Martin Ferris (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over the past two days, like many Deputies, I have been inundated with calls from around the country from people who are disgusted by the disgraceful actions carried out against five Limousin heifers in County Monaghan. The killing of these heifers by marksmen from the Defence Forces is unjustifiable. Coming from that type of background, I am quite aware of some difficulties, especially with suckler calves because they are a bit wild. I never had any difficulty and I do not know anyone who had difficulty once they had a small bit of expertise and cop-on.

I want to know if this was sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Defence. The owner said that all his cattle passed tests in December 2015. The newspapers quote Chris Lehane, if it is true, saying the cull had to be done because the cattle had failed TB tests. Coming from an agricultural background, I know that TB tests are carried out after slaughter. How could they have failed TB tests? One could have a reactor, take her to the abattoir, have her killed and do a proper test. That is how it is done. It is not done by observation. Mr. Lehane said there were positive tests. How many positive tests were there on cattle taken from Mr. Hoey's lands? I understand 30 cattle were taken last month. Of these 30 cattle, how many failed the TB tests? How many of them went into the food chain? If they pass the TB test, they go into the food chain. Prior to the removal of cattle from Mr. Hoey's land, was his land restricted? Was he restricted? Was he locked down? Of the five Limousin shot, how many failed a TB test? Will the Minister of State give a commitment here to get independent testing analysis of all the animals that were taken from Mr. Hoey's lands in order that we can all establish whether what was said in the newspapers was true or untrue?

These type of actions during repossessions and attacking people who are in a very bad state financially, many who are bankrupt as a result of it, are not happening in isolation. There is the case of Tommy Collins in County Clare. On 20 May 2016, gardaí brought people wearing masks to try to evict Tommy Collins from his home. There was a car present with four masked heavies in it. It had no tax or insurance and was in full view of the gardaí, yet nothing was done about it. What is happening now regarding evictions and repossessions is completely over the top. People who are in dire financial straits, whether it is because of a family home, family farm, cattle, machinery or house, deserve dignity and respect and to be treated properly. This is not what happened with the five Limousin heifers shot dead on a man's farm. The people removing them said they were not able to remove them so they had to shoot them. It is unjustifiable. As I said at the start, I have never had more calls or more people contacting me than I had regarding this terrible incident. I would like the Minister of State to clear up these questions.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an incredibly serious situation. I am quite prepared to hear that we do not have the full facts because the facts as they are being presented at the moment are utterly outrageous, bizarre and stretch the boundaries of credibility. It has now become an international talking point. Five cattle were shot dead by members of the Defence Forces in an open field, allegedly with the sanction of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the gardaí, at the behest of an assignee in a bankruptcy situation allegedly because the debt collection agency could not get them into a truck because they were wild. It is beyond belief. I have heard, as we all have, the family members involved saying the assignee did not go to every length and did not talk to them, and that there would have been no difficulty in cajoling the animals into the truck. I do not know if that is true. It seems unbelievable that these events could be as they are presented. There is so much information out there now that it is in the public interest to answer questions all these issues and make sure such events do not happen again.

As Deputy Ferris said, the argument that they were wild and dangerous would not appear to stack up. The argument was made that they were infected with TB and were a public health risk, but if that was the case, to test them they would have to have been rounded up and taken away to be put in a chute twice to be tested. If that was possible then, why was it not possible to do it later on? I look at these issues very much from the point of view of a vegetarian and someone who is involved in animal rights and welfare issues. I do not believe in killing animals but I realise that traditionally the slaughter of animals is done with a single bolt to the head as the most humane way possible. The idea that members of the Army were firing shots at animals that were galloping around a field in terror and not with a single bolt to the head but randomly shooting at them in the middle of the day just beggars belief.

It poses a couple of troubling questions that we need to get to the bottom of. Is it appropriate that State bodies are acting as debt collectors? Why would the Defence Forces agree to act as aid to the civil power in these situations? Sometimes the Garda calls in the Army in issues of national security or a major emergency. How in God's name could the Defence Forces perceivably have any role in a private debt collection situation? It seems incredible.

We are told the Department of Agriculture was involved. I would like to hear more about that. What personnel were present when these exercises were carried out? Was the State vet there? What Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine officials were there? Who gave the sanction for those animals to be killed in this way? It is bizarre that anybody could possibly sanction that. It seems to me that the Animal Health and Welfare Act must have been breached. We passed legislation in the House on these things. It seems that what happened would not be in compliance with what is outlined in the Act.

For example, was there an offence of reckless discharge of a firearm under the Firearms Act? As it seems the activity was reckless, could this be a possible charge? There are significant issues of public concern. The incident has caused considerable trauma for many. In the public interest, we need a lot of answers to these questions.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Being a Deputy of the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, I, too, have received a number of phone calls over the past few days from distressed citizens, some of whom are farmers who find themselves in similar financial difficulty. As the House will be aware, this is an issue for farmers not only in my constituency, but right across the island. The big concern after yesterday's events is that this has set a precedent. There are citizens right across the country facing evictions and repossessions. What is the protocol? Is this behaviour, which I could only describe as Wild West behaviour, to be adopted with citizens and their families in the community in the future?

As the House will be aware, farmers are on their knees due to many issues such as pricing, which affects them and their income. Most of them are put to the pin of their collar and find it difficult to survive, and many of them, as I said, find themselves in financial difficulty in trying to deal with the banks. Today, they need reassurance that this heavy-handed Wild West conduct will not be adopted in the future. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, in particular, about the events that happened in my constituency in Monaghan yesterday.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, who cannot be here this evening due to official business, I thank the Deputies for raising this matter on the floor of the Dáil.

Deputies should be careful in rushing to judgment about this case or operating on the assumption that the various agencies involved - the official assignee, the Defence Forces, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and An Garda Síochána - would have undertaken the action in question as anything other than as a matter of last resort and in the public interest.

The House will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail here on the affairs of third parties who have been the subject of proceedings. The inevitable consequence of this, unfortunately, is that I cannot put on the record of the House the full facts surrounding the case. However, I can say that some of the public comment about the case, particularly offensive suggestions made about the role of the Defence Forces, has no basis in reality.

The Defence Forces carried out the humane cull of five animals on a farm in County Monaghan due to a significant concern for public safety. It is not correct, as has been alleged, that the cattle were treated inhumanely or that this case involved the operation of debt collectors. This operation was carried out at the request of the official assignee in bankruptcy, who is responsible for the herd of cattle on that farm, and it was done in conjunction with An Garda Síochána and with the Department of Agriculture, Food the Marine, as well as with the Defence Forces. While there is a long history to this particular case, I can inform Deputies that following failed efforts to round up the remaining five animals and in view of a significant concern about public safety, on 4 July, and at the request of the official assignee, a decision was taken involving the Garda, the official assignee and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that the optimal course of action was that these animals should be culled. The protocol between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Defence was invoked and the animals were culled by Army personnel in line with the protocol.

I am aware that the official assignee has said publicly that the decision to proceed in the way he did with regard to the cattle was made very reluctantly and was made in the interests of the public safety of the local community. It should also be noted that this was a tuberculosis-restricted herd. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine has confirmed that the carcasses of the five cattle have been removed and are now excluded from the food chain.

For the information of Deputies, it is relevant to recall the status of the official assignee and the specific statutory duties that he has to discharge. The official assignee in bankruptcy is an officer of the court, as provided at section 60(6) of the Bankruptcy Acts, and as such is independent in the performance of his duties. However, in doing so he is required under the Bankruptcy Act 1988 to observe and obey such directions as are given to him by the court. Obviously, the bankruptcy assignee is also subject to all laws of the State.

The official assignee also has specific statutory responsibilities and duties under the Bankruptcy Acts. First, when a person is adjudicated bankrupt, all of his or her assets transfer to the official assignee under section 44 of the Act. The primary duties of the official assignee, under section 61(2) of the Act, are to get in and realise the property, ascertain the debts and liabilities, and distribute the assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, the transfer of the assets to the official assignee also has the important consequence that the duties as well as the rights of the bankrupt person transfer to the official assignee along with the assets. The assignee, for instance, can be sued for any breach of legal obligations arising from those assets, just as the bankrupt person could have been. For example, when a person who owns a herd of cattle becomes bankrupt, the ownership of the cattle transfers to the official assignee. However, the duties associated with those cattle also transfer to the official assignee, including responsibility for their registration, testing for tuberculosis, and compliance with Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine certification required for removing cattle. The House will, therefore, appreciate that the official assignee has particular legal responsibilities to discharge.

It is clear that very specific and difficult circumstances arose in this case and that it was a matter for the official assignee to discharge his legal responsibilities as best he could in those difficult circumstances. In doing so, he relied on the services of other State agencies which performed their functions in accordance with their remit. It is clear from the comments that he has made, and after consulting with various agencies, that he did not believe any alternative viable strategy could be adopted. This House will, moreover, appreciate that cases where the official assignee is discharging his legal responsibilities as an officer of the court are not ones in which it would be appropriate or open to the Tánaiste to intervene. I accept, of course, that it is a matter of regret that it did not prove possible to dispose of the cattle in another manner. I hope Deputies can appreciate that the actions taken in this case by the various agencies involved would not have been taken lightly or where realistic alternatives existed.

Martin Ferris (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I have to say at the outset that it is what I expected. I had no doubt coming in here that the response would be one that answered none of the questions asked.

The Minister of State stated that "the optimal course of action was that these animals should be culled". Five Limousin heifers were shot dead by the Defence Forces at the request of the official assignee, and it was done under the pretext of safety. One could tell that to people who know nothing about farming, but the Minister of State comes from a rural area and he knows well I speak the truth here. Anybody worth his or her salt who lives on a farm or has worked in farming cannot tell me that one cannot get five animals into a yard and loaded onto a cattle truck. That is the reality of it.

The Minister of State stated in the reply that the herd was a TB-restricted herd. Was the person who owned the land, Mr. John Hoey, served with a restriction order? We need to know that. John Hoey states that his farm was not locked down. He tested the cattle in December last, they passed the test, and all of a sudden he is restricted. Does that restriction come from the 30 cattle that were taken previously and that had been tested, killed and, obviously, retested?

I have been sitting here thinking about this - a family farm and armed men coming into it and shooting five of his cattle dead after confiscating 30 of his herd before that - along with what happened to Tommy Collins in Clare, where the State is being used as an agent of the assignee in order to implement what the assignee wants done. That is what is happening here.

If I am not getting answers, I want to see an independent investigation into this - the Minister can appoint a Garda superintendent or whatever - to ascertain the facts here, because this not acceptable. It is wrong. It was wrong in Tommy Collins's case in County Clare and it is wrong here.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State might be surprised but I appreciate his comments and where he is coming from on the issue. I am prepared to say that I find it unbelievable that the information in the public domain is the full story. The whole issue is entirely unsatisfactory but I have heard what the Minister of State has said about the legal responsibility of the official assignee that he or she must discharge his or duty and he or she has certain legal obligations. I have heard his comments to the effect that he did that and that he would not necessarily have anything to gain by wilfully destroying cattle in this way.

However, and I genuinely make these points, this information is in the public domain and it has caused enormous disquiet among farmers, people being threatened by the banks, animal lovers everywhere and people who are concerned by the manner in which the State discharges its duties. Those points must be answered. The Minister of State indicated the so-called offensive suggestions made about the role of the Defence Forces have no basis in reality. I do not know what are those so-called offensive suggestions. The information is that these animals were shot while running around a field in a wilfully unco-ordinated way rather than in the proper manner. The only humane way to kill cattle is with a single bolt to the head. The information is there and if it is true, it is not offensive. It amounts to inappropriate action by the Defence Forces that must be investigated.

We have spoken about a protocol between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Defence, but we need more information on that. We need answers about the health of the herd and the state it was in. It is a very important issue. What were the public safety issues called into being that we needed to send in the Army? How often is the Army sent in with such cases? These are very valid questions that must be answered. The issues are out there and will not go away. I support Deputy Ferris's call for some form of independent investigation into this and into the wider use of State forces in these scenarios.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept most of what the Minister of State has said, but I take issue with the conduct of those involved. I do not like to repeat myself but I am doing so. I accept the Minister of State's comments about the role of the agencies, etc. The problem is the manner in which these animals were culled. I do not come from a farming background but I am sure I should have heard about something like this happening before. I have never heard of the manner in which this was done. The media reported that there were family members within earshot of the gunshots fired on the farm. I heard the man's son may have been within earshot.

Martin Ferris (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is true.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not acceptable for a child to be in earshot of gunshots being fired, with people racing around a farm. It paints a very poor picture of society in Ireland in 2016.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for raising this matter and I acknowledge the concerns expressed by them. We are all concerned that cattle should be treated humanely. Some inaccurate comments in circulation have undoubtedly contributed to the level of public concern about this. I underline, however, that it is clear from the facts that this is a very exceptional case, where five cattle from a herd restricted due to tuberculosis were culled as a last resort due to very specific circumstances.

The cattle at the time were in the ownership of the official assignee in bankruptcy into whose name the herd had been transferred. The official assignee was responsible for health and safety matters relating to the cattle and for compliance with relevant Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regulations, including those regarding tuberculosis. The culling was carried out by trained Army personnel in the presence of An Garda Síochána and in accordance with the detailed protocols in operation between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Defence. It followed extensive and ongoing consultation between the assignee, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Garda Síochána and the Department of Defence.

As I indicated, it would not be appropriate for me to comment here on matters relating to third parties and, in particular, an individual involved with this case. I note that in previous comments, the assignee indicated there were reasons it was not possible to remove the cattle or contain them by other means. I underline that the culling of cattle is considered as exceptional and a last resort by all the public bodies concerned, and that this is an exceptional and complex case with particular facts.