Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the officials from the Department. I almost feel like saying I will break with tradition as we are on the one page this evening. Usually I come out combative. I accept the Department's report and I welcome the fact that it highlights and sees the issues that could pertain to Ireland as an island nation. Maintaining our access to the Common Market and being on a level playing field is important.

I have a couple of questions. I will not backtrack on what I said about us being on the one page but I want to highlight some of the issues that are of most concern to me for the information of the Department. The one thing that jumped out at me when I read the documentation was the reference to calves of under five weeks or 50 kg not being able to travel more than 100 km. The Cathaoirleach is a dairy farmer in Thurles. I am a beef farmer in Kilbeggan. They are not 100 miles apart but they are more than 100 km apart. If I were to buy the Cathaoirleach's calves, to fatten them or for whatever reason, if the legislation comes through calves could not travel from Thurles to Kilbeggan until they were five weeks old or over 50 kg. I do not know who came up with this one as it will affect all member states in the same way with regard to internal trading.

Senator Lombard is a dairy farmer in Cork. There are parts of Cork that his calves would not be able to see until they were more than five weeks old. They would not leave the county as it would be illegal for them to travel. Exports aside, this would kill what we are trying to do in our own country and in our own system in promoting, enhancing and increasing the possibility of dairy beef calves. I am a suckler farmer but in an ideal world the Department would be advocating for me to rear the Cathaoirleach's calves as opposed to having my own suckler cows. I would have thought this to be the case until I saw this. If the calves cannot travel from Thurles to Kilbeggan until they are more than five weeks old, it will kill the possibility of a dairy-calf-to-beef system unless it would happen on the same farm. I cannot see dairy farmers doing this. This jumped out at me as something we would have to change. I would be very surprised if other member states did not have the same problem with this as there are far bigger countries.

When speaking to Senator Boyhan, the witnesses elaborated to an extent on the process going forward but I would like them to speak more on it. I know they cannot tell me definitively but this is not Mr. Blake's first rodeo. How successful have we been in similar situations in the past with getting changes or getting our agenda, stamp, or message across to the powers that be who come up with a draft? Do they take consideration of the fact we are an island nation? I am not asking whether we get favourable decisions but is it taken into consideration? Other than Malta there is a land mass. Surely it is not just in the scenario of the transport of animals that being an island off the coast of the land mass makes a difference. There is bound to be a range of other areas. Does it get due consideration? Will there be consideration? The witnesses know from their experience in previous negotiations in similar circumstances. I ask them to comment on this. I presume in preparation for the process going forward the Department has been speaking to officials and colleagues in other states. What feedback have they got? For want of a better phrase, are the same alarm bells ringing in other countries? Is it being welcomed with open arms in other countries?

Do the witnesses have any information on the statement that the Commission carried out a fitness check of EU animal welfare legislation to date? What findings therein prompted the need for the changes or the new regulations? I can speak as a farmer, a member of the committee and a member of the community I live in. We are all very cognisant of animal welfare in this day and age. We all strive to have the best possible facilities and conditions for animals, be it through husbandry or in transport. I know we had a few rogue cases, which we dealt with here and they were highlighted on television programmes. They were minimal. We will always have rogues and we need to stamp them out. They are not acceptable and cannot be condoned in any way. From the evidence I have seen, I do not think there would be a need for the knee-jerk reaction that seems to have happened based on the fitness check. Do the witnesses have any information on what came up in this and why it was felt there was a need to make the changes?

I want to reiterate what previous speakers have said, in particular with regard to space for calves. When the regulation comes in, will it come with a purse? As Deputy Collins said, a triple-decker calf lorry costs a fair penny to put on the road. If hauliers have to revert to a double-decker, their income will get an enormous knock as they are probably paid per head. If they get a big financial hit without compensation, they will go out of business. Irrespective of what regulation is there, we will not have people to haul the cattle. I have said on record in recent weeks that if our live export trade is damaged to the extent these proposals have the potential to do, there will be a bigger hit for agriculture in Ireland than the loss of derogation. I firmly believe this. With no hauliers, it is gone. If they are not compensated, they will not stay in business and they will be gone. Has this been considered? Is there a purse along with this to compensate people who will end up at a loss through no fault of their own but through change in regulations? I will leave it at that for now and I reserve the right to come back in.