Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 21 March 2017
1071. Deputy Eamon Scanlon asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason the original contractors were not held liable for the faults in the original works in 2005 when the high-containment laboratory was built; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13707/17]
View answerThe inclusion of a high containment (bio-security level 4) laboratory suite in the original design of the laboratory complex at Backweston was informed by the experience of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) in Ireland and the UK in 2001. During that outbreak we were entirely dependent on the Pirbright Laboratory in the UK for laboratory diagnosis of suspect cases of disease. In addition, following on from “9/11” and more stringent regulations on air transport of dangerous goods, it became increasingly difficult to send samples from suspect cases to the UK. It therefore became essential to develop national capability in exotic viral disease diagnosis and to ensure we had a facility within which exotic viruses could be safely handled. The original specification for this containment laboratory was based on the UK Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) standard of that time.
In 2007, while officials in my Department and the Office of Public Works (OPW) were attempting to resolve some outstanding issues on the original Laboratory project, there was yet another FMD outbreak in the UK in 2007. This outbreak prompted an international revision of bio-containment standards for laboratories handling the virus. In Ireland this incident emphasised both the need to develop our own testing capability and the critical importance attaching to bio-containment standards.
It was therefore decided to progress amelioration works on the high containment laboratory suite at Backweston so that it could be operated at the highest international standard attainable (the Australia-New Zealand standard) rather than the MAFF standard which was now considered dated.
OPW is currently in consultation with the Chief State Solicitor’s Office on pursuing the original contractor in respect of an underlying issue in the fabric of the original building uncovered during the current work.
