Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 32: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on the EU Presidency conclusions which insist on the setting up of a European network of scientific institutes and laboratories responsible for questions relating to animal welfare and that the need to legislate shall be based on the results of sound scientific studies; the support she will ensure Ireland offers towards this goal; and her further views on the high priority assigned by the EU Presidency conclusions to establish objective and measurable indicators on animal welfare. [25007/06]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy will be aware, an action plan on the protection and welfare of animals was produced by the European Commission earlier this year following a wide consultation process and represents a road-map for the Commission's planned animal health initiatives for 2006-10. Some of these will take the form of reviews of current legislation, while many will consist of reports to the Parliament and Council on various aspects of animal welfare.

The plan foresees five important areas for action, the upgrading of existing minimum welfare standards for those species not currently covered and general legislation applying to all farmed animals, examination of alternatives to animal testing, introduction of standardised indicators which will allow for the recognition of production systems providing for higher welfare standards and the possibility of labelling which would indicate this, an information programme to ensure that keepers and the public are more aware of animal welfare requirements and action in the international arena supporting initiatives of international bodies such as OIE and Council of Europe, and engaging with developing countries on developing trade based on welfare friendly production systems. The EU will also press for acceptance at WTO of animal welfare as a non-trade concern in agricultural trade.

Since the matter was first discussed in Council in February, my Department has been involved in discussions at various fora on drawing up Council conclusions on the Commission's proposal. The draft conclusions that had been developed formed the basis for the EU Presidency conclusions on the draft action plan at last week's Council of Ministers' meeting. At the Council I stated clearly that I am in favour of improving animal welfare standards, first, on moral and ethical grounds but also because of the reality of the ever-increasing demand from consumers across the EU for assurances in regard to animal welfare. I am happy that the action plan responds to those demands. I am also pleased to note that the majority of member states feel the same way as I do on this subject.

As regards the specific issues referred to by the Deputy, I confirm that I welcome the conclusions on the setting up of a network of European scientific institutions and laboratories relating to animal welfare. Legislation should be based on sound scientific studies and on the establishment of objective and measurable indicators for animal welfare.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

In my contribution at this Council, I highlighted the need to maintain a balance between improving animal welfare and protection standards, on the one hand, and the continued sustainability of the various sectors of agriculture on the other. EU producers are already operating in a very competitive environment where there is considerable pressure from products from third countries. In many cases, these products are not subject to the same rigorous production conditions as those applying within the EU. We need to be prudent, therefore, about introducing more demanding conditions which involve additional costs for EU producers unless we can also require third country operators to meet similar standards. We must avoid repeating the recent example of conceding third country markets for cattle exports to operators who are not subjected to any significant welfare rules.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad the Minister stated she supports these measures but my understanding from the report on last week's meeting was that Ireland was among the countries that criticised the ambitious plan of Commissioner Kyprianou on improving animal welfare. That criticism seems to have been based on the economic consequences which it was perceived would arise if the conditions proposed by the Commissioner were imposed. There was a further commentary that a number of countries felt that if these conditions were put in place, it would leave Europe wide open to imports from third countries where conditions were not as good.

A number of issues arise, in particular with regard to the problem of discovering exactly what happens in third countries, not only with regard to traceability but also with regard to animal welfare. Will the Minister comment on the suggestion that Ireland was one of the countries that criticised the Commissioner's action plan on improving animal welfare?

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I had time to finish my original answer, I would have said that I was very balanced in my remarks at the meeting and that I believe there should be a balance between improving animal welfare and protection standards, on the one hand, and the sustainability of the various sectors of agriculture on the other. It is equally important and quite right to state that, as a non-trade concern, the European Commission and the Community should avoid the mistake that has taken place involving the substitution of live animals from Ireland and the European Union with animals from third countries, in particular developing countries where the same standards do not apply. From an animal welfare perspective, as labelling was very important in the context of the broiler debate that took place in the Commission, there should also be an EU and a non-EU labelling system, in particular in the poultry sector. This must be appreciated as an all-party concern.

I did not in any way criticise the animal welfare requirements. As I stated in my original response, I supported those requirements but I also feel there should be a balance in the discussions taking place.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to imports from third countries, it is surely incumbent on us to put in place a system of standards, or at least to try to insist at European level that such a system will apply in terms of what the FVO is supposed to do with regard to animal welfare as well as traceability. This would remove from the equation concerns we might otherwise have about third countries. This brings us back to the issue of ensuring that the FVO or an equivalent body does a substantial job by ensuring that the products, whether in the context of traceability or animal welfare, are what they are supposed to be.

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree, which is why I took the opportunity to write to Commissioner Kyprianou once again on this issue to re-express my concerns vis À vis the importation of meat products. I sometimes sing a lone tune with regard to non-trade concerns because many of my colleagues of necessity wish to have cheap imports. Some of my colleagues will speak of the necessity of having animal welfare regulations, traceability regulations and food safety standards while at the same time they have a cheap food policy. This can create difficulties for those such as myself.

I will continue to pursue vehemently the non-trade concerns which exist at present and I will take every opportunity to raise these issues with Commissioner Kyprianou. I have forwarded to him all relevant documentation and information that has been available to my Department and the media in requesting him to reconsider once again the outcomes of the inspections that have taken place in third countries. On the basis that this issue has been raised ad infinitum in the House, we must pursue it vigorously. At the same time, when I speak to Mr. Lamy he always tells me that the EU creates difficulties for those like him because, for example, it bans the use and importation of meat products with hormones.

The Deputy will understand the difficulties in this regard. I will continue to be vociferous on non-trade concerns within the European Commission.