I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials. On 24 February Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann ordered that the proposal that section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 continue in force for the period ending on 8 March 2010 be referred to this committee for consideration and that the committee should report back to the Houses not later than 5 March. A briefing note on the motion has been circulated. I call on the Minister to make his opening remarks.
Diseases of Animals Act 1966: Motion.
I thank the Chairman and the committee for facilitating me in making this presentation. I am here to seek the committee's agreement to the adoption by both Houses of the resolution for the continuation in force of section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 which was inserted by section 2 of the Diseases of Animals Act 2001. The 2001 Act provided that section 17A would remain in force for 12 months from the date of its passing. However, section 2 provides for its continuation, by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, for such further period as is expressed in the resolution and since 2002 the provision has been extended.
Since the committee was last asked to continue the provision in force, a good deal of work has been undertaken within my Department on drafting the new and comprehensive Animal Health and Welfare Bill which will update existing legislation and repeal a vast range of legislation, some of it dating back over 100 years. The Bill will also give effect to a number of commitments in the area of animal health and welfare contained in the programme for Government. In particular, it will amend and consolidate previous legislation to reflect the changed disease status of the nation's animals and update existing legislation to ensure the welfare of all animals, including non-farm animals, is properly protected and that penalties for offenders are increased significantly. Other such commitments include the consolidation within my Department of responsibility for the welfare of all animals and the promotion of the highest standards of animal welfare at all levels of the food production chain. There are 72 heads and 11 parts in the draft Bill covering such areas as: prevention and eradication of animal diseases; animal welfare, including duties to ensure animal welfare; animal health, compensation and levies; provisions to make regulations covering a range of issues; assurance schemes; appointment of authorised officers; and offences, penalties, prosecution and disqualification
A consultation paper on the Bill was posted on my Department's website in May 2008. In response to this consultation process, almost 400 submissions were received covering a wide range of views and comments. From the latter part of 2008 officials from my Department held meetings with a considerable number of organisations which had made submissions on the draft Bill. This element of the process has been very valuable in that it has provided an opportunity for parties to elaborate on their respective submissions. This consultation process has now concluded and the drafting of the legislation is continuing apace taking account of all comments received.
Members of the committee will recall that it was against the background of the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001 that the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 was amended by the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Act 2001. The latter Act added a number of measures to the principal Act, including the section 17A provision. This section provides for the appointment of a range of persons or classes to be authorised officers and confers powers on them to be exercised in cases of reasonable suspicion that a disease is or may be present or that an offence is being or may be committed under the 1966 Act or under EU rules or legislation on animal health and related issues.
Outbreaks in recent years have clearly illustrated the increasing threat from various diseases, particularly exotic diseases, not least the experiences in Great Britain in 2007 where they had to confront three World Organisation for Animal Health, OIE, list A diseases: foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and bluetongue. What these experiences have demonstrated is the absolute necessity of properly regulating trade and having high levels of bio-security, continued vigilance, contingency arrangements and robust legislation to deal speedily and effectively with disease outbreaks. In this regard, it is important to appreciate that section 17A is applicable to the full range of diseases, including those endemic in Ireland, as well as the so-called list A diseases covered by the Act such as foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and bluetongue in addition to EIA which occurred here in 2006. There are other emerging diseases such as African swine fever and African horse sickness.
There are safeguards attached to the exercise of the powers granted in section 17A. For example, an authorised officer must have a reasonable suspicion before acting, while in the case of entry to a private dwelling a search warrant is required. Members of the committee can be assured that the powers provided under the section will continue to be used only in such circumstances as are appropriate and contemplated by the law.
The continued focus of my Department is on constantly reviewing, refining and updating our various contingency arrangements and ensuring we have all of the necessary measures in place and tools available to us to deal with any such outbreak. I am satisfied that our contingency arrangements and legislative basis are sufficiently robust to deal with all eventualities but they are kept under ongoing review and amended as necessary to deal with evolving situations in the light of the current risks posed.
Reference to evolving situations with regard to animal health brings me to mention that considerable progress has been made in dealing with two very important diseases that have had a significant impact here in the last decade — BSE and brucellosis. Since it was first confirmed here almost 20 years ago, there have been a number of major crises for the beef industry arising directly from BSE related issues elsewhere with adverse consequences for producers and the industry generally. Throughout the 1990s we upgraded our BSE-related control measures to further protect consumers and eradicate the disease. I am very pleased that these efforts resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of cases here and elsewhere in recent years. Our numbers fell progressively from 333 cases in 2002 to 23 in 2008. In the light of that progress, one of the first things I did when I became Minister was to ask the European Commissioner to increase the age for BSE testing as a priority matter. I am, therefore, very pleased that the Commission agreed to raise the age for testing from 30 to 48 months from 1 January 2009. This adjustment is fully justified having regard to the progress made and the safeguards that remain in place to protect public and animal health. The new arrangements mean some 400,00 fewer BSE tests, resulting in a significant saving for farmers and the industry. At a minimum, there will be savings of €8 million a year.
Excellent progress has also been made on brucellosis in recent years. From a situation where recently we had more than 1,000 herd breakdowns a year, there have been no confirmed outbreaks since April 2006. This is most welcome progress and it enables me to apply to the European Union for officially brucellosis free status from April next. Securing officially brucellosis free status will enable me to reduce some of the control elements of the eradication programme which will bring consequential benefits for farmers, particularly in relation to trade. In addition, it will be possible to bring about a gradual reduction in the volume of testing that will, in time, lead to lower costs for farmers. However, in view of the current disease situation in Northern Ireland, I envisage a controlled reduction in the programme over a period of years, based on risk assessment. The availability of the powers and provisions in section 17A contributed in no small way to the progress made with these diseases.
The virtual eradication of these diseases does not mean we do not have other work to do in this area. Apart from TB and the ongoing threats posed by exotic diseases, there are many other non-regulated diseases and conditions that impair productivity in the livestock sector and need to be addressed. In this regard, we have been working with relevant stakeholders to progress a herd health initiative to deal with non-regulated diseases and conditions in a comprehensive and integrated manner. This initiative is intended to complement existing animal health programmes by developing effective national plans for action and facilitating achievement of international best practice in animal health. I was pleased, therefore, on 28 January to launch a dedicated, industry-led, national co-ordinating body to be known as Animal Health Ireland. It is envisaged that this body will operate as a partnership between industry, service providers and the Government and will have two broad aims, namely, to determine and, on an industry-wide basis, obtain agreement on a range of animal health interventions capable of enhancing on-farm productivity and the competitiveness of the Irish livestock industry in international markets by focusing on non-regulatory animal health issues such as Johne's disease, IBR, BVD, lameness, mastitis and infertility; and to develop and co-ordinate the national infrastructure that will be needed to enable the industry at all levels to take appropriate and effective action.
This initiative complements the Department's statutory measures for dealing with regulated diseases and the arrangements involved represent a departure from the traditional Government led model that has characterised animal health policy to date in Ireland. Its success will depend on the willingness of all involved to engage with each other from non-traditional positions in pursuit of common goals. It is modelled on successful international examples, in particular, Australia, the Nordic countries and the Netherlands. The measures that will be pursued by Animal Health Ireland can secure improved profitability for Irish farmers and the international competitiveness of Irish livestock products through a co-ordinated national approach to animal health by industry and other service providers with support from the Government.
Turning to current threats, bluetongue was confirmed on the Continent in 2006 and reached England in 2007. All of Britain is now designated as a restriction zone to facilitate vaccination. Ireland is bluetongue free and it remains my objective to retain that status; every effort and all reasonable precautions will be taken to that end. However, there are now several strains of bluetongue circulating on the Continent which increases the risks and complicates the approach to controls.
Since last May we have availed of the transitional measures in EU legislation to ban the importation of susceptible animals from bluetongue restricted areas, unless they are less than 90 days old or have proven natural or vaccinated immunity to bluetongue and then only if they meet pre-export test requirements. Additional rules apply in the case of female animals owing to the risk of possible transplacental transmission of the disease. All imports of susceptible live animals continue to be post-import tested for bluetongue. In November I reaffirmed that any imported animal found bluetongue virus, BTV, positive to a PCR test will be immediately slaughtered. I emphasise again that there are no compensation arrangements in place in the case of such slaughter. Notwithstanding the strict import rules and controls, imports from restricted zones continue to represent a real risk to the entire Irish livestock sector and I have continually urged and appealed to farmers and others involved in the live trade not to import susceptible animals from any bluetongue affected country or region. I repeat that appeal again at this committee meeting.
As part of our contingency arrangements, the Department has purchased 1 million doses of BTV 8 vaccine to enable us to immediately commence vaccination within a 20 km zone, if disease of this particular serotype is confirmed in Ireland. However, it remains our position that we will vaccinate against bluetongue only if disease is confirmed on the island of Ireland. The extent of the vaccination programme will depend on the epidemiological situation that will prevail at the time. In the case of a confirmed outbreak here, the required EU control measures and our contingency arrangements would be activated. However, there would not be wide-scale compulsory slaughter as we saw in Britain in 2001 during the foot and mouth disease crisis because, owing to the way it spreads via midges, this would not effectively contain the disease. Instead — in addition to the use of vaccine — a system of restricted zones would be established reaching 150 km from the infected farm at the furthest point. Movements of animals from these zones would be restricted.
Because of the extent and duration of the control and the associated movement restrictions, an outbreak of bluetongue in Ireland could have serious animal health and welfare consequences for Irish agriculture and live exports to some destinations would be affected. We should, however, continue to be able to trade with countries or regions where the same strain of bluetongue was present. Commencement of vaccination would result in Ireland losing its bluetongue disease-free status and it would become necessary to declare either all or part of the country a restricted zone; we would be obliged to allow animals into that zone from all other similar zones with the same serotype across Europe.
As I stated, our controls and contingency arrangements for bluetongue are designed to minimise the risk of introduction of the virus and based on EU legislation and ongoing assessment of the risk to Ireland. These arrangements are kept under review and revised when required by the developing disease situation or in the light of legal or other developments. However, my Department and I cannot operate in isolation and, once again, I reiterate my appeal to the broader farming community that the only protection against bluetongue is to avoid importing stock from risky areas and to be very vigilant.
The provisions of section 17A could prove to be of considerable use in dealing with any outbreak of the disease, particularly given the potential consequences for the export of live cattle from Ireland. It is appropriate that, given the nature of the powers conferred by section 17A, the Houses of the Oireachtas should have the opportunity to review them periodically and consider the propriety of their being retained. Consequently, the 2001 Act allows the Houses of the Oireachtas to review the provision on a regular basis and it is for that reason we are here today. I seek the agreement of the committee for the retention of the provision and do so because of a genuine belief that it is a necessary measure to have available to us. I intend that a provision relating to authorised officers will be included in the forthcoming Bill which the committee will have ample opportunity to scrutinise during its passage through the Houses. Animal diseases pose a continuing and, in some cases, new threat to animal and, potentially, human health. They pose an economic threat — in the case of poultry, to a vulnerable but important part of the agri-food sector and, in the case of cattle and sheep, to Ireland's very valuable livestock industry. In anticipation of a new Animal Health and Welfare Bill being published, I hope and trust the committee will accept my request for the retention of section 17A for a further year and agree to the adoption of the resolution by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. We will support the retention of the legislative provisions in section 17A for a further 12 months, although I repeat that we are concerned by the ad hoc nature of Ireland’s bio-security measures, as evidenced by the requirement to annually retain this provision. Last night I read the contribution made before the committee last year by the then Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Wallace, when she promised that the animal health and welfare Bill would be published in 2008. Today the Minister has substantially repeated the same mantra on the importance of that legislation but, regrettably, the Government makes no commitment in its legislative programme to publish it in 2009. I predict that we will be back here in 12 months to again renew this provision on an ad hoc basis.
I would have expected a more detailed critique from the Minister of the use of this provision in the past 12 months. On how many occasions did authorised officers avail of the powers conferred on them under section 17A to deal with disease issues? It is difficult not to reflect on recent scares in the food industry that found our legislative provisions wanting such as the pork dioxin crisis, to which the committee has given considerable consideration. There are fears relating to the ability of our legal framework to comprehensively deal with possible future bio-security issues such as bluetongue, foot and mouth disease, African horse sickness and African swine fever. They are the headline diseases but there are many others to which the island of Ireland may be exposed — some are present at a clinical and sub-clinical level in the national herd. These diseases are costing Irish agriculture sums that have probably not been quantified. The likes of Johne's disease, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, IBR, bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD, and so on are under the radar; everybody takes notice when they hear of foot and mouth disease but these diseases cost Irish agriculture a great deal. Bulls that fail an IBR test and are not allowed to be used for artificial insemination, AI, purposes can be freely sold in Ireland. Bulls are tested on the Continent and in the United Kingdom and will not be sold there without certification that they are IBR-free. However, those same animals can find their way into the national herd in Ireland, with all the consequences for herd health and performance. We have had recent confirmation that salmonella levels in the pig industry are at the wrong end of the EU league table. There has been evidence that the somatic cell count in the dairy herd is in breach of EU guidelines in certain circumstances.
We tend to shrug our shoulders about these diseases and not pay sufficient attention to them. I welcome the recent initiative launched by the Minister known as Animal Health Ireland. However, I am concerned about the lack of a legislative framework on animal health and welfare. Such legislation has been promised for three years now by the Minister and his predecessor, but it still has not emerged.
Prevention is better than cure. The pork dioxin crisis has cost €180 million up front, but the unquantifiable cost is the damage done. The unquantifiable cost caused by the damage to the national herd health status is in respect of our exposure to those diseases that are under the radar. We will obviously jump up and down about bluetongue, BSE and foot and mouth disease. However, the policy provision for a total herd clean out where BSE is established is something we should examine. It has probably led to the importation of more animals with other diseases than would have been the case previously. If a dairy herd is wiped out by BSE, the top dairy herd farmers will go abroad to import stock from Holland or elsewhere. Unknowingly, they are importing a host of these diseases. These countries are ahead of us in terms of eradication programmes for diseases like BVD, IBR, Johne's disease and so on. We are buying their culled stock and importing that problem into our national herd. That is unfortunate because for an island nation, we should have had some advantages when dealing with those problems.
We have heard much about the opening of the new laboratories in Backweston. Will the Department be in a position to offer farmers an additional analysis of herd blood tests on a fee basis? A whole host of other problems in a farmer's herd could be identified and remedied through such blood tests. It should be on a fee basis, but we need to encourage farmers. The optimum solution is the closed herd, where a farmer is not depending on imports and is not buying in, but breeding his own replacements and operating from a highly established, clean herd. Our BSE depopulation policy needs to be examined because it has led to significant imports and has resulted in the importation of many diseases that we could remedy.
I agree with the Minister's statement in the last page of his speech in which he states "I reiterate my appeal to the broader farming community that the only protection against bluetongue is to avoid importing stock from risky areas and to be very vigilant". I would leave out the section that mentions "risky areas" as I feel the only protection against disease is to stop importing stock. We are regrettably importing disease in a sub-clinical state due to the depopulation of BSE herds and the resulting importation of stock. We need to examine this issue.
We could use the Backweston laboratories for screening for other diseases on a fee basis from farmers, because they are losing money from these diseases. If Johne's disease is diagnosed in a herd, then milk production and food conversion will suffer. It is a debilitating disease that affects animal performance, and I believe it is related to Crohn's disease in humans. The cost in terms of veterinary medicines and so on is very significant. It is great to see the Minister declare the country free from brucellosis, but I think we need to move on, because there is a host of other diseases present that are costing farmers a significant amount.
We support retention. I would like to see more information on how this provision has been used. I would like to see our bio-security on a statutory basis, and not on this annualised, ad hoc basis. It begs the question as to how we ever managed to get by prior to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001. We seem to be in a state of drift from year to year. I fear that we are not adequately equipped to deal with a disease outbreak, similar to that which occurred during the pig dioxin crisis. I would like to see more robust legislative provisions that are still awaited in the animal health and welfare Bill.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and thank them for attending. Have people been personally searched under section 17A? Have those provisions been exercised in that fashion? Who are the authorised officers? Do those authorised officers have the power to bring in the Army to cull herds? If so, has that provision been used? Under what conditions would a person be searched pursuant to section 17A? I am uncomfortable about this issue, due to the rights of the person. I would like to get more information on it and how it has been used.
We are being asked to extend the provision under section 17A for a further 12 months from 8 March under the animal health and welfare Bill. Is it fair to say that the Bill may take as long as that to come before these Houses? The Bill was on the legislative programme since this Government's mandate began. If the Government is repealing Acts that are over 100 years old in some cases, then I understand that such a cumbersome process will take time. However, as we are well into the mandate of this Government, when will this Bill be before us? It seems that the clock is ticking and I do not understand how it has not been brought before the Houses by now. If there are reasons for the failure to introduce this Bill, I would like to know them.
I broadly support the measure to provide for the extension, subject to clarification on the powers of authorised officers to search persons. I am mindful of the fact that if we are a food-exporting nation, then the eradication of diseases is paramount to ensuring our comparative advantage.
I am concerned also about the powers that are proposed within the animal health and welfare Bill. The Minister referred in his statement to provisions to make regulations covering a range of issues. I would like to know what those issues are. I understand what the Minister said about the eradication of diseases and he referred to specific diseases. Within the remit of the legislation will the Minister also extend that power to cover issues such as puppy farming and badger baiting? Will all of those issues be encompassed within the legislation? We have been lobbied extensively by animal welfare groups seeking to ban certain practices and it is difficult to know how to respond to them as we do not know what exactly the legislation will contain. We are in a vacuum in that sense. I understand that it takes time to codify or consolidate legislation because it is a cumbersome process. However, the Minister must act with more proficiency to bring the legislation forward so that we know exactly what we are dealing with in regard to all of those issues.
I thank the Chairman. I welcome the Minister and his officials. It is only right that we should point out that section 17A has served us well in recent years. It is good to see the positive news on BSE numbers, which are down from 333 in 2002 to 23 in 2008. It is encouraging also to see that since April 2006 we had no outbreak of brucellosis compared with 1,000 herd breakdowns per year previously. That is to be very much welcomed. In addition, currently, we have bluetongue-free status.
How many cattle are imported to this country? The biggest reason for the importation of cattle is for breeding stock. Is it worth the risk to import them? From what has been said this morning it appears that issues exist in regard to the importation of cattle, given that they can suffer from diseases that have not been detected in this country. In view of the number of breeding stock coming in, should we not ban imports? I do not know the answer to that question. Has that approach been considered?
I thank the Chairman and members for their contributions. I appreciate Deputy Creed's support for this measure. Deputies Creed and Sherlock referred to the animal health and welfare Bill. We have a considerable amount of work done on a draft Bill, which is fairly substantial. When it is finalised we will spend a good few evenings discussing it.
Is it possible to get a copy of it?
Not yet. It is in-house. The work so far has been undertaken by departmental officials.
When will it be published?
We will be circulating it shortly to the Parliamentary Counsel who obviously will have to work on it before it can be circulated. Deputy Creed is aware that when we invited submissions we received more than 400. Subsequently, the Department decided to meet individual organisations to discuss particular proposals and suggestions that were made. It has been a very detailed process and a considerable amount of work is involved in it. There are approximately 70 heads. From the size of the documentation it is evident that the Bill will be substantial. We are anxious to progress the legislation. We will be circulating it to the Parliamentary Counsel soon and then it has to go to other Departments for observations and contributions. We hope to be in a position to circulate it to spokespersons soon but it is my understanding that it is not done in advance of the Parliamentary Counsel seeing it. We do some legal work in-house on legislation but the Parliamentary Counsel is the one who gives the go-ahead to the Bill even at its draft stage.
Deputy Scanlon, among other speakers, referred to the importation of cattle. Imports of cattle to Ireland are relatively few but we are in a Single Market and under European Union legislation we do not have the power to stop imports into the country. We export quite a number of live cattle from this country on an annual basis and if we want to avail of that facility within the Single Market then we have to allow the trade to go the other way also. Deputy Creed raised the same issue. Naturally, we are concerned about people importing animals from affected areas. Imports are regulated at EU level and we must comply with them. We export a significant number of animals.
With regard to depopulation of diseased animals with BSE, the Department does not depopulate herds in cases of BSE. It is only the relevant cohorts that are removed in the depopulation process and that has been the case for a number of years. The Deputy mentioned that Dr. Rogan, the chief veterinary officer, might be able to give us some idea in regard to Johne's disease and Crohn's disease. I understand from him that they are not confirmed as definitively linked. That is the most up-to-date veterinary knowledge we have.
I am pleased Deputy Creed welcomed the animal herd health initiative. That will be a good partnership between the Government and all the relevant stakeholders. Mr. Mike McGann, who farms in County Longford, is taking up the position of chairman of that group. I suggest to the Chairman that it could make a worthwhile presentation to the committee. We believe that it is the right route to go in regard to the non-regulated sector.
Important issues have been mentioned in regard to productivity and income lost to individual farmers. When I launched the initiative, a presentation was made by the Department's veterinary experts and academics from UCD, such as Mr. Moore, who have done extensive work in the veterinary college. The presentation was interesting and if the committee has an opportunity it might be worthwhile to invite Mr. McGann and his group to speak to the committee.
The group is very important in that it comprises representatives of all the stakeholders, namely, farming interests, co-operatives and the dairy industry. Its aim is to improve overall animal health standards, thereby enhancing on-farm productivity and securing improved profitability for farmers through a co-ordinated national approach to animal health.
The main priority of Animal Health Ireland is to identify and prioritise non-regulated disease conditions that impact negatively from both a financial and disease perspective on Irish livestock, excluding those already covered by regulation. It is being managed by a steering group that acts as the board of the organisation. The steering group will report to a stakeholders group. The Department is providing a small number of staff on a temporary basis to carry out the executive work on its behalf. It is a good partnership between industry, farmers, all the relevant stakeholders and the Department and Government. It is a good model for the future. We looked at models that have worked in the Nordic countries and in the Netherlands and we have devised the best possible profile for it. I believe the system will work well. A presentation by it to the committee may be beneficial.
Deputy Sherlock inquired about how widely section 17A is used. I will not give him an answer because it is an enabling provision. It is my understanding that it is seldom used but it is there in case we need access to lands. Its purpose is to deal with disease and to pursue wrongdoers. Safeguards are built into the legislation, which is very important. At the time of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001, the legal advice available to the Department was that there was a necessity to have that provision in place should there be a need to exercise it or activate it. It is seldom required but it is an important enabling measure when we have to deal with disease outbreaks.
On a point of order——
I will hear a point of order but supplementary questions must wait until the end because it is not fair to other members.
In terms of the question I asked and with respect to the Minister, the answer is not adequate. He is asking us to extend the timeline of section 17A. It is fair and responsible of us to ask on behalf of the people under what circumstances have the powers been used, in particular, whether they have been used with regard to the searching of persons. It is reasonable for me to ask this question and the Minister should not obfuscate on the issue. I understand why the provision is in place and I am not against it necessarily. However, I would like further information on whether it has been used to search individuals. I would have a problem with this and would like a more detailed answer from the Minister. With all due respect, we are entitled to it.
We are entitled to know whether it was used once or ten times in 2008. If it was used, did prosecutions flow from the inspections? These are the questions to which we are entitled to answers. I do not have a difficulty with the provision because it is used in the national interest.
If the Minister does not mind, I will bring in Deputy Aylward because he must speak in the Dáil.
On my own behalf and that of the party, I support the continuation of section 17A. It has worked well for us in recent years and it is important that we maintain it. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure diseases are kept out of the country. We should all think of the old adage that prevention is better than cure.
I am delighted that the country could receive brucellosis free status this year. However, Northern Ireland is not in the same position. It has a problem with brucellosis which has serious consequences for us. There is now only an imaginary border and there is cattle movement. What is the Minister's opinion on the problem with brucellosis in the North?
It is disappointing that we have spent many years and millions of euro and pounds trying to eradicate TB, but we have not been able to get anywhere near eradicating it. What is the current status?
Bluetongue is a very dangerous disease, of which we have no experience in this country. I understand it is spread by flies or insects. How can we prevent this happening because flies and insects can travel by ship or aeroplane? It is impossible to control. The Minister stated there would be no compensation for any farmer in the event of an outbreak of bluetongue. This would be serious. Would this apply to the one animal which contracts the disease or involve isolating entire herds? It was mentioned that there would be a quarantine in a certain area which raises an issue with regard to the payment of compensation to an individual who might get caught up in this. What are the Minister's views on the matter?
With regard to Deputy Aylward's important point on TB, I have a few facts that are worth highlighting. In recent years the incidence of TB has been at historically low levels, falling to as low as 23,000 cases in 2004 from a peak of 44,903 in 1999. However, levels have been increasing since and reactor numbers stand at just under 30,000. The number of herd incidents, at 5.88%, has dropped slightly since last year. The expert advice is that, because of the cyclical nature of the disease, TB disease trends should be viewed over a five year period. In this context, 2002 to 2007 is the longest period since 1985 in which reactor numbers remained below 30,000. An effective wildlife strategy is in place but this must be viewed in the context of the protected status of the badger under the Bern Convention. Naturally, we must be vigilant. However, there is some good news in the figures.
Brucellosis presents a problem in Northern Ireland, particularly along the Border. However, the position is improving. We are in regular contact with the authorities and departmental officials at all levels meet to discuss these issues with their counterparts at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Stormont. I discussed the issue recently with the Minister, Ms Michelle Gildernew. As I stated, because of the presence of the disease in the North, we will proceed cautiously in reducing our test measures when we obtain brucellosis free status. We have made exceptionally good progress in this jurisdiction. Departmental officials at administrative and veterinary level work closely with their Northern counterparts, as we do at political level.
With regard to the use made of section 17A, Deputy Sherlock asked whether the Army was used in depopulating herds. It was used on the Cooley Peninsula in 2001. If there was a case of avian influenza, it would probably be down to the Army to depopulate a flock. A question was asked about puppy farming. This is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Badger baiting is illegal.
I will come back to the Deputies on the use made of section 17A. The Department does not maintain a record at central level of the use of the powers given in the section by authorised officers. The information available to us at headquarters level is that the powers are not regularly invoked because staff generally use the powers available to them under specific legislation. Notwithstanding this, we believe the availability of the powers given to staff is important, especially in cases involving an outbreak of exotic disease and in undertaking investigations. It is important that the facility is available to staff and that it is not invoked on a regular basis by authorised officers.
Deputy Aylward mentioned bluetongue. Climate change, wind direction and the weather can be factors in its spread via midges. Climate and wind direction help to reduce the risk of midges coming to the country. We hope they stay away.
I welcome the Minister and the cross-party support for section 17A. It has served us reasonably well and its continuation is important.
There are three very familiar diseases, namely, TB, brucellosis and bluetongue. I am delighted that we got on top of the problem with BSE. We have made strides in eradicating some of the other diseases but as we get on top of the problem, other diseases are presenting. If we are not vigilant and do not take preventive measures, we will be in serious trouble in the years ahead and such diseases will cause us as much trouble as those with which we are dealing and very familiar. Will the Minister enlighten us on where we stand and what advances have been made in trying to prevent other diseases causing us serious trouble, financial and otherwise?
Will the Minister inform us whether there are penalties in place with regard to persons who import animals from countries which have a problem with bluetongue? What is the situation? Do we leave it entirely up to the people concerned?
On TB testing, we have a situation where we have both a tubercular test and a blood test. Which of those tests is better? In some cases both tests are carried out. The problem of TB has been with us quite a while. Could we not determine which of the tests produces the better results? Some farmers whose cattle have gone down in tests have had their payments held up. It is important we get clarification on the issue because these farmers are in limbo and do not know what is happening. Their cattle have been taken, but they have not been paid for them. We must come to some conclusion on the issue and decide whether the blood test or the tubercular test is best.
It is stated in the presentation that the aim is to ensure the welfare of all animals, including non-farm animals. I have been concerned for a long time about puppy farming and feel it should be regulated by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is a farming activity conducted for profit and should have the same status as any other such activity and be regulated. On the other hand, sporting organisations keep kennels on a different, non-profit basis. They should be exempt from these regulations because their own regulations are even stricter than many of the regulations that currently apply. Will the Minister comment on this?
Perhaps we should bring in an official later from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the issue of puppy farming.
It was stated in the presentation that this section includes non-farm animals. The Bill covers all animals, so perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on the matter.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and support this motion. I have a question about Johne's disease, about which there was much talk during the lifetime of the last committee. Are there many cases of Johne's disease nowadays? Deputy Aylward referred to the TB problem and in his response the Minister said there were approximately 30,000 reactors. Was that for the five-year period or is that the average for each year?
I congratulate the Minister on the wonderful job he did on farm waste management and on getting the banks to deal with interest rates.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and look forward to a continuation of the progress he has reported in his Department on ensuring that section 17A will remain in force for 12 months from the date of the passing of the Act. Section 2 provides for its continuation by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. How long will it take to introduce the proposed new animal health and welfare Bill? The report and the animal welfare Bill are significant in size, but it is important the Bill is introduced as quickly as possible. Can the Minister indicate when the new Bill will be introduced to the Dáil. It is vital this is done as soon as possible.
I welcome the Minister's remarks on brucellosis. It would be a great achievement for the Minister to have Ireland declared a brucellosis-free state of the European Union. That would be a step in the right direction. I am aware the Minister has made progress on TB testing, but many vets have told me TB is still rampant in many parts of the country are they are not happy with the progress made in eradicating it. Deputy O'Sullivan questioned the value of the blood tests in the effort to counteract the disease. Has the Department investigated whether a blood test would have better results than the current test? It is important we make the same progress on TB testing as we have done with brucellosis.
In the case of concern about an outbreak of disease, the required EU control measures and contingency arrangements would be activated. However, there would not be wide-scale compulsory slaughter, for example, as we saw in Britain in 2001 during the foot and mouth disease crisis or in the case of bluetongue. There is concern about the bluetongue vaccination. Is the Minister satisfied he has taken adequate precautions against bluetongue coming into the country? It is probably climatic conditions and midges that bring bluetongue, but how can the Minister counteract these if we cannot vaccinate against it? Is there much value in the vaccination and for how long does it protect animals against the virus?
The Minister stated the only protection against bluetongue is to be vigilant and avoid importing stock from risky areas. The previous speaker said a ban could not be introduced. Why can the Minister not introduce a ban on importation from risky areas? Surely we must have some recourse to a ban on importing cattle from any area described as risky. That would at least offer some protection against the virus.
I congratulate the Minister on the assurances he has given the committee. Can he give any indication of when the new animal health and welfare Bill will be published? It has dragged on for four years and there has been very little progress. It is of vital importance that the Department expedites the Bill.
The Minister talked about the number of times section 17A would be used. I suggest he includes an addendum to the provision to the effect that officials from the Department are to be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána when entering a property. Am I correct that officials will only search farms, property and people in exceptional circumstances? It would lead to a highly volatile situation so, for their own safety and especially if criminal activity is involved which leads to a court case, it would be much safer if a garda was present.
I welcome the Minister and his staff. I pay tribute to Seamus Healy who, I understand, is to leave the Civil Service at the weekend. He has given sterling service to the Department and to successive Governments and I wish him well in his retirement. He will be a loss because he was a guru on animal disease and had great knowledge of the subject.
We are an island, surrounded by water, and I fail to understand how a disease such as foot and mouth can come into the country. There are two ways of getting here — by air or sea — and we can control both. I have no problem with regulations being put in place but I will raise a few matters. Diseases create terrible misery and costs for the farming community and can destroy whole areas. It is hard to sell the new provision to farmers because of imports from South America and the Caribbean. Avian flu, which the Minister mentioned and which is referred to in the committee's briefing note, is all over Asia, including Vietnam and Taiwan. Many people are dying from it yet we still allow imports from those countries and farmers whom I meet cannot understand why that is the case.
Allowing imports willy-nilly into the European Union represents a weakness in its efforts to maintain high standards. Deputy Sheehan is in the meat business and will know that many shops in this country sell chickens from those parts of the world. The first incidents of avian flu occurred because a major UK importer used chickens from farms in one of the countries in question. Brazilian beef has been mentioned many times over the years. Irish farmers have the highest standards in the world but knowing that Brazilian beef has been affected by foot and mouth disease makes it difficult to keep to those standards.
Deputy Creed talked eloquently about exotic diseases such as IBR, BVD — which is related to somatic cell count — Johne's disease and salmonella. There should be a voluntary code of practice for what is a plague and a scourge on dairy herds. Every week I pick up a book from Teagasc and read about BVD but, even though it has been around for some time, there has been no mention of it for ten years. I accept that a committee exists to tackle the problem but I do not know if it will succeed. These diseases are a threat to the economic viability of farming and represent a huge cost factor in agriculture, especially for dairy herds and sucklers. More action should be taken to prevent them.
On the pig industry, what is the position with regard to Aujeszky's disease? Pets brought illegally into the country are responsible for some of the exotic diseases which are present but it is difficult to detect them if they come in within a suitcase. Exotic African meat imported from London also introduces disease and there have been reports of blood and mucus dripping out of suitcases in which this meat is transported. We are in a new area and it needs to be tightened up. I agree with the idea of searching people because those involved in such trade are rogues. One rogue, however, can do a lot of damage.
Great work has been done in the area of brucellosis, which was always a plague on dairy herds, but TB is still around. Badger baiting has been mentioned but wherever there are badgers in east Cork there have been outbreaks of TB, affecting some of the finest dairy herds in the past 12 to 18 months. I am sure Mr. Healy is aware of the difficulties in this regard. The unfortunate badger is a dumb animal but the situation must be addressed in some way to avoid costing the Department money. The Department offers generous compensation levels for affected cattle but IBR, BVD, somatic cell count and lameness are all new phenomena.
I fail to understand the Minister's point to the effect that we export and import. We were the biggest exporters of store cattle to the UK and regulations were in place for that purpose. I stood with my father in a yard in Banbury, which hosted the biggest store cattle sale in the UK, having sent cattle from Birkenhead. I enjoyed the experience and did better than I do in this country. We sent thousands of cattle to the UK with no problems but the Single Market has damaged the industry. It has destroyed the national herd because we were the world standard bearer for disease-free cattle when imports had to be quarantined at Spike Island. There must be a way around this issue to save our farmers from imports coming into the country. A rogue element has become involved and many imports are from second-class stock from European herds.
I wish the committee well and hope the members take up what I have said. I have great confidence in Dr. Rogan who is a first-class veterinary officer and did great work in sorting out the problems in the pig industry before Christmas.
Is "quarantine" a dirty word now? Is it illegal to apply it to imported stock? The Minister did not reply to my question on using the State Laboratory, in Backweston or elsewhere, to offer disease testing and screening to farmers. He also referred to 1 million doses of BTV8 vaccine. I think the then Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, referred to 20 million doses last year. One million sounds very short of what is required. Will the Minister comment on this?
I support colleagues who mentioned TB, which is a problem in many parts of the country. My area suffered on numerous occasions. I was in national school when TB became a problem and it still is a problem. We have seen the progress made regarding brucellosis. Will we ever see a blood test for TB? Some countries do blood tests for it.
I compliment the Minister on the way he pursued the Commission and reached agreement on increasing the test period from 30 months to 48 months. This was very much welcomed by farmers. This has resulted in a saving of €8 million for farmers.
In my region, people are coming from Northern Ireland and taking greyhounds through farms on hunts. They are doing enormous damage, lambs are being killed and sheep heavy with lamb are being chased. Could the Minister include a provision in the Bill to ban this practice? It is causing havoc. I do not know if this problem exists in Cork but it is serious in County Meath and closer to Northern Ireland. I have received representations from many people on this in recent weeks. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider this issue.
I am aware of that issue given where I live. Enforcement is the problem. I will be meeting the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Gildernew, in approximately two weeks to discuss a number of issues. My Department will examine whether the matter can be considered in the animal health and welfare Bill. I do not know whether it is possible at present. Enforcement is a problem and the issue needs to be tackled.
Those responsible are very aggressive when challenged.
I agree. I have heard complaints similar to those received by Deputy Brady.
A lot of work has been done on the animal health and welfare Bill but a considerable amount must still be done. Nevertheless, I appreciate the members' support for the Bill.
Will the Chairman confirm whether the hunters are part of hunting clubs?
They are individuals.
It is important to clarify that.
On the Chairman's question on the existence of a blood test for TB, I am informed by Dr. Paddy Rogan and Mr. Seamus Healy that it is expected there will be one. It is not perfect yet and there is more research to be done.
A number of points were made by all members and I will address them together. The provisions of section 17A cannot be amended and can only be extended; otherwise they will actually fall. Generally Department staff go to farms without members of the Garda Síochána. Where they deem it necessary to have a Garda presence, they can request it. The measures are absolutely necessary and have been effective and important. They are not regularly used but comprise an enabling provision. The provision was deemed necessary when there was a serious problem with foot and mouth disease. Excellent work was done by the farming community and the Department of Agriculture and Food at the time to deal with the issue.
The bluetongue vaccine appears to be effective against a specific strain but not against all strains. One problem with bluetongue is that there are a number of strains. The vaccine is generally applied in two doses for cattle and one for sheep. It works for a year and must be re-administered in the following two years.
With regard to Deputy Creed's point on the amount of vaccine in stock, we naturally hope we will never have to use it. There is not an over-supply of the vaccine on the Continent and the manufacturers have been providing it to countries more or less according to need. The expiry date must also be considered if there is a lot of stock, so a balance must be struck between the amount it is appropriate to buy and the amount one can actually buy. Naturally, the manufacturers will give priority to countries where the disease has struck. Please God, it will not strike here.
Deputy Christy O'Sullivan alluded to the animal health and welfare Bill. It will include several provisions relating to the welfare of all animals but it is not intended that it will make provision in regard to controls on puppy farms.
The Green Party tail is wagging that dog.
The demarcation between welfare and control will be decided upon as progress is made on the Bill.
Deputy O'Sullivan referred to TB testing. The blood test is not specific enough for the full round and would result in far too many false positives. It is okay for specific herds that have TB. The tuberculin skin test is the most specific test available and is used widely in Britain, Italy and New Zealand. If the Deputy has a particular query, we can discuss it later.
Why use the blood test if the tuberculin skin test does the job?
It is a diagnostic aid on specific farms.
How does one determine that a farm is more suitable for a blood test than the skin test?
Dr. Rogan has the specifics on that.
Dr. Paddy Rogan
It is based on an epidemiological evaluation of the specific farms, the herd history and the pattern of disease on the farm. A number of different diagnostic tools are used to try to tease out exactly what is happening on the farm. Very often one will find blood tests used side by side with the more traditional skin-based test. We hope that as the blood test's sensitivity and its specificity, which is already very high, are increased to exactly the same levels that apply to the skin test, it will be possible to replace the latter. This will involve going through a number of stages. The blood test is an additional diagnostic tool to identify particular problems on specific farms.
Which one of the tests is better?
Dr. Paddy Rogan
At this point, I would have to say the tuberculin skin-based test but I believe that, in time, the blood test will be the definitive way to eradicate the disease.
Quarantine was mentioned. It is not permitted in respect of imports from the European Union. The Department continues to advise farmers and others not to import but we cannot impose a ban as long as EU rules must be complied with. This addresses Deputy Christy O'Sullivan's question. I refer him to page 5 of my introductory remarks on bluetongue and the measures that have been implemented. I stated "Since May last, we have availed of the transitional measures in EU legislation to ban the importation of susceptible animals from bluetongue-restricted areas". The Deputies should note the detail of what we have done in regard to the emergency vaccine supply.
Deputy Edward O'Keeffe referred to Aujeszky's disease. The Department undertook two rounds of testing and found there were not many herds testing positive. The Department is currently considering what further measures need to be taken to make further progress.
Deputies O'Keeffe and Creed referred to the other diseases on which we are anxious to make progress. This is why I established the herd health initiative a month ago. That committee is working very hard with the relevant stakeholders. There is no doubt but that we need to make progress in this area.
Deputy Edward O'Keeffe spoke about avian influenza. Imports are not allowed into the European Union from Vietnam. When there was a threat of avian influenza some years ago we emphasised that cooking kills that virus as well. I attended the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment last week where Deputy O'Keeffe spoke eloquently on the subject of labelling, equivalence and the importing of products from outside the European Union. We are all ad idem on those issues in regard to which Europe needs to make more concrete and decisive decisions.
Thailand is also among many countries from which chickens are imported. It is a pity I mentioned Vietnam.
Deputy Creed asked whether farmers could access testing at the Backweston laboratory and pay for it themselves.
And other State laboratories.
Yes. We want to take that approach. We would hope that, given the progress that has been made in regard to BSE and brucellosis, there will be less demand on our diagnostic facilities and we will be able to facilitate more access in the future. Only last night I had a meeting with senior personnel from the Veterinary College at University College Dublin. The Department and UCD are anxious to promote better collaboration and co-operation in terms of the use of our facilities at Backweston, our farm facilities and the facilities at UCD. We will be entering a new era in terms of additional co-operation and collaboration with the research institutes and the third level colleges. I instance UCD as it has the only veterinary college on this island and it has an international, world-class reputation. There will be more co-operation between UCD and the Department on the veterinary side in regard to students during their undergraduate years and also when they are doing postgraduate work. A transfer of knowledge and personnel between the Department and the research institutes will facilitate the utilisation of available teaching and diagnostic facilities and benefit both the industry and farmers.
May I ask a question, Chairman?
The Deputy will have to be brief.
Can foxes and rabbits transmit TB to cattle? I also want to know how accurate tests for IBR and BVD are. We have a specialist here, Dr. Rogan. Perhaps he can tell me which type of test is most accurate, milk testing or blood testing. The IBR viruses are all of a nature involving nose problems, mucus and so on. Many farmers are plagued by these diseases in their animals. They constitute a cost factor because they can cause infertility before they can be diagnosed. What support or advice is available to farmers?
The Department is the regulatory authority in the country. I suggest, therefore, that it would be worth its while to produce an advice leaflet for farmers on the worst diseases, given that there are articles and advertisements in every journal, booklet and paper in the country and people are buying vaccines and all sorts of things. Some guidance from the Department is needed in regard to what vaccine or testing facility to use and whether milk or blood testing is more accurate. Deputy Creed put his finger on an important aspect of this issue. I was unaware that a bull which has tested positive for IBR cannot be used for AI purposes but a farmer could buy it and bring it into his herd. Some regulation is needed. I accept that money is scarce but some type of code of practice must be put in place that allows farmers to carry out testing on their own initiative.
I have an issue with puppy farming. I believe it should be considered to be a farming enterprise because in most cases it takes place on farms.
It is not an agricultural activity.
The Minister referred to it in his contribution. I want clarification that it is part of farming enterprise just like rearing horses. Puppy farming is carried on for profit and should be incorporated within the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather than that of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I feel strongly about this because it is completely different from the activities of sporting bodies who keep animals for sporting activity. Puppy farming is an enterprise which takes place on farms of whatever size, perhaps only five or ten acres. We must have clarification on this issue once and for all and have puppy farming incorporated into the agricultural sector. There is no good reason this should not happen.
Who decides which Department has responsibility? Perhaps the Minister can answer that.
I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy O'Sullivan on this issue. It is an area where there has been unbelievable cruelty to animals that no right-thinking farmer would stand over. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with the local authorities and veterinary services, has the appropriate expertise to properly regulate this activity. It is to the eternal shame of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that it has presided over a regime that has permitted such animal cruelty to continue. That is why I believe that, in the interests of animal welfare, it is right and proper that that activity be brought within the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope the opportunity afforded by the animal health and welfare Bill will not be lost.
I also support what other members have said regarding puppy farming. It takes place mainly on agricultural units of whatever size. Proper regulation is needed. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not know how to deal with the matter. Perhaps it considers it to be a green issue. It is, nevertheless, falling between two stools. It needs regulation and it needs to be under the umbrella of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
This is a matter for the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
It is hard to say. Even the dog warden situation in my county is deplorable. One cannot get the telephone number of the dog warden. One must first contact the county council which must contact the dog warden and get him or her to phone the person making the complaint. One cannot phone a dog warden directly. The situation may be different in other counties.
We have an opportunity here to put this issue in its rightful place. I hope the Minister will agree to do that.
I thank members for their contributions. Puppy farming is not a defined farming enterprise but, when this Bill is going through the Oireachtas, members will have an opportunity to put forward their proposals, suggestions and ideas.
On Deputy O'Keeffe's point with regard to non-regulated diseases, to my knowledge Teagasc sends out information and the herd health initiative will focus on that area, giving us a new forum, if I could put it that way. There were some specific questions that can be addressed only by an eminent veterinarian, so I will ask Dr. Rogan to respond.
Dr. Paddy Rogan
Deputy O'Keeffe asked questions regarding the types of tests it is preferable to use. If one wants to test on a herd basis, as in the case of a dairy herd, one can use milk samples. One can also use blood samples either on a herd basis or on an individual animal basis. If one wants to address the issue on a herd basis, because it is essentially an all-herd problem once it gets into a farming enterprise, one would use a range of blood tests that are available.
The Minister referred to specific advice from Teagasc. That is already in place. Members of the veterinary profession, private practitioners, are in a position through their own organisations to provide very specific advice and certainly it will be a high priority for Animal Health Ireland and the animal health initiative because of the commercial consequences of having IBR or BVD in commercial herds.
Do rabbits and foxes spread TB?
Dr. Paddy Rogan
No. I do not think so.
Mr. Seamus Healy might answer that. We discussed it previously.
Mr. Seamus Healy
We know that badgers can certainly spread TB and they are the primary source in the wild. In theory, foxes could but that has not been documented. We will not know until we get bovine and badger TB down to a lower level. We will then see if there are other vectors. Foxes are certainly not significant. They are marginal and would not be an issue if we did not have badgers.
What action is it proposed to take on badgers? They present a difficulty in the north Cork area, as Mr. Healy is aware.
Dr. Paddy Rogan
It is the intimacy of the interaction between infected badgers and susceptible cattle that causes the problem. Foxes will not come into direct contact with cattle or share their feeding and drinking facilities, as badgers will. Mr. Healy said their effect is marginal. The badger is a major influence whereas the fox and rabbit, while potentially dangerous, are very marginal.
A badger is dangerous if it is drinking or feeding from a cattle trough.
Dr. Paddy Rogan
They can cross-contaminate feeding and drinking areas. Infected urine and faecal material can cause the spread of TB from a badger to a bovine animal.
Do all badgers carry disease?
Dr. Paddy Rogan
They are all susceptible to disease but not all are infected. In parts of Ireland and the United Kingdom, up to 40% of the badger population has been identified in very clearly defined and limited geographic areas.
This must put huge stress on the disease eradication programme.
Dr. Paddy Rogan
It does. However, significant work is being done, in Ireland and the United Kingdom and through international collaboration by the Department, on the development of specific TB vaccines for badgers. A trial will start shortly in the United Kingdom on a type of badger vaccination. The work done in Ireland is primarily based on orally introduced vaccine. That is the solution to minimising the potential for spread between badgers and cattle. After all, badgers are a protected species. The development and implementation of an effective vaccine programme seems to us, and internationally, to be the most appropriate and effective way to break the significant link which currently exists.
When does Dr. Rogan expect that breakthrough?
Dr. Paddy Rogan
Some of my colleagues who are more expert than I say within the next five years.
Has any pilot study been done?
Dr. Paddy Rogan
Pilot work has been done.
I thank you, Chairman, and the committee for facilitating me and my officials in giving this presentation. I welcome the comments of the members in support of the resolution for which I seek approval.
Has the committee views on whether or not there should be further debate on the motion in the Dáil and Seanad? As it has not, I take it that the joint committee recommends that there should be no further debate on the motion by the Dáil and Seanad. Is that agreed? Agreed.
That concludes our consideration of the motion. A message will be sent to the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad informing them that the joint committee has completed its consideration of the motion.
Deputy Edward O'Keeffe referred to the imminent retirement of Mr. Séamus Healy, assistant secretary general of the Department. Mr. Healy has attended the joint committee on numerous occasions and the committee knows of his outstanding service to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over 42 years. He came into the Department as a very young man and has worked in it throughout his career. He now takes early retirement. He has given outstanding service to the Department, the farming sector and the country. He has always shown great wisdom, knowledge and commitment to his job and has dealt with everyone, public representatives and officials, with great courtesy and consideration. I am delighted to have the opportunity at a meeting of this committee, to wish Mr. Healy good health and an enjoyable retirement.
On Friday next, Mr. Healy will be joined in retirement by another assistant secretary general, Mr. Jim Beecher, who members will know. Mr. Beecher is another good Cork man who has given outstanding service to the Department. He has worked extremely hard over the years and will be missed by the Department and the State. Mr. Healy and Mr. Beecher gave service at home and were great ambassadors for Ireland on many occasions in the European Union. I take this opportunity to wish both of them well in their retirement. I am sure their great knowledge and wisdom will continue to be available to the Department.
On behalf of the committee, I wish to be associated with the Minister and Deputy O'Keeffe in paying tribute to you both, Mr. Healy and Mr. Beecher. I have worked with you on numerous occasions in the past 12 years. Deputies P. J. Sheehan, Creed and O'Keeffe have known you much longer than that. It was a pleasure working with you. You have attended this committee on numerous occasions, we have met you on many other occasions and have often annoyed you in the Department. It is sad that people who have given such service to the State must retire. However, I wish you both and your families the very best of luck and many years of happy retirement.
Mr. Beecher is a native of my constituency and I would like to pay tribute to him. You might have known, Chairman, that he came from east Cork.
I thank the Minister and his officials for being with us today.