Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 24 April 2024
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals (Resumed)
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Apologies have been received from Deputy Kerrane. Before we begin, I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones. I wish to bring the following to the attention of those attending. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means they have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by them of any matters arising from the proceedings outside the proceedings held by the committee.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in the committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in a member having their online access removed.
The purpose of today’s meeting is further scrutiny of EU legislative proposal COM (2023) 770 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. The committee will hear from the following representatives from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Mr. Martin Blake, chief veterinary officer; Ms Lorna Meaney, senior superintending veterinary inspector; and Mr. Aidan Cahill, superintending veterinary inspector. They are all very welcome to the meeting. Their opening statement has been circulated to members. I will now allow for the reading of the opening statement, after which we will proceed into a question and answer session.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to address the committee on this important topic, the EU COM (2023) 770 proposal on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. I am senior superintending veterinary inspector with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I am joined by my colleagues, Mr. Martin Blake, chief veterinary officer, and Mr. Aidan Cahill, superintending veterinary inspector. We are pleased to be here and I hope we can assist the members of the committee in their evaluation of these draft proposals.
The background to this is that Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 provides the current legislative basis for the regulation of the transport of live animals. While this was excellent legislation that vastly improved welfare standards at the time of publication, advances in science and technology in the past 20 years and consequent changes in societal values require that it be updated. Since 2019, several EU Council conclusions highlighted the need for higher animal welfare standards when animals are moved in the context of an economic activity. In 2022, following a report by the European Parliament inquiry committee on animal transport, that is, the ANIT committee, the European Parliament adopted its recommendation on the protection of animals during transport and recommended revision of the transport regulation.
The European Commission carried out a fitness check of the EU animal welfare legislation, which was finalised in 2022. It commissioned an impact assessment, conducted public consultation and engaged with a variety of stakeholders, including business operators, NGOs, citizens and national authorities. It also commissioned a report from the European Food Safety Authority on animal welfare at transport, which was published in September 2022 and made recommendations based on the best scientific evidence available. The Commission announced its intention to revise the EU legislation on animal welfare as part of its work programme and, in December 2023. published a legislative proposal on draft new rules on protection of animals during transport to replace Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005. This text will now be subject to inter-institutional scrutiny in the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure, which will take many months, before a final text is agreed and passes into EU law.
This legislation is of particular interest to Ireland. As an island member state on the geographical periphery of Europe, Irish business operators face specific challenges in accessing and trading within the Single Market. Trade involving long-distance transport of animals has additional challenges in that we are dealing with sentient beings. That said, Irish business operators have a long tradition with intracommunity trade of animals and export outside of the EU.
Having published the legislative proposal in December last, the Commission presented the proposal to member state experts at a meeting in December. The file has not advanced any further in the intervening period. The Belgian Presidency has prioritised its work programme and has chosen to advance discussions of the proposal relating to the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability.
Moving on to the proposed legislation, it is extensive legislation with much technical detail. I propose to highlight a number of the most relevant articles or elements in the proposed legislation that are new and that may impact significantly on the current system.
First, regarding the definitions at the start of the legislation, a new definition is proposed for "place of departure". The new proposal defines "place of departure" as either the place where an animal has been accommodated for at least a week prior to departure and where it is first loaded onto a means of transport, or an assembly centre if the animal has been collected within a distance of no more than 100 km. A derogation in the current legislation that allows livestock to be transported for longer than 100 km to an assembly centre if they are rested for at least six hours will no longer apply.
Article 14 proposes an increase in responsibility for the organisers of long journeys. They will be responsible for ensuring compliance from journey start to end, including destinations in third countries.
Article 15 proposes that journey logs for all long journeys and short journeys to third countries, transport authorisations, certificates of competence and vehicle approval certificates will be fully digitised and managed through the trade control and expert system, TRACES, computer platform.
Article 16 proposes that transporters submit online journey logs through the TRACES platform for short journeys within the Union. These will not require approval by the competent authority.
Article 19 proposes that drivers must check the animals being transported at least every 4.5 hours during transport to assess their welfare and fitness for transport. This is to align with rest stops that must be taken by drivers under road safety rules.
Article 21 proposes a requirement for the transporter to designate an animal welfare officer who must travel on the vessel with the animals on long journeys by sea.
Article 24 proposes that the means of transport by road must be equipped with a positioning system which will be required to communicate with an automated system connected to the TRACES system.
Article 25 proposes an obligation for all unloading after both long and short journeys to be supervised by a veterinarian.
Article 27 proposes the maximum allowable journey time to be limited to two cycles of 21 hours, comprising ten hours' driving, one hour's rest on the truck and ten hours' driving, with unloading and a rest period of 24 hours between each cycle. The maximum journey stage time currently allowed for weaned animals is of unlimited cycles of 29 hours, comprising 14 hours' driving, one hour's hour rest on the truck and 14 hours' driving, followed by unloading and a 24-hour rest period. That can go on in repeated cycles.
Article 28 proposes that transport of animals other than birds and rabbits to slaughter may only be on journeys of less than eight hours unless there is no slaughter facility available for the species within that radius. Transport of poultry to slaughter cannot be more than 12 hours except in the case of end-of-lay hens, which cannot be transported for longer than ten hours.
Article 29 proposes a maximum eight-hour journey time for unweaned calves but, by derogation, a journey of nine hours' driving time, followed by a one-hour rest without unloading, followed by another nine hours' driving can be allowed if the lorry has an approved feeding system with the ability to feed calves on milk replacer without unloading. Provision is to be made by future implementing Acts of the Commission to set up a legal mechanism for approving in-truck feeding systems.
Article 29 also proposes that unweaned calves and other mammals must be provided with ad libitumaccess to water and fed with appropriate milk replacement at nine-hour intervals. Time spent travelling at sea will not be counted as journey time but unweaned animals must be fed on milk replacer every nine hours from the start of the journey.
Article 31(2) contains new proposed rules on transport during hot and cold temperatures that are more complex than those in EU Regulation No. 1/2005 and are based on meteorological predictions rather than on temperature monitoring inside the vehicle as at present.
Article 32 proposes that journey logs for transport by livestock vessel to third countries can only be accepted when an attestation of acceptance of documentation has been received from the third country of destination, that is, the official veterinarian of the competent authority at the seaport of destination has declared that the documentation received provides adequate animal health and welfare guarantees and complies with the requirements applicable to the import into the country of destination.
Article 33 proposes a requirement to establish an independent certification body to evaluate the first journey to a third country arranged by an organiser. The certification body may issue a certificate for transport of animals to third countries to the organiser if satisfied that the transport has taken place in accordance with the regulations.
Paragraph 1(h) of annex 1, chapter I proposes that calves of less than five weeks of age and weighing less than 50 kg are considered unfit for transport of distances greater than 100 km. Similarly, there is a three-week age requirement for piglets, lambs and kids being transported for greater than 100 km.
Paragraph 6 of annex 1, chapter III proposes additional vertical height headroom per animal during transport. This will reduce the number of animals that can be transported in certain situations.
Annex 1, chapter VII proposes very specific additional space per animal based on average weight per animal during transport. This increases substantially the space required per animal when compared with the current situation. For instance, the requirement set out in respect of a calf of 50 kg is approximately 50% more space than currently set down.
There is a proposed transition period of five years for changes in respect of the measures on transport positioning systems, journey times, rest periods, feeding and watering intervals, and minimum age and weight for unweaned calves. The proposal comments that a five-year transition period is envisaged for requiring feeding of milk replacer to unweaned calves during transport as, despite recent technological developments, effective systems for feeding calves on the trucks are not in general use and member states need time to restructure their industry.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine welcomes the greater clarity and modernity of the proposed legislation but nevertheless has concerns about some aspects which will no doubt be discussed and debated when the matter is brought forward for discussion during the inter-institutional discussions. There are significant areas in the proposal where greater clarity is required. Those areas include the mechanism for approval of feeding systems for unweaned calves, certification bodies and how they will be approved, the scope of the proposals on space allowance and vertical height headroom and whether they apply to both long and short journeys, etc. These issues will no doubt be clarified once discussions on the proposals get under way.
If enacted as currently written and to the extent we understand their intent, the proposals would impact significantly on current arrangements for the transport of animals across the Union. Some issues will be common to all member states while others may impact on some states more than others. These matters will be clarified, debated and negotiated on as part of the inter-institutional engagement.
The Department's primary and overarching objective is to ensure that while continuing to advance and protect the welfare of animals being transported, Irish businesses have access to the Single Market just as businesses in other member states and are not disadvantaged in so accessing the Single Market. In this regard, it is important that new transport rules recognise Ireland’s particular geographical circumstances and the right of its businesses to have full access to the Single Market in the same way as business operators in other member states. Our focus will be on seeking to deliver legislation that ensures high welfare intra-community transport and trade in animals and the export of animals outside the Union.
The Department has identified and shared the main proposed changes with the key stakeholders, namely, the farming bodies, marts and industry, through the calf stakeholder forum and with the live exporter associations and have sought their feedback. The Minister has also written to Commissioner Kyriakides outlining key strategic concerns. Officials have had engagement with the Commission.
I again thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for the opportunity to address them on this matter which is of critical importance to Ireland. I hope I have given members of the committee a good overview of the proposed changes to the animal welfare in transport regulations. My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms Meaney for her comprehensive report. As she rightly said, this proposal is of critical importance to Ireland, which, except for Malta, is the only island member state of the European Union and, therefore, changes to the requirements for live exports would have a profound impact.
I will raise two points before I go to other committee members. One of the proposed changes is to the space required on a lorry. That will add greatly to the cost of transport. Calves being exported at the moment are achieving low prices and adding extra costs will make it uneconomical to transport them. While technically we will have access to the market, will it be economically viable to transport calves? That is a question that needs to be answered. If these kinds of space requirements are imposed, there is a strong argument that there should be compensation. Perhaps "compensation" is the wrong word but there should be an allowance per calf to meet the cost of the transport if we are serious about having a Single Market that is available to all member states. The changes to the space allocations on lorries would have a significant impact.
If I correctly heard what Dr. Meaney said, the tiers on lorries could be reduced from three to two, which would have a significant impact on the capacity of lorries. That would have a considerable economic impact on the cost of exporting calves.
I do not know how practical it is to feed milk replacer to calves during transport. They will all have come off different diets. Some will have been on whole milk on farms, etc. The impact on the stomachs of the calves could be significant. Would it not be more sensible to have a system where electrolytes rather than milk replacer would be fed on the journey? Dr. Meaney also talked about weight and age restrictions. Surely calves of that age with electrolytes for a certain amount of hours would arrive to their destinations in a healthy state. I am not sure that changing their diets in such a way, and then changing them again when they arrive at their destinations, would be in the interest of calf welfare. Putting my farmer hat on, I have grave concerns that would not work in practice. Those changes would have a severe impact.
I compliment our guests on their detailed analysis of the proposal and thank them for it.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome Ms Meaney, Mr. Blake and Mr. Cahill. This is a complex proposal and I thank them for setting it out and going through it for us.
It was circulated to us. Many of us printed it off and read it and I have taken some notes. I want to tease out some issues for greater clarity. I do not propose to go through all of the various articles in it but have picked out a few for mention.
At the outset it is important to remind ourselves that the Department demands the highest standards of animal welfare at every stage of an animal's life, including during transport. We all know that in this House but for people who are listening to this debate on "Oireachtas Report" tonight or reading about it on Agrilandtomorrow, it is important that we make that message clear. The Minister has continuously reinforced the practical, administrative and legislative measures needed to protect animal welfare. He has been very much driven to protect animal welfare at every stage of the process since he became Minister and it is important to acknowledge that. I want the message to go back, loud and clear, to him and to the Department that I acknowledge the good work being done.
The reality is that we are members of the European Union and are part of a bigger club. We talk about simplification and over-regulation but this is anEU proposal,COM(2023)770, related to the protection of animals during transport and related operations. That is a fact. Let us not run away from the facts. That is what we have to embrace and deal with here. The Commission announced its intention to propose EU legislation on animal welfare as part of its work programme in December 2023. That was flagged to us. We were notified of it and all stakeholders should know about it at this point. We know that the published legislation for this proposal was advanced through the new draft rules for the protection of animals and transport regulations.
As outlined by our guests, the text will now be subject to inter-institutional scrutiny, as per the EU's ordinary legislative procedures, which will take many months. There is a long trajectory to all of this. I ask our guests to outline the inter-institutional scrutiny process. I will outline my other queries and if they can, I ask that our guests would assist us. They have said that this is extensive legislation that is very technical in nature, which I acknowledge. In that context, their assistance to this committee in terms of navigating this process is very important.
A number of articles were referenced in the Department's overview of this proposal. Article 15 proposes that journey logs be kept for both long and short journeys to third countries. I do not have a difficulty with that. The reality is that it is required and I do not think anyone would have a difficulty with it. The logs will be linked through TRACES, the trade control and expert system computer platform. I presume that is already up and running but I ask our guests to confirm that is the case with TRACES and to outline how it works. Article 21 proposes a requirement for the transporter to designate an animal welfare officer who must travel on the vessel with the animals on long journeys by sea. The person designated is not a veterinarian but an animal welfare officer and I see no difficulty there. In fact, as far as I know, that is established practice already. I do not think it is altogether new but our guests might clarify that. Article 24 deals with the TRACES system in the context of road transport and I would like to have a greater understanding of how all of that works. What are the cost implications?
Article 25 proposes an obligation for all unloading, after both long and short journeys, to be supervised by a veterinarian. Why do we need a veterinarian for this? They are in-demand and highly qualified people and I am not sure we need them to do this work. Can we opt out of that or can we suggest that an animal welfare officer or a veterinary technician could do this work? I have long advocated for the role of veterinary technician. We are hung up on veterinarians and half of the time we cannot get them around the country. Now, suddenly, veterinarians are meant to be all over the place. I mean no disrespect to veterinarians. I am impressed by them and would have loved to be one myself but there are cost implications if we require all unloading to be supervised by veterinarians. Can veterinarians be substituted? Is it open to us to make a case for an animal welfare officer or veterinary technician to do this work? I would like to know if that is possible. Article 33 proposes a requirement to establish an independent certification body to evaluate the first journey to a third country. I would like to hear some more about that and how it will work. Who is going to provide the independent certification and what are the requirements there? I ask our guests to tease that out a little.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has concerns about some aspects of these proposals. Our guests have said that they will be discussed, debated and brought forward through the inter-institutional scrutiny process. I would like to hear about some of those concerns in advance of that. There are "significant areas" in the proposals that require greater clarity, according to Ms Meaney. I ask her to flag her concerns to us. In her submission she said that there is a need for greater clarity and I would like to hear some of the issues on which she would like greater clarity.
Ms Meaney said that the Department has identified and shared the main proposed changes with the key stakeholders. That is impressive. I am delighted to know that the Department has engaged with farming bodies, marts and the wider industry through the calf stakeholder forum and with the live exporter associations, and sought their feedback. I ask them to indicate when that process of engagement started and when the feedback was received. If our guests have any of that feedback to hand, they might share it with the committee, if not tonight then in the next few days. I am really interested in hearing about the feedback from stakeholders. The stakeholders are vital for the success of agriculture and the success of the export market. They have their boots on and are on the ground. They know their business and it is in their interest to make it a success. It is really important that we have feedback on the engagement with the stakeholders.
The Department told us tonight that the Minister has written to the Commissioner to outline his key strategic concerns, which is great. The Minister has clearly done an exercise on this with departmental officials and advisers and has concerns about the strategic nature of all of this and as a committee, we need to know what are those concerns. It would be helpful for us, in understanding this, to have an outline of the key strategic concerns that the Minister has expressed to the Commissioner. Ms Meaney also said that departmental officials have engaged with the Commission and I am interested in hearing more details on that.
The reality is that this is coming down the track. The Cathaoirleach has outlined the importance for us of successful agricultural trade and costs are a factor in any trade. We have to understand those costs. We have to know what the problems are before we can come up with solutions to fix them. I ask our guests to elaborate on the stakeholder engagement because that is important. I am glad it has happened and I really want to hear what the stakeholders had to say. My questions are quite wide-ranging but if our guests cannot address them all now, perhaps they could provide a supplemental note to the committee in the coming days. That would be very helpful. I thank our guests for coming here tonight.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
I will start with the inter-institutional process and where things go from here. The draft proposals have been made and will be discussed at European Council and European Parliament level. At Council level working party sessions will be set up where experts from all member states will discuss these proposals and try to come to and agree a common position on the articles. I would stress the fact that at the moment this is a draft proposal. It is not set in stone and there will have to be agreement across the member states on it. There will be much debate, I would imagine, on a lot of these articles at the working party meetings to find this common position and it is likely to be a slow process. It will also be discussed at Parliament level and once consensus is reached at Council and Parliament, it can then proceed to be enacted. If consensus cannot be reached then it has to go through a conciliation committee and again, that will take time. That committee will strive to come to a common position on it. If that is successful, it can go forward to be voted on again in the Parliament and at Council. That is basically how it works but I would stress that this is at a very preliminary stage. These are draft proposals and it is likely to take some time for them to be finally agreed.
I will move on now to the question about TRACES, the trade control and expert system computer platform.
Currently, it is used to apply official controls to our imports. Our imports must be notified through it. We use it to produce our intra-community trade certificates. We now use e-certification on that system to certify our live animals within the European Union.
Unfortunately, it is not very clear in the legislation how TRACES will do this. That is all to be agreed and decided on by the Commission. It is therefore difficult to give the Senator any idea about the administrative burden or the costs to the Department of agriculture and to industry in relation to this. It is very hard to say, but I will say that transport authorisations, certificates of competence and vehicle approval certificates are all currently paper-based. One would think that moving to digitised system should reduce the administrative burden. It would probably be much more efficient and would make it much easier to enforce these.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about the designated animal welfare officer?
Ms Lorna Meaney:
It is not a legal requirement at the moment to have a designated animal welfare officer onboard the vessel. However, in the programme for Government, we committed to increasing the veterinary presence on board the long-distance journeys that take place by sea. We are moving towards having a veterinary inspector on more consignments to third countries.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry to cut across Ms Meaney. I ask her to confirm if she is keeping records of that. Is that part of the programme for Government? This was an agreement. Is the Department monitoring that? Is the Department keeping any sort of handle on the number of animal welfare officers travelling on these journeys?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay, it is a veterinarian. That goes back to the same old story.
Mr. Martin Blake:
I wish to clarify that at the moment the domestic commitment that was made by the Government is to put veterinarians on some of the vessels that go to third countries. The EU’s proposal is to now have animal welfare officers across the Union. The decision to have an official veterinarian on our ships at the moment is a domestic one. It is therefore not an EU requirement.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can the representatives explain the difference between a veterinarian and a welfare officer? Is a welfare officer a veterinarian?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is therefore a different grade.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is an interesting observation. A welfare officer is the European option, but the Government’s preferred option is to have a veterinarian. We have elicited that from today’s proceedings. That is interesting.
Mr. Aidan Cahill:
Yes, Article 33. This is a very good question. I want to emphasise that this is a draft that was produced by a unit within the Commission. It is a very early draft. The Commission has emphasised this in its communications with us as well. The next steps that take place in the Council will be very decisive, and we and all the other member states will make our views clear.
In terms of the independent certification body, the idea is for it to be an independent third party to scrutinise the first journey to a non-EU country. If, for instance, animals are sent to a country in Africa, the certification body will probably place one of its officers on the voyage. It will perhaps scrutinise the welfare impact on the animals while they travel, as well as the conditions in the third country. Yet, this is not currently specified in the legislation. This will all have to be debated and refined before it is finalised.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
Regarding the engagement with the stakeholders, we met with the farming bodies, marts and industry, which were all represented at the calf stakeholder forum. A presentation was made on the proposed changes to the legislation. That was before Christmas, although I do not have the date. After Christmas, in late January, we had a meeting with the live exporters. We made a similar presentation on the proposals, and we are still awaiting-----
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has the Department had feedback from any of them?
Mr. Aidan Cahill:
I will come in on that. I want to flag that the process of working towards this legislation has been ongoing for a number of years. It was first announced as part of the farm-to-fork initiative. A mandate was sent to the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, by the Commission two or three years ago. It produced its scientific opinion which has formed the basis of much of this legislation. At every stage along the line, we flagged this to our stakeholders and consulted them to hear their views. We marked their cards, one might say, regarding what we think might end up in the legislation so that we can be clear of their position and so they can inform our position. We have been consulting with them for three years. We meet with them directly, as well as through the calf stakeholder forum. We meet with them under the auspices of Bord Bia’s annual meeting on animal welfare during transport. We network with them at quite a significant level.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Would it be possible for the Department to share a summary of those concerns with the committee at some point? It would be helpful to us. We are a long way out from this and we have a lot of time, but it would be helpful for us to understand the concerns of the stakeholders, with whom we engage as a committee anyway. That would be helpful.
Finally, just to finish, there is the issue of the concerns of the Minister, as well as his engagement with the Commission on the legislation. Is the Department in a position, although maybe not today, to share those concerns? Again, that would give us a greater understanding. Sometimes it is comforting to know that we are on the same sheet as the Minister. It would be helpful to know the Minister’s official line on that. The Department might share some of that. It might need to touch base with the Minister's office. Yet, it would be helpful if we could understand those concerns, because then the loop would be complete. We would then fully understand the challenges, tasks and concerns.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
Yes, we can share that with the committee. The letter to the Commissioner pointed out that some members of our industry are quite dependent on access to the Single Market and intra-community trade in live animals. We have a strong record in ensuring good welfare standards in Ireland and, while we support the changes, we do not want to disadvantage our industry vis-à-vis other member states. We want Irish farms and farm families to have equivalent access to the Single Market, just as other farms and farm families have in other countries.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I call Deputy Michael Collins.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses. Based on the information that has been provided, we have spoken to some of the hauliers that are concerned. We have asked them for a report on what is happening and what their concerns and issues are. There was an inspection last week on 17 April 2024 in Cherbourg and it must be pointed out that no animal welfare issues arose during this inspection. These hauliers feel they are being targeted for extra inspections followed by on-the-spot fines and extra costs, as indicated by the emails.
I need to apologise on behalf of Deputy Fitzmaurice, who is unable to be here today and asked me to raise some of these questions. Last Wednesday, on 17 April 2024, one of the Irish trucks was among nine other Irish livestock trucks preparing to board an Irish Ferries sailing from Cherbourg in France to Dublin. When the lorries were a few hundred metres from the boat, they were signalled by officials in yellow high-visibility jackets. The nine Irish livestock trucks were among all the other vehicles waiting to get onto the ferry. The Irish officials seemed to know the trucks they were looking to single out and pointed them out to the French.
It later transpired that three officials who pointed out the trucks to the French authorities were Irish and from the Road Safety Authority, RSA. At no time did these Irish officials identify themselves, despite being asked by some of the drivers, which indicates some bully-boy tactics. It is astonishing to think that Irish officials are on the other side. There were still no animal welfare issues here. On-the-spot fines were handed out to the Irish hauliers, which had to be paid before the drivers were let go. These fines ranged from €1,500 up to €12,500. One haulier alone had to pay €7,500. Again, there were no animal welfare issues here. The fines were for minor offences but they were charged multiple times. For example, for one single infringement that is normally €175, a haulier was done 18 times, which came to €3,150 for that haulier. This had a knock-on effect back home, as the trucks had missed their sailings back to Ireland and, therefore, could not be back to reload livestock to go back to Europe. There was no consideration for animal welfare here.
Another matter to point out is why the Minister for Transport has sent Irish officials from the RSA to a foreign country to penalise Irish trucks, again, where there were no animal welfare penalties, on foreign soil. The fines had to be paid to the French Government so it cost the Irish taxpayer thousands and thousands of euro. The animal welfare guidelines are not in line with the driving regulations; therefore, to ensure the safety and welfare of the animals, drivers have to go over their regulated driving hours. This only happens with calves. Everything else can be done quite legally as regards driving hours. This can be solved by exporters organising another lairage for calves. It means a trip will take one day longer. However, it also means drivers can keep their driving hours right and calves would be in a better condition when getting to the final destination, as they would be more hydrated and healthier.
The Chairman said this is becoming uneconomical. This is a very true fact as to what is happening out there. The haulier is in serious trouble. It is costing him tens of thousands of euro to come back. It is an insane situation to see Irish officials flying to France to dictate to Irish drivers on the French side. That is what it looks like. Some people have power above all. It looks like that is what is happening here. How will we make it fair to the haulier and the animal? As I keep saying, there were no animal welfare issues in respect of this issue. It was basically about infringements on hours. Hauliers are trying to meet the criteria set on this side but this means there are probably infringements on the other side. We do not have an animal welfare issue but a haulier issue. It will make it uneconomical and will end up with these hauliers being unwilling or unable to take these calves abroad. How do the officials think they will manage or work to make sure that this is streamlined? Is there a possibility this can be solved by exporters organising another lairage for calves?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A vote has been called. We will suspend and wait until we come back for the answer.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No. We have to suspend. Deputy Collins's question will be answered on the resumption.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Meaney might answer the Deputy's questions. She can stick to the welfare aspects of the question.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
I am not aware of any welfare issues relating to 17 April. What the Deputy may be referring to is road safety driver rules, which would be under different legislation than the agricultural legislation on welfare. I am loath to comment on that. The only comment I will add is that there is an attempt being made in the new draft proposals to align journey times for the animals with driver rest periods and times. That has been recognised in these new draft proposals.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Meaney stated earlier on that the Department is talking to everybody. If it is talking to everybody, surely the hauliers are part of it. If they are part of that, how is it that they will be put out of business? If they are put out of business, that is the end, or is that the plan? If the Department is talking to everybody, surely the RSA and everybody are involved in this discussion. Ms Meaney will say she is only coming at it from an animal welfare perspective, which is hugely important and which I am not taking away from in any way, shape or form, but live exports are hugely important to the Irish market and if everybody is not singing from the one hymn sheet, there will be a problem. There is a problem here because the RSA has taken upon itself to decide it can go over to Cherbourg and dictate what is going on in what is, we are all aware, another person's country. The RSA seems to have incredible power when it suits them. Where that power is being driven from I would love to know, but that is something the Department cannot answer me.
Ms Meaney stated earlier on that the officials are sitting down around the table and they have talked to everybody. Surely the RSA will come into this discussion now. It is part of animal welfare because they are saying how this can be solved is by exporters organising another lairage for the calves, that it means a trip will take one day longer but that it means the drivers can keep their driving hours. There is obviously an hours issue for driving. That is important because it all relates to the live export of our calves. I cannot see any hauliers continuing if they are getting on-the-spot fines, thankfully, not for animal welfare issues but, maybe, for it being a half an hour or an hour over their time. There is a serious issue here. If the Department is saying it is sitting around the table talking to people and then it is saying on the other hand that that is not its issue to talk about, there is something wrong. I plead with the Department to sit around with everybody. That means the haulier, the farm organisations and the Department's side of it, which is very important too. I am not discrediting that in any way, shape or form. However, it also means the RSA. It means a whole pile of people need to be sitting around the table who are not sitting around the table already because this issue would not have been an issue if this was happening and if the discussions were taking place.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not expect Ms Meaney to answer that. The Deputy was just making a point about dialogue with the hauliers which is important.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has the Department met the RSA?
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will it meet the RSA? It is important. It is another leg of the table.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know but Mr. Blake heard what I read earlier. It is all related to the export of calves. If it becomes uneconomical, and it is heading this way - to me it is being steered this way - it will put farmers into further difficulties which they cannot afford to be in at this time. I am asking the Department and others to sit around the table. It is all connected. One way or another it is connected. It all has to do with animal welfare. Our main concern needs to be animal welfare but it also needs to be economical for hauliers. I would appreciate if the Department sat down with everybody. Ms Meaney stated the Department has done so with exporters and transporters. I accept this and I appreciate it. The RSA must also be considered. Somebody must apply a bit of common sense. If it is flying over to Cherbourg and applying unbelievable fines, this whole business will collapse very soon. We will then be met with a different crisis and I will be sitting at a table speaking differently. I would appreciate if the Department would do this.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
The Commission has, in part, taken our geographical position into consideration. With regard to unweaned calves, the legislation states that the part of the journey by sea can be discounted but the animals must be fed on the journey. The challenge for us will be to feed them on the ferry during the journey. They must be fed every nine hours.
You are allowed to discount from the journey time the 18-odd hours that it takes to transport an animal between Rosslare and Cherbourg. That gives you nine, one and nine plus 18 for unweaned calves and ten, one and ten plus 18, 24-hour rest, and ten, one and ten again for weaned animals. They recognise that we have a particular challenge from the point of view of our geographical location.
I will say again that these proposals are very much a draft. We are reaching out to other member states to discuss this with them, as was mentioned. Some member states will have issues in common. Others will have different things that will concern them, for instance, temperatures in certain very hot countries. We would have some things in common and other things that we would not but we are reaching out to other member states to discuss it with them and get their viewpoints. This is in anticipation of when it is going to be discussed in the working party at the Council in Brussels.
At the moment, the dog and cat legislation is going through. That is what is being discussed. It is unlikely that we will have any progress on this until the very end of the term of the Belgian Presidency or, more likely, some time during the Hungarian Presidency next autumn. It will not be discussed before then.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry for interrupting Ms Meaney but I am looking for clarification. When she says progress on this, does she mean progress with regard to the negotiations on it?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
She does not mean progress with respect to the enactment of it?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is there recognition of the financial implications these proposals would have for Ireland?
Ms Lorna Meaney:
For Ireland, per se, an impact assessment was done. The impact assessment stated that there was not a huge economic impact, and that it would only affect 1.4% of bovine animals. However, it would have a larger impact in Ireland. At every possible opportunity we are raising that with other member states and with the Commission.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This spring, when we had any kind of bad weather, the price of calves just completely collapsed in the marts. If we have an incidence where it is uneconomical, it has a huge economic impact.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
There is a lot of work being done through the calf stakeholder forum, or on dairy and beef products by Teagasc. In industry we have the sexed semen project, which seems to be taking off. We have had a decrease in the number of dairy male calves born this year, which maybe indicates that the sexed semen project is actually taking off. A ten-point action plan on support for the dairy calf beef systems was announced by the Minister, and we also have the dairy beef welfare scheme to promote commercial beef value in calves. I think there is a budget of €25 million for that over the next four years. All of those things are there to try and support the industry as well but I suppose we are moving off topic.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
While with sexed semen, you have fewer Friesian bull calves, you are still going to have the same number of dairy-bred calves that will have to be exported. Whether they are black or have a white head on them, or they are black and white, they will still have to be exported, or a significant number of them anyway, to keep the market in balance here. Sexed semen is not going to solve the issue. You will still have the same number of dairy-bred calves.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Chair's points are valid. Going back to my 100 km point, it does not matter what sex the calf is - you cannot go from Thurles to Kilbeggan.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
The first thing to say is that a lot of this new legislation is based on scientific findings from the EFSA. We all know that moving very young calves is very challenging. Immunologically and physiologically, they are immature animals and they are difficult to move. That makes them very vulnerable, so we have to consider that. The EU Commission is very anxious to address that issue. I suppose the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is also very anxious to address the issue but in a way that will not affect our industry, or will not affect it to the extent that it causes Irish farms to be at a disadvantage.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Meaney can see the point I am making about the number of kilometres.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There were a couple of other points. With regard to the temperature, it was said that it was going to be based on meteorological predictions. I do not see the logic there because with the greatest of respect to our meteorological friends, they do not always get it right. You could have a situation where you have a lorry or a ship that will not travel on a day because it is predicted that a certain temperature is going to be reached, and then that does not happen. Equally damaging for the animals is the scenario where the prediction is that the temperature is going to be below the allowed value, and on the day it is actually higher or warmer, and the animals are travelling. I do not see how scientific evidence could come up with a scenario like that, which is very open to creating the scenario where you could, by following the regulations, have a situation where animals are travelling when they should not be. That is another one we need to be questioning.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, we all know why they are there. A captain of a ship or a driver of a lorry might look at a thermometer and decide he is good to go. However, if he has to look at the weather forecast before deciding whether he is good to go, it could turn out to be different six hours later. The meteorological services are very good at the minute and fairly accurate but they are not 100%.
Mr. Aidan Cahill:
Currently, the standard is that there is a thermometer probe inside the truck. It records the temperature within the truck, in the environment of the animals. After the journey, the member state can select a number of journeys and do what is called a retrospective check on them, and see if the animals were exposed to high or low temperatures. That is all very well but it does not really function great with regard to preventing temperature stress. It offers the possibility to, let us say, carry out enforcement afterwards but this is a lot less effective than preventing the problem from arising in the first place. That was one of the findings of the scientific studies mentioned earlier that fed into and formed the basis of this new proposed legislation. The shift is from measuring the temperature in the truck and looking at it after the fact to assessing the weather forecast before the journey and causing the journey to be altered if it is going to be unlawful.
The proposal is that for temperatures from 25°C to 30°C, journeys between 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. will not exceed nine hours. For temperatures over 30°C, only journeys taking place fully between 9 p.m. and 10 a.m. are allowed. If the temperature is over 30°C at night time, between 9 p.m. and 10 a.m. - which is unusual enough in this part of the world but common enough in Spain and Italy - the space allowance has to be increased by 20% per animal.
The findings of the refit process were asked about earlier. Scientifically, those findings are laid out in the EFSA scientific opinion on animal welfare during transport. Politically, the ANIT committee of MEPs gave political input into the process as well. The consensus was that the current framework of rules for animal welfare during transport is insufficient.
It does not offer an acceptable level of animal welfare during transport. That is why they want to overhaul them. Does that answer the Senator's question?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Kind of. I still have issues with the prediction of the temperature and it not happening or, as I said, it becoming hotter. Nine hours in continental Europe will bring drivers a long way and they will pass through different conditions. Look at what we get here every day. A driver could pass through many different weathers and temperatures in nine hours of solid driving on the Continent. I do not know how the Department is going to get the meteorological predictions of interstate and different regions. I am not arguing the fact we need to get the best solution here. However, when we pre-empt anything with predictive measures, to me, it is not science and it is not bullet-proof. There has to be a better way than going by the forecast.
That went on longer than I thought, Chair. Finally, I want to go back to Ms Meaney's very first opening point. What scientific evidence is there for calves being fed milk replacer, as the Chairman explained at the start?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but it specifically said milk replacer somewhere that I read.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know, but without going over the Chair's explanation, which I thought was very good, what scientific evidence is there to prove what the Chair said is wrong? I think he is right, although I am no scientist.
Mr. Aidan Cahill:
Yes, that is essentially what happened. There is considerable debate in the scientific community as to whether it is better to feed milk replacer or electrolytes during transport. There is very little published scientific consensus on that, but the assessment of the scientists was that it is better to feed them milk replacer during transport.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is another area on which I will be highlighting the need for further discussion before this is over the line.
Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms Meaney, Mr. Blake and Mr. Cahill for coming here today. Most of the questions have been asked. We know the importance of the prediction of animals during transport. I understand as well that these are only proposals. I presume it will be a long haul to get the whole lot through. I presume it will not even be this year.
I welcome the five-year period for the transport to be converted to whatever is required. At the end of the day, however, when we look at most of the proposals that have been gone through, basically, there is a cost in every article. Who bears that cost? There are some serious costs in it. Even when we are talking about temperatures, diesel, where to heat the animals and so forth, those are serious costs.
It has probably not been done yet but was there a financial impact statement? That is what we have to be looking for on the exact costs. Because of where Ireland is placed geographically, we should not have any qualms about asking for a special or favourable position. It is required for our geographical position. We are an island. We should have certain amounts of, if you like, derogations or whatever.
The other issue is the derogation being removed for the 100 km distance straight away. That has to be an issue along with shortening the journeys to less than eight hours. There are a huge amount of costs built into this. That has to be worked out. In fairness to them, the witnesses stated the proposals required greater clarity. However, they also stated that, in the proposals, there is a greater impact on some states. I presume they are talking about Ireland. We can read between the lines here. What impact do they as professionals see this having on the Irish industry going forward?
Ms Lorna Meaney:
It presents many challenges in its current form, as the Deputy outlined. However, it is in draft form at the moment. There will be ample opportunity for us to make our case in Europe and there will be other member states that will be in a similar position to us on different parts of the legislation, Therefore, it is likely the legislation, when and if it eventually makes its way through all this negotiation and discussion and reaches agreement, will not be quite as it is now. It is very hard to make an assessment of the impact the legislation will have given this is only very much a draft.
Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will we, as the Irish delegation, be putting forward a total financial impact statement on the farming position, the farming industry and the hauliers?
Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Obviously it was brought up previously that the Minister had written to the Commissioner. We need to find out exactly what his concerns are. The committee has to find that out. The officials have had engagement with the Commission. Have they been to meet the Commissioner?
Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are they privy to what went on there? Can they give us a flavour of what direction the Commission is going?
Mr. Aidan Cahill:
Yes, we have been engaged with the Commission and other member states on this, both formally and informally, since the start of the whole refit process, which must be three or four years ago now. We made formal input into the committee of inquiry on animals transport, ANIT, which is made up of MEPs in Parliament, in the springtime of 2021 and put our views and concerns to the MEPs. Some of our MEPs in particular took a big interest in that particular file in that committee. As officials, we have informal networks with other officials in other members states as well. The relevant Commission officials are included in those networks. We exchange information, dialogue and views in all those formats.
Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As the witnesses are probably aware more than anybody, things have changed an awful lot in the world since 2021. Things have got tighter. We have food security and everything else. It is important that Ireland's industry is protected, and very much so. It should be to the fore anyway.
The Road Safety Authority, RSA, has a part to play in this as well even though it is tasked with road safety. The guidance states that drivers must check the animals being transported every 4.5 hours during transport to assess their welfare. Everything kind of thing comes under the road safety rules. Therefore, the RSA has an important part to play in this as well. I agree with Deputy Collins on that. On that guidance that the driver must check the animals, does he or she have to check every animal?
Ms Lorna Meaney:
No, it is not clear. I would imagine that the driver stops the lorry and has a look to make sure there is no animal in extremis. However, it does not mean the driver is unloading the lorry and checking every single animal. It is not clear, however. To be fair, we have looked through these and there are elements that are very unclear. The article about a veterinarian being present at every unloading for both long and short journeys is not clear. Is it practical? That is probably not very practical. All those things will have to be ironed out through discussion. That is why this is very much a draft at the moment. We will have the opportunity to engage on it and make our points.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have another engagement, so Senator Daly will take the Chair. I thank the witnesses for their comprehensive brief on this important issue.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses from the Department. We have to realise the export of calves is vital, especially for the dairy sector, which needs to calve cows every year so that cows continue in milk. The calves have to go somewhere. Farmers cannot be beholden to factories because we know what happens there from time to time, namely, if there is a large increase in young cattle becoming strong steers or whatever, the price of those cattle will decrease and it will be impossible for some dairy farmers to sell their calves economically. We are an island country, so selling our calves to Europe and various other places is our only option. I appeal to the Department not to make the system overly prohibitive.
I caught the tail end of the witnesses speaking about milk replacer and electrolytes. Electrolytes are fine for a day or two until a sick calf gets clear of the scour or whatever it is, but it would not be right to insist that they be given to calves going on a journey. They need the strength of milk replacer to keep them going. That is my view. Maybe others hold a different view. Farmers produce their calves to a standard where they know they are fit to travel. Otherwise, they will not have purchasers. The people buying the calves for export will not buy weak ones, so there is no fear around that. The dairy farmers are producing calves to a high standard. I have seen them. Even though the farmers’ primary objective is to produce milk, they know they must have good calves before buyers will purchase them for a long journey.
All I am asking of the Department is that it ensure the calf export market is maintained. There are rumours of different groups suggesting we should not export calves at all because it is animal cruelty or whatever. Most operators – 99% of them – do their job to 100% perfection. There is always a bad apple in every group, but for the most part these people are good operators. That objectors are trying to stop the export trade is unfortunate and unfair. They basically want to finish farming in Ireland.
Currently, farmers are experiencing many uncertainties. One of them that we as a committee have to recognise is that young farmers, or the young people who are expected to take over farms, are realising that the friends they went to school and college with work five-day weeks and, when those friends are going home at 4 p.m. on Friday, the young farmers must still work on Saturday and Sunday. They have to milk the cows seven days of the week. Farming is not attractive for young people anymore. It is not about the money they can earn but the kind of life they want to have. They can see other young people and their companions having a much better time, going on holidays or whatever.
Cattle have been inside since September or October. They are still not out in many places. There is good land here up the country, as we call it, but down around Kerry, there are many animals that will not be out for another fortnight or three weeks until the ground hardens. Black ground, as we call it, does not soak up water and water takes longer to disappear. That is one of the problems.
Another problem is uncertainty over the rules and regulations being introduced. We are overproducing in Ireland, but we do not have gold, diamonds or whatever. We might have oil off the Kerry coast, but they will not let us drill for it. We do have green grass, though, and our climate is such that, most of the time, we have better options because of our grass-based system. Unlike other continents where the cattle are inside all year, we treat our animals naturally. Farmers are facing considerable uncertainty over the regulations. I got a call half an hour ago. The farmer’s elderly mother was inside the house when some inspector came and examined the tractor and everything else that was in the yard. The tractor had not even been used for a long time – it was there since times gone by – but now there is a list of things to be done to it, including putting on a rearview mirror. It is a tractor without a cab; it has a rollbar. The farmer is being told to put a rearview mirror on a tractor he uses for scraping the yard. There was a yard scraper on it. A rearview mirror was one of the items on the list, which was thrown in through the letterbox to the farmer’s elderly mother. This man has had a tough time. With all of the inspections and regulations, farmers are frightened. In a very short time, we may be importing food. I said that in the Chamber today. I hope those who are objecting to farmers are the first to go hungry and pay a high price for imported food.
As elected representatives or departmental officials, we should be assisting our farmers in every way we can to ensure they keep going. It is one of the only natural products this country has had for years. When farming went bad, the rest of the parish – shopkeepers, storekeepers and the whole lot – went bad as well. It is in our best interests to ensure agriculture remains on a sound footing in this country. I ask the Department’s officials to ensure that whatever new regulations are demanded by Europe are fair on our farmers. At the end of the day, all of us will suffer, not just the farmers. As with how the coastal communities that depend on fishers and trawlers are affected by the regulations that affect them, what happens to farmers sends out ripples. If we lose a number of farmers every day or year, we will all be affected. We have to have food.
It was very unfair that last summer a Luas going up and down this great city of Dublin was painted white with black writing on it advising people not to drink milk. The Minister for Transport allowed that to happen or maybe caused it to happen. I cannot prove that and will not say that, but it did happen. What kind of people would we be if we did not get milk when we were young, from our mothers first and from then on? We have an eminent orthopaedic surgeon in Tralee, Dr. John Rice, advertising on our Radio Kerry every day that young people must ensure they drink enough milk to build up calcium in their bones and their bodies for the rest of their lives. There is no good in giving it to the likes of us now - our bones will not get any better - but for young people milk is vital. If we do not produce milk, we could affect milk production by hurting the calf export trade. A cow calves every year. If she does not, she will not have milk. A calf comes into the bargain as well. We must export calves or else we will clog the thing up and hurt the beef farmers on top of it.
Ms Lorna Meaney:
Our primary goal is to ensure, while protecting and advancing animal welfare, that Irish businesses are not disadvantaged and that we still have access to the Single Market, just like any other member state. That goes without saying. At the end of the day, we want legislation that will ensure high welfare in inter-community transport, trade in animals and export to third countries, but bearing in mind that we want to protect our access to the Single Market.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Before we conclude, I have two more questions myself. I thought I would not get them by the Chairman, but now I have overcome that problem - I am only joking.
To go back to the very start, what is an animal welfare officer? What qualification does an animal welfare officer have? Is it like in your day-to-day work where you appoint and get training for a health and safety officer? Can it be anyone with training or is there a specification on the amount or the standard of training or the qualification required?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Could a lorry driver be an animal welfare officer?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Finally, Ms Meaney, you brought up the good work being done to try to promote the whole calf and beef sector. For the purpose of conversation, worst-case scenario, if what some of us have predicted this evening were to happen on the back of this or for whatever reason and it was not feasible to export the calves, where is the Department on an Irish veal industry? I know Bord Bia has done a feasibility study on it. Anytime we have discussed this topic, I, for one, have been an advocate of the merits of exporting on the hook as opposed to the hoof. If it were to come to that, is any work being done in the Department to potentially be able to back up, support or initiate a contingency plan which might involve the non-need to export the calves if we were to have our own fattening and veal industry? That would solve a lot of these problems because, as I said, there are not nearly as many issues exporting on the hook as opposed to on the hoof. Bord Bia, I think, has done some feasibility studies on this, but is there a policy in the Department yet to pursue that and maybe have some contingency plans in place? You plan for the worst, for the worst-case scenario, and hope for the best. Is this a policy we should adopt?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Sorry for interrupting you, Ms Meaney, and I will not get into an argument about this with you, but I have heard that, that the market may not be there. The calves going out will be fattened for a veal market. We are talking about the same number of calves, so I presume the same market still has to be there. If they are not going to be fattened in Holland, Denmark or wherever else, the space that would be left in the market that they are supplying has to be there. Do you know what I mean?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I cannot argue with you on that. I agree with you on that. That is a problem, but there would still be more at the same time of the year now and they are going on the sustainable market. There must be-----
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But would you see the merits in at least having a contingency plan?
Ms Lorna Meaney:
We will have to consider it. We have been focusing, through the calf stakeholder forum, more on dairy beef projects with Teagasc and industry to find a market for these animals going to beef and to increase the commercial beef value of the calves that are born so they might feed into a better dairy beef animal and, therefore, may encourage more farmers to go down that route. The ten-point action plan on the support for dairy calf beef systems is another option being explored.
Mr. Martin Blake:
The alternative issue being explored is in the context of the market for a stronger calf, that is, a calf that might be five, six or seven weeks old rather than a calf of three or four weeks of age. The question is whether we could find a market in Europe for a weaned calf as distinct from an unweaned calf. Those issues are being explored. Bord Bia is doing a lot of work on market exploration.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is refreshing to hear. It is to be hoped we do not need to enact it but we need a plan B.
I call Deputy Mythen.
Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Our overseas trade is so important. I think there has been a big change in the thinking in Europe since things have happened. As I said, energy security and food security are the most important and, as we have said before as regards the fishing industry, fish is a superfood. We are an island. It is so important for us. At the moment, 2.4 million calves are born in Ireland every year, and 370,000 of those are exported. That is a serious industry that we have to protect, no matter what happens. As the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach said about veal, they usually go to the Netherlands, Spain or Italy. We are talking about a big business, a lot of money and a lot of stuff that benefits our own citizens, so we should not have to be shy about anything. We have a great industry. We have one of the best industries in the world, and people envy us. As regards our grass industry, our green industry, they envy us all round. We can see why other countries maybe want to get a bit of a hold on it or control of it, but we just have to go forward. We have to stand up for Ireland ourselves. Sometimes we take a lot on board and use pilot schemes and so on that should not have to happen any more. We should stand up for ourselves. The Department should be brave enough, go forward enough and protect the industry.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I appreciate that. I thank the witnesses for their presence this evening, their briefing notes and so on. I know this has a long way to go, but it is when things are at draft stage and in their infancy that, if we can influence them, it is time to act on them. I thank the witnesses again for being here this evening.
The next meeting of the joint committee will be at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 May, when the committee will examine nitrogen excretion rates, horse welfare and compliance with the legislation.