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.