Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept the amendments. I understand what the Deputy says but this legislation deals with animal health and welfare in Ireland. I do not believe that my Department possesses the resources that would allow it to make the kind of assessments relating to other countries that the Deputy is seeking before we determine whether animals can be exported to such countries. The system we use in the context of live cattle exports is a good example in this regard. We have in place the tightest veterinary regulations in Europe in respect of the shipping of live cattle. As an alternative to selling them into factories, we will potentially be in a position to avail of new markets in respect of the export of cattle as early as next month. From the point of view of price, this will be a good development.

However, we need to ensure that the welfare of those animals is protected by the State. Some people have contacted me expressing frustration about this because they seek to simply apply the regulations required at a European level for the shipping of live cattle. We apply those regulations but also a good deal more on top of those, which makes it a little more expensive to export live cattle from Ireland in terms of the stability of ships. If animals are being shipped from Spain to Morocco or from Italy to Algeria, they will be transported across the Mediterranean, which is a relatively calm stretch of water. It is a very different scenario to ship live cattle from Waterford to Libya across the Bay of Biscay in the middle of January or February. In that context one would need a ship with the capacity to deal with that type of weather and to ensure the cattle would not be thrown around or be at risk of breaking a limb or other serious welfare concerns. I will not stand over any serious welfare risk in the exporting of live animals but we will try to do everything we can to facilitate that market if people want to exploit it, and there are opportunities for doing that. If we do that, we have an obligation to ensure the welfare of those animals is prioritised in their transport. We have done a good deal of work to get that balance right and I believe we have got it right.

We live on an island and produce enough beef for ten times our population, or maybe more. We export primarily processed meat to 167 countries. It is important for us to keep open the option of live exports as well to ensure, as some people would say, the factories are kept honest. This is particularly important when there are concerns and accusations about a significant price differential between Ireland and the UK, for example, in terms of cattle prices. The option of live cattle exports is one I want to facilitate and we are working with people to facilitate it, but I will not compromise on the welfare issue. That means that for some people it will be more expensive to export, but so be it; they need to put a business case together. If we were to have a significant welfare incident, apart from being unacceptable in its own right, it could well lead to the introduction of more regulation at European level, which might prevent live cattle exports in the future.

This is about getting the balance right between commerce and our responsibilities with regard to animal welfare. We should not go down the route of trying to establish in law requirements in respect of the country that will be buying or facilitating these animals, whether the trade is in greyhounds, cattle, horses or dogs. I do not have the resources to find out about conditions in a country the size of some of the countries to which we export. I understand what the Deputy is saying but I would like to rely on a common-sense approach rather than try to legislate for what the Deputy is seeking in her amendment. It is too difficult to do that.