Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I may not use all of the eight minutes. I am here because I have known Dan Brennan for a long time. I am not a member of the agriculture committee. I congratulate its Chair and the various members of the committee for their tireless and unceasing work on this. It gives me great faith in the committee and in the workings of this House that we can get to this point. I will come back to the Minister's response in a moment.

I got to know Dan Brennan when I was a Member of the European Parliament. He does not live in the constituency I represented, but when he came to see me and laid out his case, like all members of the committee, I was immediately struck by the fact that this case had to be heard. The evidence I could see, the reports and so on that were placed in front of me were such that it would have been egregious not to have his case heard and for him and his family not to find some kind of justice. I will also mention the farming organisations and welcome Francie Gorman and Denis Drennan here today because they have stood shoulder to shoulder with Dan Brennan. When we see TDs from all sides of the House and leaders of farm organisations down through the years stand with Dan Brennan, it is clear that this is a substantial case.

This is not an issue that can be just brushed under the carpet.

To return to what happened at European level, I was a member of the petitions committee and I met Dan Brennan on a number of occasions when he came before it. I have no memory of any public discussion on his file being sent back to Dublin. There was certainly no agreement about that. It is crazy that, as a former member of that committee, I am asking in this House what happened to his file. Where did it go? Where was it sent? Who sent it and to whom was it sent? Is it still there? Somebody needs to answer those questions. The answer may be "I do not know", but at the very least we need to get an answer. In order to get an answer, somebody needs to see what happened. The relevance of that I just cannot say because I do not know what is in the file. However, the relevance of all of the detail that Deputy Cahill went through here is unquestioned. There are all of the different letters from three vets and the veterinary college saying that there were no diseases involved, but, yet, a report from the Department states that it was probably down to some kind of infectious disease. I wonder was that infectious disease ever identified. Did those responsible ever state which disease it was or did they just say that it probably was some kind of disease because they did not know what it was? An independent pathologist was not brought in to carry out the post mortems. Why was that the case? The letters, etc., from the vets and the veterinary college were just ignored.

Deputy Cahill referred to the EPA lab and the glitch, whatever that was, that happened there in respect of the sample. How did that glitch happen? Why did it happen? All the evidence - I have believed this from the very first time I met Dan Brennan, but my belief has got stronger over the years - indicates that there is something really wrong here. I have never stood up in this House and said that about any other matter. As I said, Mr. Brennan lives on the other side of the country from me, but there is something really wrong here.

During the previous debate in November, the Minister stated that he had read all of the reports and that he was satisfied that there were no unanswered questions. I wonder if that is still the case. The Minister stated that there was no new information as such, but that we all have to agree that there are significant disputes about and discrepancies between what the Department says and what other experts say. There may be nothing new because, in a way, how would we expect there to be anything new so many years after the event or events occurred?

We need to look at the differences and discrepancies in the context of what happened and what the Department says and what other experts say. As Deputy Carthy said, one thing we, his family and all those in the farming organisations who know Dan Brennan know for sure is that he was a model farmer. Certainly, the timing of what happened cannot be disputed. I am not stating that one definitely existed, but there is very strong evidence to investigate the relationship between the opening and closing of the factory and the ill health suffered by the animals in Dan Brennan's herd.

The Minister indicated that there will be a review. I wrote down what he said to the effect that he will review the Department's work in relation to this matter alongside any information fed into it. I think I recorded that accurately. I welcome that, but it is absolutely crucial that the terms of review or investigation are extensive enough to take all available evidence into consideration and not just the work of the Department. It must include all of the letters, reports and information from vets, the veterinary college, Teagasc, the EPA and all of those involved with this case. As I said, and if relevant, the infamous file which somehow seemed to have made its way from Brussels to Dublin and then disappeared must also be reviewed.

The Minister has taken the first step. I thank him for that. I am glad to see it happen. It is late, but he is the Minister now and he is doing the right thing. He can rest assured of that. The terms of reference of the review must be extensive enough. The person who heads up the investigation needs to be independent and be seen to be independent. That is easy for the Minister to do, whether it is a retired judge or somebody else. The person must, as I said, be seen to be independent because this matter has dragged on for too long. It needs to be dealt with.

I thank the Minister for what he said. We look forward to hearing how this will progress. I again thank the agriculture committee. This is their work, and I hope it ends well. To Dan Brennan, for his tenacity and his courage, this is just incredible. This is his life, his life's work and his family farm. He wants to see that justice is done, that every piece of information is taken into consideration and that we get an independent review. We all look forward to that.

See this speech in context