I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials to the meeting. Members are aware that on 9 February 2010 the Dáil and Seanad Éireann ordered that the proposal that section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 continue in force for a period ending on 8 March 2011 be referred to this committee for consideration and for report back to the Houses not later than 23 February 2010.
Section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966: Motion.
I thank the Chairman and his colleagues on the committee for facilitating us in dealing with this issue.
I seek this 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 (Amendment) 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 on an annual basis. It has always been intended that a provision along the lines of section 17A would be included in the updated animal health and welfare legislation which would remove the time-limited nature of the existing provision.
Since I last asked the committee to allow this provision to continue 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 more than a hundred years. Drafting of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill, which gives effect to the commitments in the programme for Government of 2007 and the renewed programme for Government of 2009 is ongoing in the Department. The legislation will consolidate and update existing legislation dealing with the health and welfare of our nation's animals.
Among the provisions of the legislation will be a commitment to ensure that the welfare of all animals, including non-farm animals, is properly protected and that the penalties for offenders are increased significantly. The proposed legislation will also provide for the consolidation of responsibility for the welfare of all animals within my Department. A tenet of the new legislation is a change in emphasis from simply prohibiting cruelty to prescribing conditions for the promotion of good animal welfare practices. In the area of animal health, the Bill will empower me to make regulations dealing with the spread, control or eradication of disease and provide for the protection and enhancement of animal health.
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, which 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 of persons 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.
Disease outbreaks in recent years have clearly illustrated the increasing threat from various diseases, particularly those exotic to Ireland. This was demonstrated by the experience of Britain in 2007 in confronting foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and bluetongue, which are classed as List A diseases by the World Organisation for Animal Health, OIE. What this proves is the absolute necessity of properly regulating trade and ensuring high levels of biosecurity, continued vigilance, comprehensive contingency arrangements and robust legislation to deal speedily and effectively with disease threats and outbreaks.
In this regard, it is important to appreciate that section 17A is applicable to the full range of diseases, including those that are endemic here as well as the List A diseases covered by the Act, such as foot and mouth, avian influenza and bluetongue, as well as equine infectious anaemia, which occurred here in 2006. In addition, due to climate change, diseases such as African swine fever and African horse sickness have the potential to become threats.
The continued focus of my Department is on reviewing, refining and updating our various contingency arrangements and ensuring we have all 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 sufficient to deal with all eventualities but nonetheless they are kept under ongoing review and amended as necessary to deal with evolving situations in the light of risks posed. Section 17A also forms an essential element of the protection of Ireland's vital economic interests in the agrifood sector.
Where the exercise of the powers in section 17A are activated, an authorised officer must have a reasonable suspicion before acting. In the case of entry to a private dwelling, a search warrant is required. Members of the committee may be assured that the powers provided under the section will continue to be used only in such circumstances as are appropriate and intended by the legislation.
Considerable progress has been made in dealing with two very important diseases that have had a significant impact here in the last decade, namely, BSE and brucellosis. Last year saw a significant milestone in terms of BSE. The European Commission approved Ireland's application to revise our BSE monitoring programme to increase the age at which animals must be tested for this disease. From 1 January 2009, the testing age for BSE increased from 30 months to 48 months for all animals slaughtered for human consumption. The increase in the testing age will provide significant savings to the Exchequer. In 2009 alone, savings of greater than €4.5 million were realised.
I am pleased to advise the committee that the incidence of BSE in Ireland is in continuing decline. The rate and level of BSE continues to fall here, with 23 cases reported in 2008 and only nine cases confirmed in 2009. So far in 2010 there has been just one case of BSE and this was in an older animal. Following the introduction in 2001 of mass surveillance at slaughter plants and knackeries, the number of cases peaked in 2002 at 333. Under this surveillance programme, more than 700,000 animals per annum were tested up to 2008. Due to the increase in the age limit, the figure fell substantially in 2009, with slightly more than 385,000 animals tested up to the end of December. In May 2008, the OIE declared Ireland to have a "controlled risk for BSE" in accordance with their rules, which is a significant landmark.
Following the implementation of an effective eradication programme, Ireland secured official brucellosis-free status in 2009 and a series of significant changes were made to the brucellosis eradication scheme, including an increase in the age threshold for annual round testing to 24 months, an increase in the validity period of the pre-movement test from 30 days to 60 days, an increase in the age limit for the pre-movement test for female animals from 12 to 18 months and, in view of the lower risk attached to their movement, to 24 months for bulls. It was also decided that dairy herds scheduled to be tested in 2010 and 2011 will now only be tested every second year. Arrangements are currently being made to introduce these changes in the annual round test programme. This will exclude some 550,000 animals each year from the round test and, when taken in conjunction with the increase in the age threshold to 24 months which is being introduced immediately, will remove 1.35 million animals from the annual testing programme. All suckler herds will continue to be subject to the annual test in 2010.
There are considerable benefits in regard to public health arising from these changes, including the alleviation of distress to farmers whose herds are affected, the relaxation of restrictions on trade in live cattle and a significant reduction in the cost of testing to farmers. The total financial saving from the changes is estimated to be in the region of €5 million. However, there is no room for complacency with regard to this disease and my Department will continue to be vigilant and ensure we retain our high health status which has significant benefits for all concerned in terms of on-farm costs, public health and market access.
The eradication of brucellosis and the virtual eradication of BSE 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. These need to be addressed and in this regard we have been working with relevant stakeholders to progress a herd health initiative. 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 in Australia, the Nordic countries and the Netherlands.
I launched a dedicated, industry-led, national co-ordinating body, Animal Health Ireland, in January 2009. Animal Health Ireland is a private company limited by guarantee. This is strategically important in the direction that Animal Health Ireland will take in pursuit of its objectives and in the method through which its programme of work is advanced. Attention will centre on the expertise that is available in abundance in the private sector. It will receive considerable support from me and I have committed to providing funding up to a maximum value of €500,000 per annum for a period of five years to Animal Health Ireland, subject to matching contributions being provided by the industry. I believe Animal Health Ireland had an opportunity to make a presentation to this committee. The model that has been devised for the body is a subject of considerable interest in other countries. Animal Health Ireland is in contact with countries that wish to set up a similar model.
The measures that will be pursued by Animal Health Ireland can secure improved profitability for Irish farmers and international competitiveness of Irish livestock products through a co-ordinated national approach to animal health by industry and other service providers with support from Government. It is key to have industry leading on programmes and initiatives that benefit the sector, improving our disease status and, more fundamentally, improving performance and increasing profitability. It is a win-win situation for the industry in general, for the individual farmer and for the State.
It is appropriate, given the nature of the powers conferred by section 17A, that the Houses of the Oireachtas should have the opportunity to review them annually and consider the propriety of their being retained. Animal diseases pose a continuing, and in some cases a new, threat to animal and, potentially, human health. In the case of poultry they pose an economic threat to an important but vulnerable part of the agrifood sector and, in the case of cattle and sheep, to Ireland's enormously valuable livestock and dairy industries. I seek the committee's agreement for the retention of the provision and to the adoption of the resolution by both Houses. I do so because of a genuine belief that it is a necessary measure to have available to us.
I thank the Chairman, the spokespersons for the Opposition parties and all members of the committee for facilitating the Department in bringing this matter to the committee today.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. My party will support the retention of section 17A for a further 12 months. I looked at the Minister's speech of last year. The photocopier in the Department is obviously alive and well because today's speech is virtually a repeat of what was said last year. It is a pity the Minister did not consider the contributions of other members of the committee and the points raised last year for which there were no immediate answers. It is a slight to the committee that he should come with effectively the same script as last year but without having taken on board the points that were made at the time.
Specifically, there was a request for information on the level of usage of section 17A in the previous 12 months. How many times did officials use the provisions of the section? I raised that point, as did Deputy Sherlock and others. We are being asked to take a leap of faith, blindfolded. We need to have the most effective robust legislation to protect animal health and our agrifood sector. I will support every legislative initiative in that regard but I will not be made a patsy by the Department or the Minister by being asked to buy a pig in a poke, as is the case. Nobody has told us how critical section 17A is, how often it has been used and in what circumstances.
It is an insult to the committee for the Minister to come here today in this fashion when he need only have photocopied and sent on last year's speech. His speech today is a replica of last year's, with minor alterations. One of the more interesting of these is that in last year's speech the Minister told us, with great bells and whistles, that the change in BSE testing would save €8 million. He has corrected the figure today, stating it was only €4.5 million. I would like to know the reason but that is only incidental. As committee members we deserve the respect of having our contributions taken seriously. We are not here merely to rubber-stamp Government or Department requests.
I have other points to make. One concerns those personnel in the Department who are critical to the protection of animal welfare and herd health. There are consequences for the agrifood sector, especially the veterinary services in the Department. I wish to know the impact early retirement is having on the capacity of the Department to sustain and maintain the high level of vigilance which is required. What numbers of senior staff, in particular in veterinary areas, are opting for early retirement? Is there a likelihood that our capacity to protect herd health may be compromised by a flight from the Department driven by fear of lump sums being taxed or further reductions in salary that might adversely impact on pension entitlements, etc.? These are legitimate fears for people.
The regional veterinary laboratories are critical infrastructure to the Department. Notwithstanding Backweston, which is a tremendous jewel in the crown, I am concerned that the level of investment and updating in these laboratories leaves a lot to be desired. It is interesting to observe the conclusions of the Anderson report in the United Kingdom which arose from the foot and mouth disease outbreak. It concluded that every day's delay in reporting the foot and mouth disease outbreak cost the UK taxpayer £239 million.
We must have the relevant critical infrastructure and this involves both staff and appropriate laboratory testing facilities. As I understand it, we have six regional veterinary laboratories. The Minister referred to Animal Health Ireland. That body has been before the committee twice during my membership. Its last visit was only some weeks ago. It expressed concern about the infrastructure available to it that would deliver add-on testing facilities to bovine herds throughout the country on a fee-paying basis.
I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister on this issue but he appeared to indicate there was no problem. Animal Health Ireland, whose praises the Minister has sung, is concerned there is a certain impediment to its use of the regional veterinary laboratories. Is the Government committed to safeguarding that infrastructure of regional laboratories in the future? Will it put in place the necessary investment so that the laboratories can roll out additional initiatives on a fee-paying basis? I do not ask to get something for nothing. There is a host of other diseases, such as infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, IBR, Johne's disease and bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD, all of which require to have this infrastructure and the associated critical personnel. I seek assurance that the Department will safeguard that investment in personnel and regional veterinary laboratories to enable them to carry out those duties.
The former Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, appeared before the committee in my time and the Minister has come before this committee for a second year running. Therefore, for three years in a row a Minister or Minister of State has come before the committee to discuss the matter of section 17A. On each occasion, we have been informed that the animal health and welfare Bill is a high priority but it does not appear to be some three years later. It is not mentioned as a Bill to be published in the legislative programme for 2010. I suspect we will be back here again hearing the same speech from last year and the year before. I did not have time to check whether the speech was similar to the contribution by the former Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, on an earlier occasion. Where is the animal welfare Bill now and what is the delay in publishing it? I accept it is a significant undertaking. However, some three years later it has become a joke and I wish to know the position.
I support the provisions before the committee. I believe there is a degree of an ad hoc situation pertaining, which concerns me. I seek assurance that in the event of a new animal health and welfare Bill, these measures would be included on an annual basis; that there would be no need to review them, that there would be constant provision of such vigilance that will not have to be renewed annually; that we may take it this vigilance will be par for the course; that these powers are used where needed; and that there would be a requirement for reporting the way these powers are being used. However, we have no idea how badly these powers are needed. We do not know if they were used at all last year. To come before the committee today without such detail is an insult to the committee members.
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the committee. I refer to the animal health and welfare Bill. For the record, a charade is being played out here in respect of the animal health and welfare Bill. I have raised this issue on numerous occasions. I acknowledge that I have been offered briefings on the matter and it remains for me to organise those. That is a matter for me. However, it was included in the legislative programme and we seek to have it published with haste.
Will the Bill deal with non-farm animals and will an undertaking be given in respect of the treatment of horses? An issue is surfacing throughout the country at present whereby horses are being abandoned. It is particularly prevalent in the area of north Cork and I wish to see provisions in the Bill which would deal with that issue. I call on the Minister to respond in this regard.
I refer to section 17A and I agree with the provision. I believe a robust provision is necessary to deal with the health and welfare and the control of diseases of animals. If robust provisions are missing then one compromises the comparative advantage we have economically in respect of the production of food. Arguably, there is an authoritarian streak to the provision, but it is one with which I have no particular problem. If we do not have information about the number of incidents that occurred under the section 17A provision then the committee is left in the dark in respect of how we make an informed decision about whether to continue with it. While the Minister's party is in the majority and will decide the issue at the end of the day and I have no particular problem with section 17A, I remain concerned that a lack of knowledge exists in respect of it and I call on the Minister to talk us through the provision.
The Minister stated "where the exercise of the powers in section 17A are activated, an authorised officer must have a reasonable suspicion before acting. In the case of entry to a private dwelling, a search warrant is required". I call on the Minister to talk us through that process and to give some indication to the committee of how this has been enforced in the past 12 months.
It is high time the animal health and welfare Bill was introduced. I realise a significant number of issues attach to the Bill and its publication. I trust that when the provisions of the Bill dealing with non-farm animals are published they will include some provision in respect of or do something about the number of horses being slaughtered and left to die in public areas throughout the country, and that strenuous and strong provisions would be included in the Bill in this regard. I call on the Minister will speak to that issue in his reply.
I welcome the Minister and his officials, none of whom I really know, but they are very welcome. Section 17A is a very important tranche of legislation in respect of the protection of our animals and, in particular, the protection of the cattle industry in this country. It is very important to have such legislation but the way in which the powers are used is also very important. The measure should have the co-operation of the farmers whom it is supposed to protect. While I do not believe it is widespread, my experience informs me that in some cases it is being overused. This is the feedback I have received from some of my constituents. For anything to work properly and for the benefit of everyone, it should ensure the co-operation of the people it is intended to protect. However, it is important that some measure is in place and this is why I maintain we should keep it in place until we find something better.
I echo the point made by Deputy Sherlock in respect of the horse scene at the moment. What is taking place paints a very bad picture for the horse industry. We are noted as a people famous for our horses. Unfortunately, at the moment the horse industry is going through a very bad spell and it is no particular fault of the people who produce horses for various reasons, whether for racing or leisure. The industry is going through an especially bad time. Unfortunately, I guarantee that what is taking place will get worse in the coming months because it has been a bad year and there is not sufficient fodder.
We must tackle this issue head-on. It is very serious, especially since the animal welfare Bill is being put in place. The key is the way in which we tackle it. There is an opportunity to get the horse situation cleaned up once and for all. I suggest the Minister should consider putting a slaughter premium in place on a one-off basis. By doing so, the Minister could then put in place regulations such that we can get a handle on the breeding and keeping of horses once and for all. At the moment the issue is out of control. People should be obliged to hold a certain amount of land before being permitted to keep horses. It is no longer acceptable to have horses feeding along the side of the road. We are all aware that horses can break out from time to time from the place in which they are being kept. We must get our act right on this matter, we must put the necessary rules and regulations in place and enforce them. We must get our act together and get it right. We must put rules in place and enforce them. I suggest that as a one-off we set up a scheme to take out all of these unwanted horses so we can start again with proper regulations.
I welcome the Minister and the delegation. I have no difficult with accepting the deferment until March 2011 and beyond. The work being done by the Department is first class.
Will the Minister explain why we cannot have identification for horses? They are roaming everywhere, both pedigree and non-pedigree. Identification would address that problem. Can horses not be tagged? Deputies will have to clock in from next week and will probably be tagged in five years' time.
Rightly so.
We will press a button at the gate and the butler will zoom.
Animal health is a huge cost factor for the State and farmers. Blue tongue disease does not exist here yet and I congratulate the Department for that. Great work has also been done in TB eradication. I hope that discipline will be kept in place by farmers because lack of discipline causes animal disease, nothing other than blackguardism by a small number of farmers. What is the up-to-date position on brucellosis? A lot of excellent work has been done on that in the last few years. The status in Northern Ireland is different from that in the South. Why is that? It will affect us here.
Animal health is important for the success of the beef industry and live exports. Massive numbers of calves are being exported to Holland at present, which is excellent in that it gives farmers a stable income in the spring. Otherwise these calves would be a drag on the market and there would not be so many beef breeds like Friesian bulls, which are making good prices.
There is always the threat of exotic diseases, such as BVD and IVR. I am not happy with privatising those diseases to an agency headed by a semi-State private sector. The larger farmers are running this operation and they have their own agenda. They are major importers of stock. Where did these diseases come from? Northern Europe and Canada, which is from where leptospirosis came in with Holstein cattle. We have now IVR and BVD which will cost farmers a huge amount, with abortions and infertility if they are not tackled progressively.
There is a fine structure here and I am totally opposed to privatising these things because they belong to the State and the State should regulate these areas. There is a fine structure of regional laboratories throughout the country. It is about time they were merged into larger laboratories, with one in Munster, with a better service for farmers. It was fine in the old days when there were more farmers. Testing could be done and facilities made available for farmers. I do not object to money being charged but the laboratories are not properly manned at the moment. They are working at half cock. The laboratory in Cork is being transferred to Macroom but there is no problem with that. I am totally opposed, however, to the private sector advertising tests to farmers and ripping them off. Private laboratories are a rip off. This must be looked at.
Regulations must be put in place for imports. At present disease eradication is taking place in Sweden and many other northern European countries for BVDs and IVRs. There is a danger that cattle being rejected there will find their way to Ireland. They come from high yielding herds and they are good breeds that are not restricted. We cannot dodge this issue. Where did the diseases come from? They did not come from farmers, they were imported. We are an island surrounded by water and should be free from everything, we should have the best disease status in the world but we do not because of a lack of tight regulation. We kept blue tongue disease out so why can we not keep out the others?
Farmers involved in those organisations and agencies have an agenda. There are more ordinary farmers than the ten or 12 who think they run the country. That agency is not going to be a success. We questioned them here about imports but they had no agenda on imports, they had an agenda to look after themselves.
The Minister should take my points on board and this country should have a really disease-free status. That agency is another agency on top of many more agencies; it is worse than a quango, a quango is a fairly decent thing. Collective action must be taken in these areas otherwise the incomes of farmers will be destroyed by those exotic diseases. I want to hear about controls on imports. If there is a threat of imports from Sweden and Denmark and those countries that currently have an eradication programme in place, how can we identify it and what quarantine measures can be put in place? Is there a list of importers? I know fine herds in County Cork that have been written off because of BVD and IVR. Now there is vaccination and carrier animals, it is a dangerous area.
I remind members to be as brief as possible, we must conclude by 1.45 p.m.
My party and I will support the retention of section 17A in the interest of the farming community as a whole. I welcome that in the last year, the Department has only searched premises with search warrants. It was contentious for a number of years after the introduction of section 17A.
Ireland has secured brucellosis-free status. In the Six Counties, however, brucellosis is rampant in some areas, with a possibility that it will damage the credibility of the brucellosis-free status we enjoy. Is there a mechanism for working with the Department in the Six Counties to help it to eradicate that problem? It would be to the benefit of the entire economy.
The animal health and welfare Bill must be introduced as soon as possible. It is of huge importance, particularly for non-farm animals. The abandonment of horses because of the price structure will become a major problem. The likelihood of cruelty must be addressed.
I welcome and support the proposals.
I welcome the Minister and the officials. I also support the continuation of section 17A and I am delighted that is the case for all parties. I would like to see legislation introduced to make this permanent. Could the Minister push it through the Dáil as soon as possible so we do not have to do this every year?
It is vital that we control diseases. In Ireland we have a great track record in the control of diseases. This was proved with the foot and mouth outbreak. BSE and brucellosis are almost eliminated although we still have some problems with TB and the new diseases to which my colleague referred. Overall, it is imported cattle that bring in these foreign diseases. I compliment the Minister, the Department and everyone concerned on our disease-free status which is recognised worldwide. Long may it last.
In regard to the 24-month brucellosis test, if one did not have such a test on heifers and wished to send them to the factory for slaughter within, say, 30 months, is there any problem with that? Can they be sent to slaughter at any stage without the necessity to be tested for brucellosis? I would like clarification on that issue. Northern Ireland has been mentioned by Deputy Ferris but it does not have such a good record on brucellosis, in particular at the Border. Can we get better co-operation between Northern Ireland and ourselves on the eradication of brucellosis for the entire country in order that we can have an all-Ireland free status?
On the issue of fallen horses, horses in general and slaughter horses, I understand we shall have a presentation in a month's time to hear from an individual in Kilkenny, from whom I am getting a report which I hope to have within a week, on horses and the future of slaughter horses. There is a request that legislation in that area be amended. We will probably refer back to that area following the presentation. When I receive the report I will forward it to the Minister so that he may be aware of the concerns in the industry.
I am standing in for Deputy P. J. Sheehan and welcome the opportunity to raise a couple of issues that are relevant to the Border areas. Two others have already been mentioned, the problem of brucellosis north of the Border and any disease for that matter. What progress, if any, has been made to ensure an all-Ireland disease free status? I welcome the progress made on the eradication of brucellosis and BSE but there is still a hard core problem with TB. The Border is not a boundary as such and cattle can walk across or be taken across at any time.
When I became a Member, one of the first issues I raised with the former Minister of State, Deputy Edward O'Keeffe, was the importation of animals and the dangers therein. Johne's disease and all the other diseases came in as a direct result and it has caused many problems. There are many so-called good dairy herds with massive losses in abortions——
I was trying to help.
Please.
——not due to brucellosis but to other issues and cows not proven to be in calf. It is an issue and I hope Animal Health Ireland deals with it. I question whether it will happen.
I have no problem with the continuation of section 17A. One of the problems at present is getting access to Department officials on different areas. Normally Department officials are extremely good to us and very helpful to us as Deputies and individuals. However, ordinary farmers are seeking information and cannot get it. If there are deadlines to be met in regard to the nitrates directive and so on, they will have to be looked at in light of the present go-slow, work to rule or whatever one wishes to call it because farmers and farm families should not be the victims.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. In regard to the continuation of section 17A, I hope it will be dealt with under the animal health and welfare Bill which I hope will come to the House this year. It is vital it does given that agrifood production generates much employment and anything we can do to protect it should be done.
On the issue of BSE and as one who was involved in the meat business, it almost closed the beef industry in this country for many years. I am glad to note the rate and level of BSE continues to fall, with 23 cases reported in 2008 and only nine cases confirmed in 2009. So far in 2010 there has been just one case of BSE. I welcome that fact because it had a serious affect on beef consumption, not only here but across Europe. I welcome the fact that Ireland got brucellosis free status in 2009. That is a major help to many farmers.
I wish to raise a couple of issues before calling the Minister. Does section 17A include the use of illegal substances? Are there many cases of illegal substances being used on animals? What is the up-to-date position in the testing system for TB, from the old system to a blood sample system?
I thank the Chairman and members who have contributed and are in support of this provision. The animal health and welfare Bill is a major legislative work, the draft of which runs to 70 sections and 11 Parts. Very substantial work has been done on the Bill in the Department. The areas covered include the prevention, control and eradication of animal diseases, animal welfare, animal health and welfare levies, destruction and disposal of animals and products, compensation, insurance arrangements, assurance schemes, provisions to make regulations, authorised officers' provisions relating to offences and penalties, and miscellaneous provisions. The emphasis in the legislation is a change from simply prohibiting cruelty to prescribing conditions for the promotion of good animal welfare practices.
In regard to section 17A, which we are discussing, provision will be made in the Bill to enable us to have that particular provision without the necessity to come back to the Oireachtas every year. No search warrants were sought during 2009. The overwhelming majority of farmers would never have any cause to come into contact with this particular provision and the provision would never be exercised on the farm.
I understand there was coverage in the national newspapers recently of a case where that particular section was invoked and it led to a conviction. That case was initiated during 2008. The Director of Public Prosecutions has referred one case to the courts for further consideration. That case was also initiated in 2008. Three other cases were initiated in 2009 and are going through the process of analysis or decision. No decision has been taken in respect of those cases.
What is the nature of the cases?
There was a lot of misbehaviour, criminal activity in relation to movement of animals and the identity of animals being interfered with. That type of behaviour is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances in our farming community. The overwhelming majority of farmers want that type of small-scale misbehaviour rooted out for the good of the industry. It is a provision that is used very sparingly, but when it is used it is needed. That is the best judgment of the officials. What I have seen of it over the years is that it is very important the provision has been in place to be used.
The Chairman raised the issue of illegal substances. There is adequate provision in the Animal Remedies Act to cover such an eventuality.
Regarding the Northern Ireland position, unfortunately, the brucellosis problem is not as good north of the Border as it is here. Last year, particularly during July and August when we were considering relaxing the brucellosis requirements, some people in certain areas thought we should have been more ambitious and introduced greater relaxation measures. However, from speaking to farmers in my own county and in County Monaghan I am aware that they would have a different view. They agree with the changes and different requirements we brought in and would be strongly of the view that what we have done is correct because it provides adequate protection while reducing costs to the individual farmers and to the State. I met a large deputation of farmers in County Monaghan recently who expressed that view to me as well as their continued anxiety regarding disease and what happened on the Border over the years. Substantial progress has been made——
That is why I put the question.
Yes. The farming community would want all of us working in this sector to be vigilant and to ensure that the huge investment made by individual farmers and by the State is protected as well. When we seek new markets our industry, regardless of the sector within the agri-food sector, is always conscious that it can go to the foreign markets and speak in a positive vein about this country's disease status.
Deputy Creed complained about the speech not varying much from the previous year but the reality is that we are seeking to continue the same provision but substantial improvements were made regarding the cost to the State and the reduction in the incidence of disease, which is what this is all about. Thankfully, during the course of the year we were able to bring in a new regime for brucellosis as well as the BSE testing. They are all important improvements from the point of view of the individual farmer and the taxpayer.
With regard to Northern Ireland, there are strong working relationships between my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development north of the Border. No later than Monday last, three of our senior officials were in the department in Belfast for ongoing work on a number of issues about which we consult one another on a constant basis. A North-South ministerial meeting was held in November at sector level in regard to agriculture, rural development and fisheries and within the coming weeks I will meet the Minister, Ms Gildernew, and her officials regarding a number of issues. That is aside from regular official contact at all levels within the Department.
We are close to finalising the all-island animal and health strategy and we want to move that on. There is no delay on our side in that regard. We hope to progress that further at the meeting we will have in the coming weeks. Our desire is to bring it to finality, which is the desire of the department in Stormont also. We co-operate on a daily basis and that is the way it should be on a small island such as this one.
Deputy Creed referred to staff resources. Staff resources in the public service and in the Department are tight across the board. We assess them on an ongoing basis. We ensure that we have adequate staff in all locations to meet our obligations, both statutory and non-statutory, and we can assure the Deputy that will continue. Due to reorganisation and rationalisation of offices, which is necessary, some staff have been released in different disciplines as part of an efficiency drive. Some staff have opted for deployment to other Departments where they could get employment in the town in which they were previously employed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The resources are and will continue to be sufficient to meet our requirements. In the necessary redeployment of, say, veterinary staff and so on, we have ensured that all critical activities are prioritised first but we will ensure that we meet with all our obligations and that we provide adequate personnel to meet all the needs of the industry. We can be certain of that.
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe made some points regarding a number of diseases that cost individual farmers a considerable amount of money on an annual basis due to loss of productivity, etc. Very considerable resources have gone in to dealing with and preventing the notifiable diseases and we have now moved on to the non-notifiable diseases.
It has been shown clearly in other jurisdictions that the only model that has worked for dealing with commercial diseases is the animal health type model now being rolled out here. It is not a hand-over to the private sector. It is a partnership with the State. We are putting up 50% of the money for Animal Health Ireland this year and will continue to do so. It is not individual farmers who are contributing. The farm organisations, to their credit, are contributing to the work, as are the beef and dairy industries. It is the industry in general rather than individual farmers.
This organisation is in its infancy. The programme it has undertaken to date reflects the industry priorities and is flexible enough to respond to other issues of importance to farmers. This programme has only been rolled out in the past 12 months and I believe it will be of major benefit. Also, the programme's broad remit can be extended as it goes further. I welcome the early buy-in into this model by the industry and the farm organisations. It has been shown in other countries that this type of model has worked.
With regard to laboratories, I take the point that we are fortunate that we have extremely good facilities at Backweston — as good as those in any part of the world. Since Backweston opened in 2007, additional facilities have come on line and additional services will be provided there in the not too distant future. The regional laboratory review is almost complete and that will determine the future direction for the laboratories at regional level.
Representatives of a particular sector came to me on a different issue some weeks ago and they argued that they would like the laboratory and analysis work done in Backweston rather than in regional laboratories. A conflict can arise in that regard but we hope the review will enable us to determine the additional resources that will need to be provided at our regional laboratories as well. We will ensure, however, that the necessary support structures are in place and that appropriate structures will be maintained to support the essential needs to protect the food chain. The facilities in Backweston are a very good resource. I hope the regional laboratory review will be available shortly for determination.
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe raised the issue also of the importation of cattle. Stringent European Union regulations apply to the import of cattle. There is certification for imports. A limited number of diseases is provided for in certificates. Special rules were implemented in regard to blue tongue. All of us in this room have been conscious of the threat of blue tongue since 2008 and we have been diligent in ensuring we address that particular issue. I sent a strong letter to each herd owner in the country when the threat was high warning people of their duties. The Department does not import cattle; individual farmers do that. There is a responsibility on the industry and every participant in it to ensure they comply with all the regulations.
We are beneficiaries of the Single Market rules as a country within the European Union and members can be assured that as a Department we will continue to implement these rules as stringently as possible. Some people tell us we are too stringent and too rigid in implementing these rules but I assure the committee — and this is something Deputy Ned O'Keeffe spoke about previously — that we are conscious of the need to protect our herd and ensure it remains as disease free as possible. We are also conscious of trying to remain free of diseases we have not had previously in this country. There is no doubt about that. It is a critical issue.
With regard to the welfare of horses, the local authorities have responsibilities under legislation to deal with this issue. We provide funding to local authorities on an annual basis. We also provide funding to the animal welfare organisations, many of which do good work. Ms Barbara Bent, an official of the Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, spoke post-Christmas and outlined that the Department had been helpful, first, in providing funding to the local authorities and in providing funding to voluntary organisations. I take this opportunity to thank those volunteers for the excellent work they do. I visited some of the centres in Dublin and elsewhere and the commitment of those people in dealing with this issue is second to none.
The welfare of horses is an issue of which we are all conscious. I am not sure if Deputy Christy O'Sullivan or Deputy Sherlock asked if there was a requirement to register horses. Such a provision, applying to animals born after 2009, came into effect in July 2009. That would mean that an identity requirement does not apply to the greater population of horses.
I also wish to move forward on another issue as quickly as possible.
I advise the Minister that we are tied for time as we have to vacate this room in 1.45 p.m.
On the registration of premises for keeping horses, I wish to move forward and introduce that. It is the next issue on which we want to act.
I thought I had jotted down another point that was raised. Was any other issue raised to which I did not reply?
In response to a question raised by Deputy Christy O'Sullivan, I have no proposals nor will I have any to provide a subsidy to slaughter animals. I give a clear message on this, as I did prior to Christmas. Owners have a responsibility.
Hear, hear.
We are not an insurance department. We do not baby-sit horses or any other animals. I give a clear message to owners that they have a responsibility. The various voluntary organisations issue notices at Christmas time to the effect that a pet is not only for Christmas. People have responsibility for the animals they own. We will not have a slaughter premium for animals that are in bad health.
I will allow Deputies Creed, Sherlock and Christy O'Sullivan to ask brief supplementary questions. I will not hear any long speeches and if they make a speech, I will conclude the meeting. Another meeting is scheduled here for 2 p.m. and we will have to vacate the room at 1.45 p.m. as the people require 15 minutes to prepare for the next meeting.
I will be brief. I am alarmed at the question of a review of the regional laboratories. I urge the Minister to make haste very slowly. That is a code for closure.
It is not. It is a code for the future level of services or the upgrading of services that can be provided.
I welcome the Minister's comment. There is an increased role for them in the context of the points raised by Deputy Ned O'Keeffe in terms of IBR, BVD, Johne's disease and so on, blood testing and additional services to be provided.
The Minister did not comment on Deputy Crawford's point about the industrial relations problems in his Department. While I am straying from section 17A with regard to nitrates, there are farmers who need to submit nutrient management plans, the closing date for receipt of which is soon, and they cannot get through to the Department. The system will not work because of this. Therefore, we need an assurance from the Minister that there will be flexibility on all those issues.
I agree with the Minister's point about the responsibility of the owners of horses, of that there is no question. I also agree that the Minister and his Department have done their best on funding of local authorities. He has acknowledged the role played by animal welfare groups. I am in total agreement with the Minister on that point.
There is an issue regarding people who have not registered horses and who operate outside of registered premises. Acts of cruelty are being visited upon animals who have, for want of a better term, no fixed abode.
I ask the Deputy to be as brief as possible.
I seek the inclusion of some provision in the legislation that will put an onus on the owner, or will ensure that every horse has some identifiable marking, to ensure that the ISPCA and the local authorities will not be hampered in their work in dealing with incidents of acts of cruelty to animals. When they have to investigate incidents, they will be able to trace the animal back to the owner. That is my view on this issue.
I am disappointed by the Minister's attitude to this problem. It was never my intention that he would baby-sit the industry. We are talking about an industry that has been worth a great deal of money to this country in the past. I would not expect him to simply wash his hands of it at this stage.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of what it costs to register an animal properly. His Department might fill him in on the cost of registering an animal, microchipping it and completing the proper paperwork.
A light is flashing now, which indicates we should have concluded this meeting long before now.
It is a substantial sum of money. In the past, people have made an industry out of this. It is part of the farming industry, which is the Minister's responsibility. All I am trying to point out——
The Deputy will have to conclude.
We have an opportunity to regularise this industry once and for all, to ensure it operates properly, that this type of activity does not happen again and that every animal born is properly registered.
On a one-off basis, I suggest that we examine the possibility of taking these animals out of the equation, bringing them away to ensure that we will not have a picture——
The Deputy will have to conclude.
The Minister might reconsider that.
I welcome what the Minister said about the regional laboratories. I put forward a structure for them and suggested that Cork and Limerick could be grouped together, there could be one in Kilkenny and a central one in Munster. Farmers can bring dead animals to them for post mortem examinations. These laboratories have worked well in the past. The chief veterinary officer, Mr. Rogan, is well aware of how they operate from his private and public practices. They were fantastic in their day. They require more expertise and more veterinary surgeons. I do not expect there to be three of these laboratories in the one area, but we could have one or two of them. I am aware that the laboratory in Athlone is a specialist facility.
What has caused many of the problems in the horse industry is over-expansion of the racing industry, which is now declining.
I am not pleased about the privatisation of the management of exotic animal diseases. As the saying goes, far away cows have long horns. There are five or six such diseases and the agency involved advises us about them but those involved in it have a vested interest.
I ask the Minister to respond later to the Deputies' questions as time does not permit me to call him to respond now.
I have a brief question.
The Deputy can ask a question but there is not time for the Minister to respond.
The Minister did not answer my question about the 24-month brucellosis test and on TB blood testing.
Substantial work been ongoing in the Department with Enfer on a project to advance work on testing for TB. We do not get results from such research overnight. Major advances have been made on managing TB, brucellosis and BSE.
I appreciate Deputy Christy O'Sullivan made a detailed submission to the Department outlining the need for provision of assistance to slaughter animals that are "unwanted". We do not have the money to do that. I will not raise expectations that we would go down that route under any circumstances. The Deputy made a detailed submission on this to the Department and spoke to officials and to me. I appreciate that and acknowledge that it is not today nor yesterday that he raised this issue.
We provided money to the voluntary organisations to re-home horses. Our district veterinary officials have been active working with the Garda Síochána and the local authorities in assisting in this. We are doing that although it is outside our remit as such. We have put those additional resources in place. Deputy Seán Sherlock makes the valid point that horses are now being microchipped and we will register the premises. We want to reach a position as soon as possible whereby if an animal is on the road, the animal and its owner can be traced immediately.
Can I take it that the joint committee recommends that there should be no further debate on the motion by Dáil and Seanad Éireann? Agreed. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting. That concludes our consideration of the motion.