Vol. 472 No. 4
15 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has satisfied himself that the operation of the regulations for the transport of live animals introduced by him is working in a satisfactory manner. [23532/96]
I am committed to ensuring the live animal export trade takes place in accordance with the highest standards of animal welfare. Accordingly, I made, in 1995, the Diseases of Animals (Protection of Animals During Transport) Order which lays down strict provisions in relation to the registration of transporters, conditions regarding loading and unloading of animals, stocking density levels, feeding and watering requirements and the use of trained and experienced staff as well as other general requirements. The Deputy will be aware that, following a number of serious incidents in relation to exports of live animals to third countries, I also arranged a detailed review of the existing arrangements applicable to the carriage of cattle by sea. This review was undertaken by officials of both my Department and the Department of the Marine, the Meteorological Office, marine consultants and representatives of live exporters and shippers.
Following the outcome of that review and with effect from 1 February 1996, I introduced the Diseases of Animals (Carriage of Cattle by Sea) Order, 1996. This order established strict criteria for the approval of boats used for the carriage of cattle by sea, including requirements as to stability, construction and deck heights, set out the weather conditions in which such boats may operate and also regulated the drainage, lighting, provision of supplementary power and other measures designed to protect the welfare of animals being transported by sea.
I am satisfied that these new statutory instruments have placed the transport of live animals from the State on a secure and defensible footing and have had a positive effect on the efficiency and safety of this trade. I am not prepared to authorise any vessel or animal transport vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of the two orders concerned.
I put this question down as a result of the unilateral decision by this Minister to impose stricter regulations in relation to the transport of animals by sea than is the case in any other EU country. This is farcical given our dependence on live exports in trying to maintain a cattle trade. Can the Minister confirm that the commercial reality of what he has done is that while we have only eight ships chartered now as a result of these regulations, this time last year we had over 20? Could he also confirm that even were further export orders to be obtained by live exporters, that there are no ships available to transfer those cattle to markets? Is he prepared to stand over that position in view of the crisis in the beef industry?
In making a decision in all these cases on whether a ship was approved or rejected, I relied totally on the technical advice of marine consultants, who are the experts. Eight boats have been approved and three were refused. It is true I have come under political and other pressure to approve certain boats. The Guernsey Express is one example. It sank with the loss of 1,500 animals. I must have regard to the taxpayers' situation. There is a precedent by which if I approve a boat and it subsequently sinks or is damaged, the taxpayer and I are liable to a claim because we authorised that boat. I am not to be browbeaten by anyone into departing from the technical advice.
As regards the Deputy's other question, there are eight boats approved and as markets become available and the Egyptian market recovers, there are boats from the Australian and southern hemisphere region that are being chartered here. We have copied the Australian rules, which I believe are the best. There is no point in having a trade that may be undermined by serious sea accidents. I want to put durable conditions in place because we depend on live exports. We need outlets for our cattle and we are large exporters. That is the best way to proceed.
The Minister should reply to the questions I have asked. Can he confirm that this time last year there were over 20 ships taking cattle from this country to export markets and that, having brought in these regulations, there are only six? I have not come to browbeat the Minister but to wake him up to the commercial reality of what has happened. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is a bystander in this process. Would the Minister not agree that the live exporters who have got this trade, without much help from the Department, have as much interest in the proper transport of animals to those markets as anybody else? Can he not confirm that in relation to the technical issues he is raising, the roll period, part of the rules he has brought in, is now equivalent to that of a passenger liner? That is an impossible rule to meet in the way it is being applied. It is totally impracticable. Does the Minister not understand that the effect of the new regulations, apart from the loss of ships being chartered for exports, means the discretionary clause that was a feature of previous regulations has been dropped and that therefore, when particular problems arise and need to be addressed in an emergency, there is no way that can be done? Would the Minister not agree that this is an unsatisfactory situation and that he should be prepared to look at the situation again in view of the fact that some of the ships rejected by his technical experts are regarded as fine by the Australians? They have since got the export markets we used to serve.
Yesterday I met the Live Exporters' Association, a national group. This issue was not even raised by them.
What has that to do with me?
It is not a cause of concern.
It is.
Let us hear the Minister's reply. The Deputy has had a fair innings in respect to questions he has put.
The Deputy mentioned six vessels.
Eight.
Let me put the record straight. Eight vessels are currently approved for the purposes of the 1996 order which have a combined capacity of some 13,000 animals. A further three vessels were found on inspection to have defects that would require correction before they could be approved under the 1996 order. The current capacity available on the approved vessels is such that there would be no shortage of shipping capacity for the live cattle trade. I would welcome extra ships being put forward for inspection. There will be no delay on my part in the speedy administration of the scheme but independent consultants, Department vets and marine experts are all involved. This is the correct way to proceed.
Under the previous Administration there was one incident where hundreds of cattle were killed in one sailing. It was covered up and I was unaware of it until it was revealed in the media. Given the public's anxiety, this trade must be defensible and professional and ships must meet those specifications and be safe to travel in. They are not up to passenger line standards.
They are.
That is a gross exaggeration. Those ships will be approved and a number of boats are coming in that fit into that category.
The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information. I have asked the Minister a simple question three times. I will only ask once more. Is it true that this time last year there were more than 20 ships chartered for live exports and this year there are eight? Is that true or false? The Minister will not answer the question.
The Deputy has made that point over and over.
I will answer it. I do not know the exact number of ships. I do not have that information to hand. There are ships that have been refused following inspection and there were more ships than there are now.
That is what I have asked.
I have answered the Deputy's question.
Will the Minister give me that information after Question Time?
There were more ships approved last year prior to the order than now. Some defective ships have been refused and I make no apology for that.
Will the Minister give me the information after Question Time? Last year there were more than 20.
I will consider what is appropriate——
I am entitled to a reply.
The question is what is the appropriate level of control——
That is not the question I asked.
I understand the Deputy's question.
The Minister does not. Will he give me the information after Question Time?
Let us have an orderly Question Time, please.
I insist that I receive an answer to my question.
The Deputy may not put questions in that form from a seated position. If he wishes to put questions, he will rise, be acknowledged and allowed to put them by the Chair. We cannot have this behaviour.
I do not deny that ships have been refused but I do not know the amount——
Will the Minister give me the information? There were more than 20 last year. It is a simple question. Does the Minister have a problem with it?
I do not.
If that is the case, the Minister should give me the information after Question Time.
Half of the time allocated for priority questions is exhausted. We must move on.
I will not put up with this arrogance. Will the Minister give me the information?
It is not arrogance.
What is the problem?
The information available to the Department can be made available.
I thank the Minister. It has taken ten minutes to get an answer.
Let us hear the Minister's reply, please.
I do not have any set figure for the number of ships, be it 14 or 21.
I understand that.
I do not know what the big deal is, given that I have acknowledged there are tighter regulations and some ships have been refused. I do not know what the problem is.
On a point of order, I am entitled to seek specific information by way of supplementary questions. If the Minister does not have the information, he can undertake to give it to me. I am not interested in his general views on X, Y or Z.
We are eroding valuable time.
All I want to know is how many ships were on the register last year. If the Minister does not have that information, he can send it to me.
That question has been put a number of times.
Will I receive it?
What I am trying to say is that there is now a different order in place.
The Minister will not give it to me.
The Deputy should please desist.
The information on the numbers on the register under the old order can be made available if it is readily to hand in the Department.
That is all I want.
I have already said that.
This is the first time the Minister has said it.
