Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is incredible that the Minister of State refuses to address the specific case to which I referred. I remind him of some of what was said on 8 November 2013 in Cavan Circuit Court. A question was posed by a barrister representing the defendant, addressing one of the Department veterinary inspectors, as follows, "Were you aware that there was a possibility that what was introduced into this animal actually could have been toxic?" The reply was:

Yes, certainly. Anything introduced into an animal that is not sterile could be toxic.

Continuing, the same respondent stated:

Our focus would have been to find out if there had been interference. I think it is very difficult to identify from first basics a completely unknown substance. It could have been any one of a thousand substances. The samples were taken to see if there had been interference, to see if something had been introduced ... I don't accept whether the animal was entered into the food chain as being relevant. I refuse to accept the identification of the irritant as being relevant.

There is much more; that is only one section. As a consumer and speaking on behalf of consumers and those involved in the sector, I find it highly relevant. What is the role of Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine inspectors if it is not, as I said in my opening remarks, to assure us as domestic consumers and the global market that our beef produce is of the highest standard and fit, without question, for public consumption and that our processing is beyond reproach? There are questions which the Minister of State may not be able to answer and I want the Minister to address them subsequent to this exchange. Where was the meat from this animal destined? Has the Minister sought to establish whether it was for domestic consumption or export? Apart from the Department's internal review which addressed what it saw as deficiencies in the conduct of the prosecution case rather than accept and address the judgment in the Circuit Court of Judge Reynolds and establish how its special investigation unit, SIU, personnel had conducted themselves when acting in the name of the Minister and the Government, has the Minister taken any other step to address the very worrying facts that the case exposes?

See this speech in context