Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 2016

Vol. 246 No. 11

Commencement Matters

Naval Service Vessels

I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this matter and the Minister of State for his attendance. I request that the decommissioned Naval Service vessel LE Aisling be donated to the people of Galway for use as a floating museum moored at either Galway Docks or Salthill. To set out some of the background to this matter, in September 1996 Galway Corporation, now Galway City Council, formally adopted the LE Aisling on behalf of the people of Galway and resolved to develop a special relationship with the ship and its crew and to promote awareness of the role and functions of the Naval Service. In accepting the adoption the captain and crew of the LE Aisling undertook to nurture a special relationship with the city of Galway. The city's coat of arms is displayed proudly on the insignia of the ship and it has been a continual source of pride for Galwegians to see that insignia and the ship when it has moored at Galway Docks.

Following the decommissioning of the ship, over which the Minister of State presided two weeks ago, Councillor Pearse Flannery of Galway City Council proposed on Monday last that the decommissioned ship be donated to the city of Galway and received the unanimous backing of all councillors. The proposal has the complete support of the Galway city manager, the heritage officer, the business community, the chamber of commerce and the Galway Harbour Company board which is willing to berth the ship free of charge on behalf of the people of Galway. All of the stakeholders are in unison on this issue and I understand a formal request was to be made to the Minister of State following the meeting on Monday night. In view of the support from all of the stakeholders with connections to the city, I request that the application be considered favourably. Galway is in contention for European city of culture 2020 and I understand the judges will be in the city in the next week or so. This project could very much be the centrepiece of that process.

The LE Aisling patrol vessel was commissioned in 1980 and decommissioned a couple of weeks ago. Its name was derived from the poem "Aisling" to commemorate the centenary of the birth of Pádraig Pearse. How appropriate it would be in 2016 to donate the vessel to the people of Galway. I formally propose this to the Minister of State.

I thank the Senator for raising this matter. I attended the ceremony held in Galway on Wednesday, 22 June to mark the decommissioning of LE Aisling following 36 years of outstanding service to the State. The proud record of the ship in operational service with the Naval Service was duly recognised and the range of activities in which the ship was involved was recalled and commended. The former LE Aisling was twinned with Galway and its long association with the City of the Tribes was also noted and remembered. While in service the former LE Aisling travelled in excess of 628,000 nautical miles, equivalent to circumnavigating the globe 32 times. The crew boarded more than 5,500 vessels at sea and detained more than 220 fishing vessels. The former LE Aisling was involved in many successful operations, the most notable of which include the arrest of the Marita Ann in 1984. It was also the first vessel on the scene of the Air India disaster in 1985, for which operation several of the crew were decorated.

In pursuit of our commitment to progress the ships replacement programme as set out in the White Paper on Defence, the Government has provided a significant increase in capital funding to enhance capabilities across the Defence Forces. The LE William Butler Yeats will replace the former LE Aisling and is scheduled for delivery shortly. The signing of a contract last month for the supply of a fourth sister vessel to augment the Naval Service fleet is a tangible demonstration of this commitment. LE William Butler Yeats will be the third ship to be delivered under the current Naval Service vessel replacement programme. LE Samuel Beckett was commissioned into service in 2014, followed by LE James Joyce in September 2015. LE Samuel Beckett and LE James Joyce replaced LE Emer and LE Aoife, respectively, which were withdrawn from service on delivery of the new ships. LE Emer was disposed of in 2013 by way of sale by public auction and €320,000 was realised to the Exchequer in this regard. LE Deirdre was similarly disposed of in 2001 for £190,000. A slightly different situation arose in 2015 in the disposal of the LE Aoife. The original intention was to sell LE Aoife by way of public auction in the same manner. However, following a formal expression of interest from the Maltese authorities in acquiring LE Aoife and subsequent discussions between the then Minister for Defence and the Maltese Minister for Home Affairs and National Security, the plan to sell the ship was reconsidered. The Maltese authorities requested the ship for their armed forces to patrol the Mediterranean Sea to endeavour to deal with the ongoing difficult refugee crisis in the region. The then Minister agreed to the transfer of ownership of LE Aoife to the Maltese Armed Forces on humanitarian grounds. While the vessel was no longer viable for use in Irish waters, it was ideally suited to address a pressing short-term requirement.

I understand the level of interest that the decommissioning of a Naval Service vessel generates. The possibility of donating a vessel as a museum or visitor attraction also arose in connection with the disposals of the former LE Deirdre, LE Emer and LE Aoife. However, I am advised that the age, size, structure and layout of Naval Service vessels mean that they are considered rather unsuitable for conversion for use as museums or visitor attractions. While my first priority is the appropriate disposal of defence equipment, I am aware that many issues arise in connection with the conversion of vessels for other roles. This is because a vessel requires ongoing protection measures in respect of its physical condition to defend it and to guard it from deterioration. A vessel must be kept structurally sound, weather resistant and watertight. This requires the availability of materials and competent personnel with the requisite skills and expertise to carry out work at a significant cost. There are further considerations in relation to a vessel's use as a tourist attraction. Large-scale work would be required of the recipient to protect the physical condition of the vessel from deterioration or damage. Further work would be involved in stabilising the structural integrity of the vessel and providing for its essential ongoing long-term maintenance. Recipients face other significant costs associated with a donation of this type, including those associated with health and safety issues and insurance liabilities and risks. The most cost-effective approach will have to be taken into consideration in informing my decision on this matter. I will determine the approach to the disposal of the LE Aisling very shortly and will take all of these matters into account.

I thank the Minister of State for his outline. All of this has happened very recently and I understand the criteria involved and the need for a feasibility study. Nevertheless, I ask that the proposal be explored and that departmental officials meet the interested parties in Galway. Given the time constraints since decommissioning, it will not have been possible to carry out a feasibility study. However, it has been indicated to me that there is a willingness to do all of this. All of the things to which the Minister of State pointed will be taken into account in that process, including the conditions that would have to be met.

Will the Minister of State look on this proposal favourably in principle, outlining whatever criteria are needed? Will his officials meet the stakeholders involved in Galway City Council? It would be appropriate for that to happen in 2016.

Having been on board older Naval Service vessels such as LE Aisling and given their size, structure and layout, it is difficult to see them being suitable for use as a visitor attraction. Having such an attraction would also require ongoing measures to safeguard the physical condition of the vessel and prevent it from deteriorating. This would incur additional costs, as well as requiring the availability of materials and staff with skills and expertise to carry out work to keep the vessel structurally sound, weather resistant and watertight. I would not like to see a naval vessel moored on a quayside in Galway left to deteriorate.

Another factor to consider is the harbour space the vessel will take up. It is necessary the harbour retains its capacity to function and meet the daily working requirements of other users, as well as having sufficient access. While Galway City Council passed a motion on this matter, I encourage the local authority to engage with an expert group or people with knowledge of ships and maritime issues to consider the change of use, the set-up and the end costs involved, as well as issues of access, location and the day-to-day operations of such an attraction.

This is not as simple as parking the LE Aisling in the harbour. There are other significant issues which must be taken into account such as safety, insurance, staffing, opening hours and who would pay for the staff. What would happens if it was no longer an attraction in five years time and Galway City Council wanted to dispose of the vessel? These are the issues the council must take into account.

I will be finalising my approach to the disposal of the LE Aisling shortly. My decision will be informed by the most cost-effective approach and take into account all of the issues I have outlined. This decision will be made in the next four to five weeks, not several months from now. If Galway City Council has a proposal to make, it should conduct a fully costed feasibility study as soon as possible and get it to my departmental officials. I will seriously consider any proposal the council comes up with and will make my decision based on it. However, as I stated, I do not want to pass the harbour in Galway four years from now and see the vessel left unmaintained, followed by a request for the Department to take it back.

Water Services Infrastructure

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Damien English. I am seeking clarification and a commitment from Irish Water to allay residents’ fears about systems installed by county councils in housing estates in the past 50 years where main water and sewer lines pass through households, gardens and yards.

In October 2015 the then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, was asked if the Water Services Act 2013 would be amended to allow either Irish Water or the local authorities to accept responsibility for all sewerage mains and infrastructure such as manholes and interchanges, including those running through non-public properties which were originally maintained by the local authorities. This refers to the maintenance of backyard sewer pipes. At the time the then Minister said that from 2014 Irish Water had been responsible for the public water service infrastructure, including water supply pipes and sewers extending from water works or wastewater works to a boundary, an area of land attached to a property. There were no plans to change the 2007 Water Services Act where the responsibility for the maintenance and replacement of any water or water waste pipes which were located in the boundaries of a property were the responsibility of the owner. Irish Water produced a pipe ownership document which essentially stated the maintenance of communal sewers was a matter for the residents, not for Irish Water. If Irish Water does not maintain the source, will the Government provide funding directly for local authorities to allow them to maintain the sewers maintained in the past prior to the advent of Irish Water? For example, two weeks ago in one of the largest local authority housing estates in Carlow, I came across a situation where 12 houses, which are 50 years old, were all connected to the same pipeline. There was a problem in one garden with the pipe leaking where the connecting manhole was located. When I telephoned Irish Water, it informed me it was not responsible because it was inside the garden. The local authority also told me it was not responsible. The homeowner affected is an old age pensioner and he was told he would have to pay a bill of €2,500. Nobody is taking responsibility and it is not acceptable. It is outrageous to charge people for this when installing water meters the same week. We need to ensure Irish Water will take responsibility for this or that the Government will give funding to local authorities to maintain these pipes, which they used to do. This issue with these pipes is wear and tear, not the residents.

I know that a committee has been set up to look into this matter. It is the biggest issue facing Irish Water and local authorities and needs to be sorted.

I thank the Senator for raising this important issue which has slipped through all the negotiations for several years. I raised it when I joined the Department several weeks ago. The Department’s officials understand it and also wish to fix it. Several county councils are progressing solutions to it, too. There is much work being done to try to have the issue resolved. Between us all, we need to find a way to sort it out.

The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provides for the transfer of responsibility for the provision of public water services from local authorities to Irish Water. It also provides a mechanism whereby water services infrastructure taken in charge by local authorities, pursuant to section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, may be subsequently transferred by ministerial order to Irish Water.

Since 1 January 2014, Irish Water has statutory responsibility for all aspects of public water services planning, delivery and operation at national, regional and local level. There are various categories of ownership of water services infrastructure in Ireland - State-owned, State-funded but operated by private group schemes and infrastructure located on privately owned land, the issue raised by the Senator. Irish Water is responsible for public water services infrastructure, including water supply pipes or sewers extending from a water works or wastewater works to the curtilage of a private property. That is the current legal position.

Under sections 43 and 54 of the Water Services Act 2007, responsibility for the maintenance and replacement of any water or wastewater pipe, connection or distribution system located within the boundary of a private property rests with the owner, the situation outlined by the Senator. This was the position prior to the establishment of Irish Water when individual local authorities held responsibility for public water services and infrastructure. Many cases have been highlighted in this and the Lower House where local authorities, from a public health perspective, may have carried out works to such infrastructure on private property in the past, even though it was not their legal responsibility to do so. They did it because it was the right thing to do and the problem had to be solved. However, the practice varied greatly from one local authority area to another. In some cases, developers can apply to local authorities to have water services in private estates taken in charge. The case the Senator has raised relates to a council estate in County Carlow where some of the houses were purchased over time. The request to take the estate in charge normally occurs one year after completion of the scheme when the developer applies to have his bond released. That is where the infrastructure is generally outside someone's garden.

A memorandum of understanding protocol is in place between local authorities and Irish Water over the asset transfer process under the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013. This protocol obliges local authorities to take all necessary steps to ensure water services assets have been completed to a satisfactory standard or that the means to remediate such infrastructure has been obtained through enforcement action before these assets transfer to Irish Water. Once an estate is taken in charge by a local authority, the water services assets will then transfer to Irish Water. While the legal position is set out in the 2007 Act, my Department and various councils are engaging with Irish Water to establish clearly the respective responsibilities of Irish Water and property owners in respect of water supply and wastewater infrastructure. Any agreement on respective responsibilities of Irish Water and property owners will need to be compatible with an individual's constitutional right to private property and Irish Water's obligations to deliver public water and wastewater services under the Water Services Acts 2007 to 2014. There are issues to be resolved because this matter relates to people's private property. I recognise that clarity is important for homeowners and my Department will expedite its work with Irish Water on this issue in order that definitive clarity can be provided for all.

I totally understand what the Senator is saying. I am familiar with similar cases and prepared to work on the issue to ensure it is resolved as quickly as we can. It is slightly complicated. It probably should have been dealt with years ago, but it was not. We will find a way to sort it out.

I welcome the Minister of State's reply. This issue must be addressed seriously and urgently. A timeline is important. The old age pensioner I mentioned cannot come up with €2,500 for this work and every house on his road is affected because they are all experiencing problems relating to their water and sewerage systems. Will the Minister of State come back to me as soon as possible? I understand he will have meetings. He has said this is a priority, but the issue has been ongoing for a long time. There has been confusion and a lack of information. That is part of the reason we are where we are. I acknowledge that the Minister of State will do his best, but I hope he will start immediately.

I cannot answer for how long this has been ongoing, but the bottom line is that it will be sorted out.

Military Aircraft

I welcome the Minister. I have detailed a list of US military aircraft which landed at or overflew Shannon Airport between 4 and 12 June. This list is by no means complete and only contains details of those aircraft that the Shannonwatch organisation has been able to monitor. The number of US military aeroplanes listed as overflying is likely to be only a small fraction of the total and only includes overflying close to the airport. The unusual number of mid-air refuelling aircraft landing and taking off from the airport during this period, as well as overflying Irish airspace, is of particular importance.

Two of these aeroplanes, KC10 refuelling tankers Nos. 85-0027 and 84-0192, made multiple departures from and landings at Shannon Airport sometimes on the same days, indicating that they were likely being used to refuel other US military aircraft in midair, either in Irish-controlled airspace or over the NATO exercise area in Europe. Was the Minister aware that these aeroplanes were in Irish airspace? What were they doing there? It seems that they were involved in NATO's Anaconda military exercise, the largest war game in eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. The period during which these military aircraft landed and refuelled coincides with the preparations for the NATO Anaconda military exercise in Poland conducted between 7 and 17 June. It is likely that most of them are associated with that exercise. If this is the case, it is not only a clear breach of Irish neutrality, but this is also in clear breach of assurances given to the Government by the US Government that all US military aircraft using Shannon Airport and Irish airspace are not on military operations or military exercises. Not only do these military aeroplanes breach our neutrality, they are a potential hazard to the environment and citizens.

A report in The New York Times on 20 June focused on former US soldiers who were suffering from cancer after being used to clean up radioactive contaminated materials following two separate accidents involving US B-52 bombers carrying nuclear bombs, one in Spain and the other in Greenland. Of course, we are told that the US military aerolanes landing at Shannon Airport and overflying Irish airspace never carry nuclear weapons, never even carry weapons or munitions of any sort and are not on military operations or military exercises. However, we have no way of knowing what aircraft 50,000 ft. above Ireland are carrying and what the US military aircraft landing at Shannon Airport are carrying because no one searches them, except Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace who were arrested in trying to search some of these warplanes. The Minister does not want to search them. The Government has repeatedly refused to conduct searches of these military aeroplanes, despite an assurance in the previous programme for Government, arguing that trust of and diplomatic assurances by the US Government are good enough. However, this good faith is not good enough for me, my party and others.

In 2004 Deputy Clare Daly said, "They [the Government] are purposely turning a blind eye. They don't want to search [the planes] because they know what they will find and then the game will be up." In addition, the European Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, recently accused the Government of turning a blind eye to the use of Shannon Airport by the United States for rendition purposes. She also raised the question as to whether Ireland had compromised on justice in order to maintain good relations with Washington. Why does the Minister not search these aeroplanes? Is it because he is afraid of what will be found? According to expert security analyst, Dr. Tom Clonan, Shannon Airport is a virtual forward air base for the US military, and, in February 2015, he told a court that "if Shannon was being used by any other group to cause the type of damage that the 2.25 million US troops that have passed through Shannon have caused, then the US would rightly identify it as a target." Dr. Clonan went to say: "By allowing Shannon Airport to be used as a US military base, we are contributing to war and human rights abuse."

When one considers that estimates by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations and the Lancet medical journal suggest up to 1 million children have died as a direct and indirect result of the US-led wars in the Middle East since 1991 - the first Gulf War and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria - we should be thoroughly ashamed of any involvement we have in facilitating such attacks. Sinn Féin brought a Bill before the Dáil last year which called for a referendum to enshrine Irish neutrality in the Constitution. The Minister rejected it and current policies on Shannon Airport make a joke of his Department's official policy of neutrality and our international reputation. Ireland’s neutrality has been significantly diluted by successive Governments. When will he accept this reality and give Irish citizens the power to ensure the State's neutrality in the Constitution? I am afraid to say we are not neutral. Instead, we are facilitating US military activity in wars that have cost millions of lives.

The Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952 gives the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade primary responsibility for the regulation of activity by foreign military aircraft in Ireland. Permission must be sought in advance for landings by all foreign military aircraft, including those from the United States. If granted, permission is subject to strict conditions. Aircraft must be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and must not engage in intelligence gathering. Furthermore, the flights in question must not form part of military exercises or operations.

All applications submitted by the US embassy concerning landings by military aircraft for the period covered by the Senator’s list confirmed that the flights met each of these conditions and they were approved on this basis. Overflights by US military aircraft and military aircraft from other friendly countries are permitted without prior notification on the basis that the aircraft are unarmed, carry only cargo and passengers and comply with navigational requirements. Ireland has had a positive bilateral relationship with the United States for a period that predates the official foundation of the State, as has been clear during our 1916 Rising centenary reflections. Successive Governments have made landing facilities at Shannon Airport available to the United States for well over 50 years. This facility is also made available for military aircraft from other countries that can be regarded as friendly. From 2013 to 2015, permission was granted in respect of requests from 23 countries. The same conditions apply to all landings by military aircraft.

The Senator raises the issue of Ireland’s neutrality. Successive Governments have pursued a policy of military neutrality for many years. This is characterised by non-participation in military alliances. The continued commitment to this policy was reconfirmed last year in the foreign policy review, The Global Island, which stated, "Our policy of military neutrality remains a core element of Irish foreign policy". Arrangements for landings at Shannon Airport do not amount to any form of military alliance with the United States or any other country and are fully consistent with Ireland’s policy of military neutrality. The Senator referred to Ireland’s international law obligations and used the term "belligerent state" which is used in the Hague Convention V on the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land. It has been argued that our policy on landings at Shannon Airport violates the Convention but that is not the case. The convention, concluded in 1907, concerns what was regarded at that time as the sovereign right of states to wage war and the rights and obligations of non-participant states which remained neutral. War is no longer accepted as a legitimate instrument of national policy and the use of force is regulated by the UN Charter which sets out a framework of internationally accepted principles concerning collective security. The charter has superseded the 1907 convention and the distinction made by it between belligerents and neutrals is no longer relevant. The 1907 convention applies to the waging of war, an armed conflict between states, but it does not apply to conflicts within a state or to conflict between states and non-state actors, which represent the vast majority of modem armed conflicts. Only 34 countries are states parties to the convention. As Ireland is not one of them, the convention's application does not arise.

Ireland's approach is broadly similar to that of other neutral European states. I am satisfied that the Government’s long-standing policy on Shannon Airport is consistent with our military neutrality and our obligations under international law.

I am reminded of the episode where Dougal holds up a sign saying "Nothing to see here". The Minister's response is somewhat bizarre. The clue is in the title - we are referring to mid-air refuelling aeroplanes landing repeatedly at Shannon Airport. I have the details in this regard in my possession. I do not know about the Minister, but on any occasion I have flown - even on a long-haul flight - I have never known a commercial aeroplane to be refuelled in mid-air. I do not believe that happens. If we accept that to be true, what other credible explanation could there be for a series of refuelling aeroplanes landing and taking off from Shannon Airport on the specified days other than that they were engaged in military exercises. They were refuelling other aircraft.

To be honest, the Minister did not reply to the matter as raised and that is disappointing. Shannon Airport held a very honourable and important place in the social and economic life of the mid-west up until 2001 when its use by the US military became widespread and totally unjustified. US military use contributes nothing to the profitability of Shannon Airport, except to fraudulently inflate the number of passengers passing through the facility. The Minister will also be aware that taxpayers have paid out over €40 million due to a ridiculous agreement with the US Government, whereby we pay the air traffic control fees to Eurocontrol for US military flights. The Minister should give us back our civilian airport at Shannon Airport.

I reiterate that the number of requests and approvals for landings by US military aircraft at Shannon Airport to date this year is broadly in line with that for the same period last year. Successive Governments have followed the same policy on Shannon Airport for many years. The facility of landing there is afforded not only to aeroplanes from the United States but also to those from other friendly nations. In all cases - I include the United States in this - landings must comply with the strict conditions I have outlined.

The Minister did not answer the question put to him.

Food Safety Standards

I thank the Minister for attending and congratulate him on his appointment. I am sure he is delighted.

The Minister will be more concerned than most about the reputation of Irish beef, lamb and bacon and will want to protect it more than anybody. Much to the credit of the political system in Ireland, countless Ministers have worked precisely to do this. Much to the credit of the Minister's Department, officials have done a considerable amount of work during the years in educating farmers and ensuring the integrity of the Irish meat supply system, nationally and internationally. We have much to applaud ourselves for as a consequence. We have responded to crises such as BSE and foot and mouth disease and have done so in jig time and with exemplary outcomes. I do not wish to do anything that would affect the integrity of meat supply from farm to plate, both nationally and internationally, or bring the system into disrepute. Recently during the Seanad election campaign, I had the pleasure of visiting the mart in Kenmare, where I met Councillor Dan McCarthy, the mart manager.

An honourable man.

He is an honourable man and a gentleman. On the day I visited he was extremely frustrated because an animal delivered to the mart had two tags leaving the farm and only one on arriving at the sale ring. The animal was forcibly withdrawn from sale and the farmer had to bring it back home. To a large degree, that is the correct approach to ensure the integrity of the meat supply system. We are talking about animals that are being sold for fattening. Being an urban dweller, I am talking about something about which I have limited knowledge, but I could understand from where Councillor McCarthy was coming. His point was that if I arrived at the gate of his farm and wished to buy an animal from him, I could do so, and that if the tag was missing from the animal, I could order a replacement and have it delivered to my farm. His point made perfect sense and I would be interested in hearing the comments of the Minister thereon. The councillor said that when the animal was transferred to the mart, its tags were transferred to the mart's book. The mart sells the animal and the tag is then transferred to the purchaser or recipient of the animal. The councillor was making the point that if I was to buy the animal directly from the farmer and a tag was missing, I could order a replacement and have it delivered to my farm, making everybody happy. If I bring the animal to a mart and the tag is missing, the mart will be told it cannot sell the animal on the day. Councillor McCarthy asked whether it could not be the case that the mart could sell the animal, order a replacement tag on the same day, charge the seller for the replacement tag and have it delivered directly to the purchaser's farm.

All we are doing is taking the unnecessary movement of the animal from the mart back to the farm and then back to the mart again. Councillor McCarthy estimated that bringing an animal to the mart cost €75, a sizeable chunk of any profit available to the farmer. If it has to be done twice, the cost is €150. He thought this was bringing unnecessary hardship on farmers.

To me, it sounds like a very simple solution to what is a bureaucratic problem. Nowhere along the line is the integrity of the beef being brought into question because only one tag is involved all the time, not two. I spoke to Councillor McCarthy again last night. He extends an invitation to the Minister to visit the Kenmare mart, which I am sure he would love to do, in order to allow the councillor to explain in detail to him how we might overcome this problem. I am interested to hear the Minister's reply to see if we can find a solution to the problem.

I thank the Senator for raising this matter. As a self-described urban dweller, I think he has a reasonable grasp of the issues involved. I trust his briefing on the matter from Councillor McCarthy was fruitful in both directions in the context of the Seanad election, although the Cathaoirleach might have a slight concern about this. I thank the Senator for his kind remarks.

My Department is responsible for the development and implementation of the rules governing the identification and tracing systems for cattle in accordance with the requirements set out in EU and national legislation. The objective of the Irish cattle identification system is to guarantee the safety of beef, beef products and dairy products by operating an effective, secure animal identification and tracing system under which cattle are required to maintain the same identity for life.

The traceability system provides assurance for consumers and customers worldwide that a bovine animal can be traced from birth to slaughter or live export. It is also a vital component in protecting animal and human health and in securing and maintaining markets for Irish cattle and beef and dairy products. The Irish agricultural business is heavily reliant on beef, cattle and dairy operations which are underpinned by a robust bovine traceability system. Thus, the implementation of an effective and reputable identification system plays a key role in underpinning beef and dairy exports in a competitive marketplace. Ireland is one of the largest net beef exporters in the world, with some 90% of the output of the Irish beef industry exported. A significant live cattle export trade complements the beef trade. Furthermore, Ireland exports approximately 85% of its dairy production.

Regulation (EC) No. 1760/2000 sets down the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals. National legislation underpins the Irish bovine animal identification and tracing system. The bovine identification and registration system has four elements: tagging; bovine passport; on-farm bovine herd register; and a computerised database called the animal identification and movement system, AIM. The AIM system records all births, movements and disposals in accordance with EU requirements and, therefore, traces all bovines from birth to slaughter. SI No. 77 of 2009, European Communities (Identification of Bovines) Regulations, requires that bovines must be double-tagged within 20 days of birth and registered within seven days of tagging. Keepers are obligated under the legislation to apply two ear tags to a calf up to 20 days after birth, or prior to movement off the holding, if earlier. Accordingly, all bovines must bear two ear tags prior to leaving the holding.

It is important to note that the obligation lies with the keeper to ensure each bovine has two ear tags at all times and that if an animal loses a tag, he or she is obligated to replace that tag. It is illegal to move a bovine animal from a holding with one tag and, furthermore, it is illegal to offer for sale or to facilitate the sale of an animal with one tag. In line with the obligation on the keeper to ensure each bovine has two ear tags at all times, it would not be appropriate for a livestock mart to facilitate the sale of an animal with one ear tag. There is significant potential to lose traceability if a system were introduced to permit the presentation for sale of animals with one ear tag and such animals were to lose the ear tag on leaving the mart. By extension, it would not be appropriate for a second party to purchase an animal with one ear tag and for the Department to be involved in some mechanism to impose a restriction on that animal on the holding of the second party.

Cross-compliance inspections apply sanctions on breaches of any one of the four pillars of identification. If a cross-compliance inspection finds a bovine with one tag, the onus is on the keeper to apply a replacement tag within a certain timeframe, whereupon the restriction is lifted. Accordingly, the obligation is on the keeper with the animal with one tag to rectify the problem, and this problem should not be transferred to another keeper.

I must ensure a coherent approach is in place to enhance Ireland’s robust bovine identification and traceability system to support our critical markets in live cattle, beef and dairy products to underpin the livelihoods of farmers. Furthermore, I need to ensure systems are in place at all times to ensure keepers are mindful of their obligations to have animals double-tagged and avoid any possible development that could encourage laxity on obligations to have animals with two ear tags. I must be mindful, in considering any proposal for changes in trading arrangements, of the potential for effectively transferring the penalty, which is currently imposed on a keeper for having an animal with one ear tag, to the farmer acquiring such an improperly identified animal. My Department, as the competent authority, is obligated to implement the legislation. However, this does not preclude discussion on any issues that may need to be addressed.

I accept the Senator's bona fides in raising this issue. I am familiar with it because I live in a town with a mart. I have seen the issue raised and know it is one that antagonises farmers. The message I am trying to communicate is that there is more at stake than the individual impact on a single farmer. There is the question of reputational damage and the necessity for a nation that exports so much beef product, most in processed form but a significant amount in live exports, to have efficient traceability systems. Since my appointment, I have met the ambassadors of China, the United States, New Zealand and Iran, all with the purpose of securing new and improved market access. We will be travelling to China in early September on a mission to improve market access, particularly in the context of beef. One of the cornerstones of our sales pitch will be that we have a system of traceability that is second to none and that our system stands up to scrutiny on any occasion we have to order a recall or identify a batch or an animal, for one reason or another. I appreciate that this puts a significant onus on individual farmers inside their farm gates. However, if we look at the bigger picture, while onerous, I believe it is a price worth paying. In the absence of the heat of a specific case, when we stand back and look at it, I believe it is a necessary burden that individual farmers carry for the collective interest of the industry.

I thank the Minister for a most comprehensive answer which has reassured me as to the quality and traceability of Irish beef. I was in China in 2000 and Ireland had a very good reputation there even then. I commend the Minister for the work he is doing. What probably needs to happen is that we engage in some form of re-education in order that farmers do not find themselves putting an animal into a trailer and taking it to a mart, only to be turned away at the gate. There will always be once-off accidents where a tag gets displaced during transit. Nonetheless, there needs to be the constant message not to bring the animal out of the field unless both tags are firmly fixed. I thank the Minister for his time and appreciate very much the comprehensive nature of the answer he has given me.

I thank the Senator for his remarks. I appreciate that, collectively, we share the same objective in securing market access with the minimum imposition on individual farmers. I appreciate the invidious position in which this puts the staff of marts, namely, to be, in a way, the guarantor of safety at that juncture. With respect to the case of the aforementioned Councillor McCarthy who runs a very fine enterprise in Kenmare and gives great service to the community, they are at that point of time the guardians of the traceability system.

When we stand back to look at the objective we are trying to achieve, they can justly be proud that they are part of the system that guarantees our market access and traceability.

Top
Share