I propose to take Questions Nos. 445, 447, 450, 451, 452, 453, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477 and 479 together.
As Deputies are probably aware, the event referred to occurred during July 2002, which is almost three years ago. As the matter is the subject of litigation, it would be inappropriate of me to comment on many of the issues raised in the questions at this point in time as to do so might prejudice the outcome of the litigation or any further action to be taken by my Department or other authorities. However, I can make some general comments on the case.
I emphasise that the decision of my Department to require the slaughter of the pigs outside the food chain was based on the need to protect human health from the consumption of pigmeat containing a carcinogenic substance. As I indicated in my reply to Question No. 162 on 23 June, the case involved the slaughter on farm by the herdowner of some 4,000 pigs over a five day period following the discovery by Department veterinary inspectors of quantities of carbadox on the farm and an admission by the herdowner that he had spread the substance on the floors of pig pens. The movement of any animals from the herd, except under specific licence from the Department, had also been prohibited by the Department in the period preceding slaughter to protect public health. Notwithstanding this, some pigs were moved to slaughter plants and products from some of these did in fact enter the food chain.
Carbadox is a carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance, which is banned by the EU and deemed to be unsafe at any level. Prosecutions have since been issued against the herdowner, alleging a range of offences relating to the use of this feed additive and other matters including the illegal movement of pigs from the farm. The herdowner has issued proceedings against the Department under two headings. The video, reportedly commissioned by the herdowner, was brought to the attention of my Department by the media and was shown, but not handed over, to a number of Department officials. The video was also shown at a meeting of the farm animal welfare advisory council, FAWAC. My Department requested a copy of the video from the journalist concerned on 17 June but the journalist told an official of my Department that she had been advised by her sources not to provide one. In any event, neither I nor my Department have received it. If it is furnished, it will be reviewed and immediate consideration will be given to what action might be taken in relation to its content.
While there was no question of legally permitting the pigs to be slaughtered for human consumption, the Department wrote to the herdowner's solicitors on 7 May 2002 explicitly stating its willingness to allow him to pursue the option of his making arrangements, acceptable to the Department, with a dedicated plant for their slaughter. However, he did not pursue this option. Instead, he sought permission to slaughter the pigs himself on his farm on welfare grounds. He had discussed this approach with Department veterinary inspectors and they were satisfied that he understood fully what would be involved and that he displayed both the competence and confidence to undertake the task. During the five day period, two veterinary inspectors, including an animal welfare expert, from the Department visited the farm on numerous occasions to assess the ongoing slaughter operation. A non-veterinary official of the Department was present on the farm during the five day period in question whose primary function was ensuring proper disposal of the carcasses to ensure they did not enter the human food chain. At no point during the slaughter process did the herdowner express concerns or disquiet on animal welfare grounds in relation to the slaughter method or seek to suspend operations on grounds of professed animal welfare concerns.
An official of my Department observed the herdowner use a lump-hammer to slaughter a small number — five — of pigs and ordered the practice to cease immediately. The implement was seized and only returned to the farmer when the entire slaughter process was completed. With regard to the attempted suffocation of the pigs, records indeed show that the herdowner was legally instructed to maximise the ventilation capacity of his units to minimise the negative welfare impact associated with increased live-weight capacity of the units. Department veterinary staff did not report any attempt to deliberatively deprive the pigs of air.
The circumstances of the case were highly unusual. On-farm slaughter of animals in any number is an exception rather than the rule and occurs only in extreme circumstances, such as those of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Cooley, where it is not possible to move the animals to a dedicated slaughter plant or where there are compelling reasons such as fear of disease spreading for not attempting to so do. In this case, the herdowner had himself decided to slaughter his animals on farm and the Department considered at the time that it could not legally have forced him to have the operation conducted in a slaughter plant. The approach which the Department itself generally employs in circumstances in which it proves necessary to have numbers of animals slaughtered — as in the case of cattle where BSE is detected — is to have slaughter carried out in a dedicated slaughter plant.