Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Tá mé thar a bheith buíoch dó as teacht isteach leis an cheist seo a phlé liom. I raise the issue of oysters in Ballinakill Bay in north Connemara. We in Ireland pride ourselves on being able to sell the country as a place which is green, which has organic foods, etc., as does the Minister. However, there is an anomaly in Ballinakill Bay, on which I have been working for quite a while. I refer to a certain strain of a virus called ostreid herpes virus which has been the subject of a surveillance programme funded by the EU and administered by the Marine Institute over the past number of years. The idea is to try to keep the strain of the virus out of bays, if possible.

Ballinakill Bay was clear of the virus but during the surveillance programme, one oyster out of 900 tested was found to have the virus. It was found at the beginning of the programme approximately three years ago. As one oyster was found, the whole bay was taken out of the surveillance programme which basically opened up the bay for other oyster farmers to bring in other strains of oysters, which can be infected with other types of virus, although they are saleable on the market because they do not harm people. However, they reduce the quality of the bay and affect the designation it would have as an organic one in which we can farm these oysters. It is having a serious impact on the business which has been selling these organic oyster throughout Europe for the past number of years.

I have raised this issue with the Marine Institute which indicated that it was following directives from the EU and that this was an EU programme. I also followed it up through the offices of Ms Martina Anderson, MEP, in conjunction with Mr. Pat The Cope Gallager, MEP, who raised it with the Commission. There is a question mark over how one infected oyster got into the sample. It seems very strange.

Does that mean the whole bay had the ostreid herpes virus? If no other oyster is found over a two-year period can we declare the bay to be free of the virus? I shall also raise these questions with the Commission.

I understand from the replies that we received from the Commission that the surveillance programme will continue until 2014. If one follows the letter of the law regarding the discovery of one infected oyster, one could argue that the bay should have been removed from the surveillance programme. I call on the Minister to have the bay reinstated until the end of the surveillance programme and for the Marine Institute to continue its testing in order to keep infected oysters out of the bay for at least another year. There is a chance that the bay is free of disease and, if so, then we should maintain that status. If we allow oysters carrying the virus into the bay then the virus will spread and we will have no chance to restore the organic status of the bay.

I appreciate that the matter is covered by EU legislation. The only course of action open to us is for the Minister to intervene and request that the Marine Institute and his colleagues in the Commission restore surveillance for another year and until the end of 2014. Such a provision would mean that we could engage at the end of year and check if there are more infected oysters. If they exist, then one could argue that the bay is no longer disease free. If no more diseased oysters are found then surely we can reinstate the disease-free status of the bay on a full-time basis. Such status would do us a lot of good at European and national levels and would support the farmers involved. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. I apologise for Minister Coveney's absence but he was unable to attend this important and complex debate.

As the Senator said, the competent authority for dealing with the issue is the Marine Institute. The core issue is that in areas deemed free of the disease there should be no importation of stock from infected areas. The areas were known as surveillance areas and included Ballinakill. In 2011 a positive test result necessitated the removal of the bay from the surveillance programme.

Losses related to the virus in oysters were first observed in Ireland in 2008. The disease spread over the next couple of years and was strongly associated with imports of seed from France. Following representations made to the EU Commission by the Marine Institute, it was agreed by the Commission that this was a serious emerging disease and that trade restrictions should be put in place to protect the areas that were still free of the virus while allowing trade to continue between infected areas.

EU legislation was brought forward to that effect in 2010. As a result, a surveillance programme was established in certain parts of Ireland, the UK and the Netherlands. The kernel of the surveillance programme was that each competent authority identified epidemiological units, or bays in the case of Ireland, where virus-related mortality had not been observed to date, and which the member state wished to protect from trade with other infected areas either within their own member state or further afield, most particularly France. Once these areas were identified as part of the surveillance programme, they could only trade with areas that were also in a surveillance programme, either here or abroad, and were thereby afforded a level of legal protection against the virus.

One of the requirements of being in the surveillance programme was that a testing regime would be put in place to ensure that these bays were free of the virus. A significant amount of State resources have been put into the operation of the Irish surveillance programme since it started in 2010. Since the basis of the surveillance programme was to underpin safe trade, an obvious prerequisite was that an epidemiological unit must be removed from the programme should a positive result be detected in that unit following laboratory testing. Such a result was obtained in respect of Ballinakill Bay in 2011.

The Irish surveillance programme started with 19 surveillance areas. Since 2010 testing has revealed that five of them were infected and must be removed from the programme. The bays are Gweedore, Drumcliffe, Ballinakill, Oysterhaven and the Shannon Estuary. As new positive findings arose, new decisions were issued by the EU Commission. As newly-infected areas were removed from the national programme, the legislation was modified to reflect these findings. Newly-infected areas were also detected in Northern Ireland and Great Britain since the programme began in 2010.

Clinical disease is not required for an epidemiological unit to be removed from the programme. In other words, a single molecular result constitutes a positive finding which requires removal from the scheme. If it were not the case, then any trade out of the area in which the positive test was confirmed could potentially be responsible for disease spread either within Ireland or further afield.

As indicated, five bays have been removed from the Irish surveillance programme since it began in 2010. A positive finding at Ballinakill Bay necessitated its removal from the surveillance programme in 2011. It is important to note that the current legislation provides for no option other than to remove the bay from the surveillance programme following the detection of one positive oyster in the bay.

Once a bay is removed from the surveillance programme, the relevant competent authority no longer has any legal basis for restricting trade into the bay. This is the basis of the agreed EU programme and applies equally in all member states who participate in the programme. In the case of Ballinakill Bay, if the Marine Institute had continued to restrict trade following its removal from the programme, a legitimate challenge could have been taken by other operators in the bay who wish to import stock from France. Such imports were not allowed while the bay was in the surveillance programme.

The very complex situation in Ballinakill was fully recognised by the institute. Instead of simply removing the bay from the surveillance programme and immediately allowing importation of stocks from France, the institute invested significant efforts into encouraging growers to voluntarily restrict trade with France for that season while testing continued. The objective was for the institute to gather more scientific data that would be used to inform a voluntary path forward for all stakeholders.

Specifically, the institute was faced with a situation where certain growers wanted to bring in stock from France, which could not be legally prevented, and others wanted to go back into a surveillance programme that was not legally permissible. Instead, the institute tried to encourage stakeholders to consider the results obtained which was only one positive out of almost 900 animals tested using very sensitive methods. It encouraged stakeholders to consider the findings and to reach an agreement on a code of practice for the bay that the institute would support with testing and advice. It is understood that while this has not been actioned by the stakeholders to date, an initial meeting may be scheduled for the coming weeks.

The action taken by the institute in Ballinakill had been agreed by the EU Commission. The institute has made considerable efforts to encourage the stakeholders to agree a code of practice. An agreement to a code of practice could potentially, after a number of years, provide data upon which the virus free status at Ballinakill could be reinstated. The institute has offered scientific advice and laboratory testing to support the approach.

Ireland's reputation as a producer of top quality seafood is predicated on the implementation of a sound regulatory system that has the confidence of the public in general and the EU Commission. The Minister has indicated that he is satisfied, in the circumstances, that the correct approach is being adopted for the benefit of the entire industry. The reply was appropriately long for such a detailed and complex issue.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An bhfuil tú sásta, Senator Ó Clochartaigh?

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the answer. I have received a lot of the information from the Marine Institute. I agree that the matter is complex. The bottom line is that there was only one positive out of 900 animals tested which was discovered during the first year of testing. One could question how that could happen. It seems to be an aberration rather than the rule. I know that in the case of some of the other bays that were removed from the programme the situation was much more severe.

I welcome the fact that the Minister and the institute are trying to establish a code of practice for the bay. I ask that he applies a little more pressure to ensure that it is established, particularly if there is a chance that the bay could be kept disease free. That is a possibility. If the data collection is continued the bay could be reinstated. I understand that there is not a huge amount of testing being done at present because the bay has been removed from the programme. Perhaps he could urge that Marine Institute continues its testing and monitors whether the bay is disease free. I thank him for his answer again.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will convey the Senator's comments to the Minister.