Vol. 465 No. 8
3 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the proposals, if any, he has to amend the legislation on the sale and use of illegal animal growth promoters in view of recent court cases; if so, the nature of such amendments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10597/96]
28 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has satisfied himself with the precautions taken to prevent the use of illegal growth hormones. [10472/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 28 together.
On 26 April, 1996, the Supreme Court gave judgment in a case brought by a County Meath farmer challenging the validity of aspects of the regulations prohibiting the use of hormonal and betagonist growth promoters, namely, the European Communities (Control of Veterinary Medicinal Products and their Residues) Regulations, 1988 and 1990.
The implications of that judgment are:
1. The Regulations of 1988, which banned hormonal growth promoters, survive in their entirety. Thus, prosecution of offences relating to alleged breaches of the law in respect of hormones may proceed. The penalty on conviction is a fine not exceeding £1,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or both.
2. There is now no penalty for offences created by the 1990 Regulations until 1 October 1993 when the penalties provided for by the Animal Remedies Act, 1993 became operative. The result of this is that cases against 12 persons may not proceed.
3. The only alleged offence which cannot be prosecuted is administration of clenbuterol to an animal prior to 1 October, 1993.
4. Other offences, such as possession of clenbuterol, may proceed as they attract the penalties outlined already for conviction under the Regulations of 1988.
5. Seventy-six cases preceding the Act and 44 cases under the Animal Remedies Act, 1993, relating to illegal growth promoters, have been referred to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor; prosecutions should now proceed in all these cases.
In the light of the foregoing, I am advised that the judgment of the Court does not require any amendment to legislation.
The Animal Remedies Act, 1993 provides a comprehensive legal basis for enforcement of the law banning illegal growth promoters.
The penalties, on conviction, for offences relating to the illegal growth promoters are rightly very stringent. The Courts may impose the following penalties:
— on summary conviction, a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to 12 months or both;
— on conviction on indictment, a fine of up to £100,000 (or, in the case of a second of subsequent conviction, £250,000) or imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.
In addition, the Court may order the forfeiture of an animal or animal remedy to which an offence relates. The Courts may also ban a person who has been convicted on indictment from keeping animals, animal remedies or being engaged in the production of food for human or animal consumption. The duration of such a ban is at the discretion of the Court and may be for life. While not necessitated by the judgment of the Supreme Court, I am considering an amendment to the Act whereby a farmer would, as a statutory consequence of conviction for a serious offence, be banned from farming. Such a disqualification is being considered given the serious consequences for the national economy of this illegal activity.
The legislation banning illegal growth promoters is vigorously enforced by my Department and the Garda Síochána and backed up by extensive testing of animals on farm and carcasses at abattoirs. Suspected users and distributors of illegal growth promoters are being pursued and prosecuted with the full rigour of the law.
There have been 59 prosecutions in respect of offences relating to illegal growth promoters in the past ten years. Fifty three persons were convicted as a result of these prosecutions and fines in excess of £50,000 have been imposed; in addition four persons were given suspended jail sentences and one person was sentenced to a period of community service. A further person was sentenced to two years imprisonment which is under appeal. As I have stated earlier, a further 120 cases should now proceed.
Another 14 cases involving illegal growth promoters are being investigated by my Department. Should the evidence warrant, I am determined that criminal proceedings will be instituted in each case.
I have consistently informed the House how seriously I view the activities of the small minority of farmers who use illegal growth promoters. It is national sabotage. I have this year introduced a confidential hotline, backed by a poster campaign, to facilitate receipt of information anonymously. The legal issues surrounding the question of publishing test results on a factory by factory basis and tracing animals are being examined as a matter of urgency.
The Minister's answer was long and it was hard to take it all in. I could only jot down some of the figures. One figure I jotted down related to the fact that in ten years there have been 59 prosecutions for this offence, and the Minister would have the country believe that he and his Department are serious about the matter. This is what he called national sabotage, and 59 prosecutions in ten years is just a joke. It shows the willingness of the agricultural authorities, to put it at its broadest, to turn a blind eye to anything and everything that goes on in this country if their pals might be affected by it. It is appalling that there should have been so few prosecutions.
One hears all the time that hundreds of these cases are allegedly discovered, that this stuff is being widely used throughout the country. A practice seems to have arisen in recent months of meat plants saying animals were supplied by Elvis Presley or some other equally unlikely name when they are asked to give the origin of particular animals which have clearly had growth promoters administered to them. Does the Minister propose to take any steps to ensure that meat plants will be responsible for identifying the suppliers of animals that have had growth promoters administered to them? Will he now take serious steps to prosecute the people involved, given that 59 prosecutions in ten years could not possibly be described as serious? There should be as many prosecutions in one month.
I strongly disagree with the Deputy's analysis regarding the Department. There is no question of turning a blind eye to this in the Department. If the Deputy were to talk to anyone in the meat processing business he would hear stories of how our investigation unit has carried out unannounced raids with the Garda Síochána which have been very upsetting for the meat factories involved. The problem here is that a number of cases, perhaps 140, were held up because a Mr. Mallon appealed the Supreme Court decision. The case was heard some 14 months ago but there was a big delay in giving a judgment which was delivered in recent weeks. Effectively, the Chief State Solicitor's office and other elements of the prosecution procedure were in a state of paralysis because of that appeal. There were fundamental issues involved, such as were they entitled to a duplicate of the sample so that they could split the analysis. There were fundamental issues underpinning the 1988 and 1990 regulations and the 1993 Act. Effectively, apart from one technicality in relation to serious offences requiring the case to be heard by a judge and jury at least at Circuit Court level, all bar 12 of the cases will now proceed. I hope the 120 cases that have been held up will come to the prosecution stage as soon as possible. Whatever the delay, it was not at the Department.
The special investigation unit has been absolutely rigorous in its activities. We revoked the licences of two meat plants owned by two different operators, a rare occurrence. We suspended their operations because we were not satisfied with the traceability of animals in the Border region. A new system of traceability is in place whereby we are insisting on being able to trace back to the farmer in question. I am advised that this is working well. If the Deputy has any information on this illegal and reprehensible activity, I would welcome hearing about it.
Am I correct in believing that in at least one of these two recent revocations, the licence of a Border plant was revoked in the morning and was given back in the afternoon? Of what value is that? If the 120 cases which were held up due to the Mallon appeal can now go ahead that gives us a total of 179 cases in ten years and for a practice that appears to have been widespread for many years, does the Minister consider that the 179 prosecutions in ten years or 17.9 per annum is an adequate level of enforcement of this very necessary law?
I do not accept the Deputy's contention that the incidence of illegal substance abuse is as widespread as he suggests. To back up my point, we have two systems for finding out the level in meat factories, first the Enfer screen testing whereby Department personnel go in unannounced, in conjunction with Enfer, and take 200 random bio samples which are sent off for analysis. The incidence on a random basis is a low single digit figure and we will publish information on those factories in case there is a suspicion of a residual criminal element involvement in this area. It is not widespread.
The second element will be where every AO and veterinary inspector in a plant can send suspected carcasses off for full analysis. There is a surveillance and a testing system in place and with the Q mark system under An Bord Bia we are able to give an assurance in respect of the meat plants that operate that scheme that premium Irish quality beef is residue free.
