an infected flock in the United Kingdom were brought to County Armagh and thereafter to a meat processing factory in Athleague, County Roscommon. There is a huge mystery as to their arrival in Athleague, the time of their arrival and the fact that all these animals had punched ears because they had been tagged in Britain, yet this was not noticed. There is a rumour mill operating in that area which is that this was common practice.

Quite obviously, there has been an enormous amount of irregularity in the way animals have been transported throughout the country. There have been irregularities in slaughtering plants in relation to proper identification of animals. A tax scam seems to have been operated in relation to VAT and VAT refunds were being fraudulently claimed. This practice was highlighted in a television programme some years ago. It appears that the Revenue Commissioners became active and there was a revenue clawback. Criminal activity was not prosecuted through the courts, the State being quite happy, it would appear, to have retrieved some portion of the value added tax which had been defrauded from it.

Cattle dealers are often cast as the villains. I must declare my interest. I am a farmer and I have dealings with cattle dealers. Like many farmers, I rely on dealers to purchase my animals. That is a modern phenomenon of the farming business. There are several hundred people who are cattle agents. They go to the marts and purchase animals on behalf of farmers. These people are the professional agents at marts and they know the procedure. By and large, they conduct an honest business, but of course, there are cowboys involved.

Section 3 of the Bill could be very restrictive on the honest people in the business. It states that ‘dealer' means a person who purchases an animal or poultry and sells and supplies the animal or poultry to another person. A definition is required for "sell and supply". Subsection (3) of this section states:

(3) Subject to this section, a person who purchases an animal shall not sell or supply that animal while it is alive for a period of not less than 30 days and, during that period, shall hold the animal on land in his or her ownership or under his or her control.

An agent may purchase an animal at a mart on behalf of someone like myself. The farmer may choose five or six of the ten animals he is presented with. They are then delivered to the farm but the other unsuitable animals may have to be taken to the dealer's own farm. Must he then keep those animals for 30 days? The Minister is shaking his head.

This is emergency legislation and I appreciate the reasons it must be pushed through at great speed. We must be very careful with emergency legislation that we are not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We could do an injustice to many people and could be standing in the way of legitimate business. I want to root out the cowboys but I want to protect the interests of the decent, honest agents who provide an excellent service for farmers. They are an essential element of modern farming. They are tax compliant and comply with the animal diseases regulations. In our attempt to get rid of the cowboys and those who break the law, the sins of a few may have a scattergun effect. I ask the Minister to be aware of that. We do not wish to destroy the livelihood of anyone carrying on a legitimate business. We do not wish to interfere with an important element of the cattle trade. These people are not what was described, rather amusingly I thought, on the television programme "Ear to the Ground" on RTÉ as "blockers". They carry out their business legitimately and the Department know about them.

I welcome this Bill in general. The country faces Armageddon if this disease arrives here. We are now in the happy position of being able to export our lamb to France and lamb producers are enjoying a huge boost in their prices because the British are no longer there. If a foot and mouth outbreak takes place in this country, that lamb export trade would cease. That is one immediate effect that can be seen. All consumers are inclined to criticise the price of lamb, but I will stand up for sheep producers. Many of them are my neighbours and I have seen them suffer from low income for years and a total uncertainty about the market. When the price goes up, the subsidy goes down, and they are locked into a no-win situation unless the market showed an improvement. One of the fortuitous outcomes of the ban on the export of all United Kingdom meat to its traditional markets is that we are the winners.

I am delighted to make a contribution to the debate and I ask the Minister to ensure that the Bill does not interfere with the legitimate livestock agent who operates from mart to farmer and goes about his business in a fully legal way. We need instead to get rid of the blackguards and the cowboys.

I wish to share my time with Senator Mooney on a basis of two to one, that is ten minutes and five minutes, if that is acceptable.

Acting Chairman

That is agreed.

I welcome the Bill to the House. It is emergency legislation but is essential under the circumstances. I congratulate my colleague from west Cork, the Minister, Deputy Walsh. He is doing a fantastic job in stymieing the threat of an epidemic in this country. I also congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Davern. They were thrown in at the deep end when the outbreak in Armagh came to light and they have done wonderful work. I applaud the public response throughout the country, although there are some exceptions. Every event, from bingo in west Cork to football matches, has been cancelled. I heard today that the District Court in my area will not sit while this threat remains, unless there is a serious need for it to do so.

The increased penalties, including the ban on agriculture related business, where necessary, are welcome. The issue of illegal tampering and switching of tags and cards is a serious one, as the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, and his officials are aware. I received information about a dealer who was raided and found to have close to 1,600 tags and accompanying cards in his possession. These sell for £60 or £70 apiece and the case suggests serious racketeering which must be stamped out.

I concur with Senator Connor that there are many genuine, tax compliant cattle dealers and jobbers in all areas. One of the country's most isolated marts at Skibbereen saw dealers arriving in spring, purchasing calves of several months of age and transporting them to different locations. Another practice in peripheral areas, where there are many small farmers who would not find it economical to go to mart, is to employ a genuine, tax compliant cattle agent to buy one's cattle and take them to mart. I hope the restrictions do not create difficulties for this trade, which is undertaken by honest people with families, who keep tax records.

I am concerned that it was common before the closure of the Border for cattle over 30 months of age to be taken across the Border in a liberal fashion under the BSE scheme. This enabled dealers to avail of the £300 slaughter allowance which the Northern Ireland authorities allowed per animal. On the return leg, the same lorries often carried young cattle across the Border to the Republic and into our system where they were tagged again.

The sincerity of and the methods used by some of the larger cattle slaughtering and beef companies have been called into question. Some companies must know that these animal imports do not comply with regulations. I am concerned that these practices continue and I hope that this legislation helps to curb the problem. This crisis is a wake-up call to the farming and the agri-food industries which should look at it in a serious light. One racketeer, one villain, one cowboy or criminal could destroy, or put at risk, our entire food and agriculture industries.

I recognise that there must be rules and regulations but in many instances these hit out at smaller operators in our community and not where the real problem lies. An example from west Cork, where a farmer with four suckler cows was deprived of his grants after one of his cows died and he could not make his 80% quota, shows how the strict operation of regulations can adversely affect small farmers. Another farmer in west Cork who has 200 to 300 cattle had four calves born on his farm on a day when he was in hospital. Making a genuine mistake, the farmer's wife recorded the birth of three female and one male calf and not the reverse as was the case. This year that farmer suffered a 10% penalty despite his honesty. To see honest small farmers treated in this fashion makes my blood boil, while some of the major players in the industry nationwide are involved in racketeering and the irregular transporting of cattle and sheep.

It has been suggested that tagging will be extended to sheep and I welcome this proposal, but considering the threat to a multi-billion dollar industry, I ask the Minister for State, Deputy Davern, whether the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development would consider the use of silicon chips. I have limited experience of this technology, but I believe that, unlike removable tags, it would greatly enhance traceability and would allow animals to be traced, not just in Ireland, but across Europe.

I am also concerned that growth promoters are still in use and it is a scandal if it continues. With the recent BSE problems and the current foot and mouth crisis there is a lack of consumer faith in the agriculture industry. It is no wonder the public and foreign beef markets show concern. This is a wake-up call for the industry and it does not come before time. We should look seriously at this legislation despite some having criticised it as emergency legislation. It is essential and is a step in the right direction, but in many ways it does not go far enough towards outlawing the operations of the professional clique racketeering across the Border and beyond.

There are also questions surrounding imports from Britain and exports. People in high places in the agriculture industry know what is going on, although I am not referring to the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, or his officials. Some in the industry know where tags are stashed and who is likely to make most out of racketeering. This activity must be stamped out so that genuine farmers, agents and cattle buyers receive fair play. The Minister for State and his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Walsh, have done an excellent job so far. They should keep the hatches battened down fully as there is some time to go before we can breathe a sigh of relief. It is a very serious crisis but, so far, the Ministers, Deputies Walsh and Davern, have done an excellent job.

I thank Senator O'Donovan for sharing his time and I hope his impassioned plea on this crisis was not curtailed by our prior agreement to share time. I could not but reflect on Senator O'Donovan's comment that one cowboy could be enough to put our entire agriculture industry at risk. It was one cowboy who introduced foot and mouth into the Armagh farm – just one person. It may only have been that person's conscience that made him reveal the trail from Scotland. We would still be discussing traceability if he had not done so.

I echo what has been said on all sides of the House about the outstanding contribution the public has made. It has responded to the political leadership shown by both the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, and the country has caught the mood of what both have said during the crisis.

When we had the foot and mouth scare in 1967, a much higher proportion of our GNP related to agricultural production. In 1941, in excess of three quarters of the economy was agriculture based. The figure is closer to 10% today. The response to this crisis is an indication of the empathy of the non-farming community with the farming community. People have displayed what I can only describe as an Irish version of the Dunkirk spirit exhibited in Britain during World War II. I cannot help reflecting on the sacrifices people have made in response to the crisis. In my home town, a gentleman who was participating in a first aid course in Galway decided not to attend the course because he would have to travel via Athleague on his journey from Galway to Drumshanbo and he wanted to avoid even the most remote possibility of picking up infection. That is an example of the civic spirit which still prevails in this age of great cynicism. Not long ago, Irish people were accused of being selfish and inward-looking and failing to display the civic spirit exhibited by our forefathers. It is heartening to see people rallying round in response to strong, resolute and fair political leadership.

In spite of the odd barb from the Opposition, the Minister and Minister of State have rightly expressed their appreciation of the support of Opposition spokespersons, Deputies Dukes and Penrose. That support has followed through in this House. We are all in this together. While it is only proper that the Opposition should criticise where criticism is warranted, its support for the Government's efforts to ensure this disease does not reach our shores should not go unrecorded.

I wish to refer to the wholesale smuggling which seems to be culturally endemic in a particular part of the island. A report in last Sunday's Observer alleges that former active members of the Provisional IRA had switched from a military to a smuggling campaign. A former quartermaster of the Provisional IRA was alleged to have been a leading smuggler who is now a multi-millionaire as a result of his illegal activities. I hope the legislation, particularly the sections dealing with the movement of livestock, will be enforced. The full resources of the State must be utilised to ensure we eliminate the cowboys and gangsters who appear to have no God, but their pocket. They do not care whether their neighbours must live in penury for the rest of their lives following the destruction of their animals. I hope similar resolution will be shown following the enactment of the legislation as was shown follow ing the tragic murder of Veronica Guerin which mobilised the forces of the State as never before in an effort to ensure the mafia style gangsters who had operated for so long in this city, in spite of all the laws on our Statute Book, would be stamped out.

This crisis may be a watershed for us all. The Government is to be commended on its actions in this area. Any Government, irrespective of its composition, must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the economy is protected in every possible way.

I thank Members for their widespread support for the legislation.

In reply to Senator Connor, section 3 will not apply in normal circumstances. Its provisions will only apply in the circumstances which currently pertain in regard to foot and mouth disease. There is a huge brucellosis problem in County Monaghan and if we are of the view that there is a need to restrict the movement of herds there in an effort to prevent the spread of disease, the legislation will allow us to do so. I was at pains to emphasise that the Bill's provisions will not apply to normal agricultural practice. More than £2 billion has been spent on disease eradication, but we are no nearer now than we were ten years ago. We owe it to taxpayers to introduce legislation which will allow us to restrict and monitor movement in areas in which there is an outbreak of disease.

Many Senators commented on the IRFU. If all other organisations were like the IRFU, we could be very happy. As part of its very considerable contribution to the cause of Irish agriculture and food industry, the IRFU today announced the postponement of the Ireland-England and Ireland-Scotland matches.

Sheep tagging will be introduced. There was some resistance to it from certain elements within farming and certain meat factories. I welcome the IFA's decision last Saturday to facilitate the introduction of tagging and we will move forward with this initiative as soon as tags become available.

In reply to Senator Gibbons, an authorised officer who requires the disposal of an animal will supervise that disposal. This is merely an operational matter which does not require specific legislative provision. The Senator asked about legitimate buyers acting on behalf of factories. Factory agents will not encounter any difficulties under section 3. Other buyers who wish to sell on to factories within 30 days can apply for permits in the normal fashion once section 3(3) is in force. Sections 4 and 5 were introduced on the advice of the Attorney General to underpin the various orders. The sections do not imply that the orders were not legitimate or that any convictions made under them are unsafe. The Attorney General wanted us to adopt a belt and braces approach to the matter. Section 10 which deals with ear tags will only apply where a person is charged with an offence and will not interfere with the legitimate replacement of ear tags.

Senator Callanan asked whether section 3(3) will only come into effect when an order is made under section 3(4). I confirm that will be the case. The issue of live exports must, of necessity, be dealt with by the permits provided for in section 3. It is not intended to interfere with the legitimate assembly of animals for export which do not pose a threat to our disease free status. In reply to the Senator's question about whether the penalties imposed in this section will apply to other provisions in the Bill, they will not. These penalties were recently updated in the beef assurance legislation. On livestock markets, I am happy to give Senator Callanan an undertaking that the Bill will not interfere with legitimate mart operations. Livestock marts must play their part in abiding by all aspects of the law in this area, including legislative provisions on disease control.

A number of Senators referred to the role of factories. Important provisions such as those included in the Bill apply as much to factories as they do to farmers, dealers and others in this area. The powers in section 2, described as draconian, can be exercised in a variety of contexts. The Bill's provisions are not specifically aimed at farmers, rather they are aimed at wrongdoers in the industry, whoever they may be.

The addition of the word "premises" in section 7 means that, on enactment of the legislation, the Department may seek an order of forfeiture from the court in respect of any field, farm building or other premises, including a meat factory, which might have been involved in the commission of an offence under section 4 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966. Vehicles, vessels, aircraft and containers can also be forfeited.

The precise arrangements for the approval and registration of dealers provided in section 29A(5) as inserted by section 3 have yet to be settled. Once the legislation is enacted, the Department will quickly formulate these details which need to be carefully constructed to ensure that the measures do the job we want done. The Department will announce details shortly.

Senator Ross referred to the late delivery of the Bill. This is unfair. Exceptional measures were taken to ensure Opposition spokespersons on agriculture were given drafts of the Bill last night and were briefed by officials this morning. The Labour Party was in a position to table amendments, which I welcome, and that disproves the Senator's point. I regret the short notice in providing the legislation, but I am sure everyone appreciates the position with the threat of foot and mouth disease.

Senator Ross made allegations against the Department which effectively amount to allegations of corruption against it. He claims to have evidence to support these allegations. He should either withdraw his allegations or produce the evidence. If they are true, we want them investigated immediately, either by the Department or another Department. If there is evidence to this effect, as opposed to loose allegations, it should be brought forward. Now is the time to do so when there is a national emergency. The matter will be investigated fully and any wrongdoers dealt with. I do not like accusations being made without proof to support them.

The main concern in the debate was to ensure legitimate cattle dealers and others involved in the cattle trade are not affected by this legislation. I assure the House it will only be brought into effect when an outbreak of disease occurs in an area. It is essential that that is borne in mind. Areas which have been free of diseases such as brucellosis or TB are seeing signs of their return. That is either because of people bringing in infected livestock or because of wildlife. If we can identify the infected animals and confine them to the immediate area, it will ensure that the disease will be contained and not spread elsewhere.

Tagging is widespread throughout Europe and it must be accepted that, for example, tags will fall out in the implementation of such a system. I am delighted we now have agreement on the tagging issue. Senator O'Donovan mentioned microchips as a form of tagging. We have had discussions with a number of interested companies. We would be able to trace animals by satellite, so it would be an expensive system. That said, we have yet to find a secure place in the animal in which to locate the tag so that it will not come loose and end up in meat or in new manure on fresh grass. If we find a place to locate it, we will examine implementation of the system.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

At 7.30 p.m.

Should we have a break for one hour? Many of us would like a break for something to eat. Why not resume at 8 o'clock?

I already have agreement for a break of 40 minutes.

Acting Chairman

That means we will resume at 7.35 p.m.

I propose that the sitting be suspended until 7.30 p.m.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. I hope this respite will help alleviate the Minister of State's obvious discomfort. It has been very difficult for him.

Sitting suspended at 6.55 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Top
Share