Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We move to a very important report by the committee on agriculture and food.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann shall take note of the Report of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine entitled "Environmental Impact of Local Industrial Emissions in Castlecomer, Co. Kilkenny", copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 11th May, 2023.

As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I am glad to present this report to the Dáil for discussion this evening. I pass on apologies from Deputy McGuinness, who is unavoidably absent. I welcome, in the Visitors Gallery, the farmer in question, Dan Brennan, and his friends and neighbours. To show how serious this issue is being taken by the agricultural community, the president of the IFA, Francie Gorman, and the president of the ICMSA, Denis Drennan, are also in the Visitors Gallery to show solidarity with Dan Brennan.

We did this report at the back end of last year. The committee's view was that it would have liked to have done an independent investigation. The legal representatives of the House stated, however, that that was beyond the remit of the committee. I thank the Minister for taking the time to be here to discuss this report. I earnestly request that an independent investigation be carried out into what happened on Dan Brennan's farm. I make the point that this was not on the current Minister's watch. It happened a number of years ago. We are talking about something that happened 20 years ago on Dan Brennan's farm in Castlecomer, County Kilkenny. However, there are a lot of unanswered questions. One thing is certain, which is that Dan Brennan has suffered huge mental anguish and financial hardship from what happened on his farm. I will raise a number of issues that I think will prove conclusively that an independent investigation needs to happen into the incidents on Dan Brennan's farm. I have three letters from vets who worked in the Department.

The first is dated is from Mr. Dolan on 15 October 2004, and who had spent two years on Dan Brennan's farm. He wrote that it had been confirmed that there was a severe problem of illthrift and stunting on this farm. No infectious cause of the problem had been identified to that date. The second is from Pat Kelleher, the head of the Department laboratory in Kilkenny dated 26 October 2004. He wrote that Mr. Brennan's farm is close to an EPA licensed facility, and the circumstances in which he finds himself are outside his control and could not have been foreseen.

The third letter is from John Moriarty on 24 May 2005, who said that the farm was now the subject of an interagency investigation consisting of the Department, the EPA, Teagasc, the health board and county council, in accordance with specific guidelines and protocols of investigation approaches to serious animal and human health problems. The activation by the State of this protocol is only made in exceptional cases. He wrote that they had carried out extensive testing, analysis and feed trials, but had not yet identified the cause of, or a possible solution to the problem. He continued that the circumstances in which Mr. Brennan found himself were outside his control and could not have been foreseen. He had implemented all recommendations given to him by the laboratory and Teagasc. Mr. Brennan had been extremely co-operative throughout the investigation and invested huge time and financial resources in assisting with the investigation. However, the problem continued.

I have the full copies of those letters if the Minister wants them, but they were three Department vets who stated clearly that an issue they could not comprehend was happening on Dan Brennan's farm. Why did the Department allow the laboratory to publish a report saying that Dan Brennan's disease management was the problem on his farm? Michael Sheridan, the deputy chief veterinary inspector, was one of 15 people present at a meeting in the Newpark Hotel in June 2006. Also present were representatives of Teagasc, Kilkenny regional veterinary laboratory, UCD's veterinary college, the EPA, Kilkenny County Council, Dan Brennan's vets, Limerick university and a scientist from North Carolina. The UCD veterinary college had done an epidemiology report on the farm and told the lab in Kilkenny and Michael Sheridan that it was not disease.

The veterinary college proved this later when it took over the farm. A blood test was taken every two weeks for a period of two years and no disease was found. This point is important. The veterinary college conducted extensive blood testing on the animals on Mr. Brennan's farm and no disease was found.

Why did the Department ignore Mr. Tom Slevin when he told them the cattle had bones growing in their soft tissues and their vertebrae could be cut with a knife? He had never seen this before in his 45 years as vet. Eleven of the 40 cattle died during the investigation and underwent post mortems. A number of important points need to be made about those port mortems. To say that bones growing in soft tissues was unusual would very much be an understatement. It was agreed that a pathologist from the UK would come - I believe two names were provided to the Department - to conduct independent post mortems, but that never came about. It is extraordinary that animals would have bones growing out of their kidneys, so there had to be an extraordinary reason for that to happen. The question of why independent post mortems were not conducted merits an investigation on its own. The results of the post mortems have never explained how animals could experience such internal issues.

In January 2003, Teagasc in Kilkenny wrote to the EPA to say there was something seriously wrong on Mr. Brennan's farm. The EPA stated that the management of the farm was not the problem and that it was down to something it had never seen before. Professor Jack Gardiner, then a dean at UCD, was commissioned to do a study. He concluded that 45 acres of the farm's trees, ditches and so on had been affected by pollution. In his view, it had been caused by fluoride. This is a serious point.

The case was taken to Brussels. I have watched videos of the hearings there. The video from 2012 shows Commissioner Mairead McGuinness, who was an MEP at the time, saying the joint research committee would examine the matter. Department of agriculture and the EPA officials were in attendance. Mr. Brennan got a phone call in July of that year from a person on the committee stating that there was political interference in his case and it would not progress any further. That was the end of the process in Brussels.

I wish to refer to a letter that was sent to the Minister. I received a copy of it. It came from a retired Circuit Court judge. According to the retired judge, an area of concern is that the issues in question were before a committee of the European Parliament from 2010 to 2012 and that, on the last occasion, the recording confirmed that the matter was adjourned for further investigation and was due to be revisited upon the completion of that investigation. In the judge's opinion, what followed was something that ought to cause a great deal of concern to those, particularly parliamentarians, who uphold proper standards and procedures in our democratic institutions. The case never came back before the committee and the investigation in question appears to have never taken place. Instead, the file was sent to Ireland, apparently for consideration by a parliamentary committee in this jurisdiction. However, there was not so much as a covering note in that regard. Even more troubling in the retired judge's opinion is that this decision was not made by the European committee sitting in either open or closed session. Rather, it appeared to have been decided upon by the committee secretariat. The strong suspicion of political interference is inescapable. The retired judge felt it was worth noting that the effect of this transfer was the investigation by the State, inter alia, of two organs of the State, those being, the Minister's Department and the EPA. Thereafter, it took a full decade before the matter came to be considered at municipal level, and then only after extremely dogged persistence on the part of Mr. Brennan and his advisers, without which it would undoubtedly have never seen the light of day.

Of even greater concern to the retired judge is that Mr. Brennan has been denied access to this file for all the years it has been in the country. The retired judge asks on what basis such a refusal can be justified. If there ever was such a basis, it had never been communicated to Mr. Brennan or his advisers or supporters. The retired judge wrote it would be interesting to hear how this could be justified when we next spoke on this matter in the Dáil. I know the Minister has the full letter. How a case can go to Brussels and not have its hearing concluded is difficult to explain.

In September 2004, Teagasc in Moorepark told the Department that cadmium poisoning was affecting the cattle on Mr. Brennan's farm and that it had even been found in the cattle sheds' chutes. The Department did not get the veterinary college to test for cadmium when the latter took over the investigation for the former. Mr. Jim Crilly, the vet for Teagasc at Moorepark, rang the college to tell it to test for cadmium. It was only then that it showed up in the blood of Mr. Brennan's cattle. In December 2008, the college told Mr. Brennan, Mr. Slevin and Mr. Michael Lambe that the cattle had 95% of the symptoms associated with cadmium poisoning. The college told us that the report would be out in 2009. It told Mr. Brennan and his vets that it would be ten to 12 years before any major improvement would be noticed. It told him not to get out of the cow business, as his cattle had built up a level of tolerance to the pollution.

It would be remiss of me not to recall Mr. Pádraig Walshe, a former president of the IFA who put a great deal of work into pressing Mr. Brennan's case.

When the college found high levels of cadmium in the cattle's blood, it wrote to the EPA to find out how much cadmium per hour was coming out of the factory. The EPA told the college it was 1 g per hour, but the reading was actually 1,000 times higher at 1 kg. Why did no alarm bells go off in the EPA when the test from 2004 showed that Ormonde Brick was emanating 88 times the amount of cadmium set out in the German guidelines? Why are there no records of any more cadmium testing being done at this point, especially after Teagasc at Moorepark told the Department that the cattle had cadmium poisoning? Teagasc found that, despite the fact that the cattle were eating 12.5% more than normal, they were losing weight. Sick or diseased cattle do not eat. Extensive trials were done on the farm. Cattle and fodder from a neighbouring farm were brought in and cattle from Mr. Brennan's farm were taken to another farm to be fed. All these trials showed that, once animals were on Mr. Brennan's farm, they did not thrive and suffered serious ill health.

Why did the Department ignore Mr. Lambe - Mr. Brennan's vet - when he told it that there was a toxic agent at work? He had ruled out all other causes on the farm in 2002. Why did the Department ignore the veterinary college in April 2004 when the college told the Department that the farm needed to be looked at from a helicopter view and that something in the area was affecting it? This issue is cutting very close to the bone for many people in the Castlecomer area. In 2007, the parish priest said in public at a funeral that the deceased was the eighth worker from Ormonde Brick he had buried in the previous 12 years and that there were others buried in other parishes whose funeral mass he had not celebrated. From the altar at that funeral mass, the priest asked whether someone would please do something about this situation.

The Department rang Mr. Brennan in October 2009 and told him there had been a little glitch and that the cadmium found in samples taken over a six-month period had accidentally been put into those samples in the lab and had not come out of the factory. How could this have happened in an EPA-accredited lab?

Samples were taken from Dan Brennan's farm but it looks like they did not want to test them. They waited until the results would not be accurate. There is a strong correlation between increasing cadmium levels in the body of animals and weight loss in the animals. Furthermore, osteopenia occurred at levels of 11.5%. The scientific data confirming these links prove exposure of Dan's animals to toxic levels of cadmium.

I have raised a large number of questions. There are other points I can also raise. I am asking most earnestly, as Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, that the Minister hold an independent investigation into what happened. Let us get answers to the questions. I have another nine or ten questions on the list in front of me. These are questions that need to be asked on behalf of Dan Brennan and answers need to be given to him. I have met Dan Brennan on many occasions in recent years. I find him a most genuine man. All he wants is answers to the questions he is asking and justification that the losses incurred on his farm and what was happening to his cattle were outside of his control and had nothing to do with his and his family's farming practices.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Cahill and the committee for their work on this and for commissioning the report on the environmental impact of local industrial emissions in Castlecomer, County Kilkenny, which was completed last year. I acknowledge the presence of Dan Brennan and his colleagues, farm representatives Francie Gorman and Denis Drennan, who are the presidents of the IFA and ICMSA, and other representatives and supporters.

The report deals with the issues Mr. Brennan and his advisers have raised with regard to the environmental impact allegedly caused by industrial emissions from a brick factory. The committee has put significant time and work into this and held a number of meetings to assess it. The clear ask from everyone collectively is for a further review and assessment of what happened. When we discussed this most recently in a Topical Issue debate, I undertook to assess the matter further. I also requested to be informed of any additional further information. With the passage of time, there is no new information but significant assessments were done previously.

While I do not see any basis, as such, from my assessment of the matter, in acknowledgement of the work the committee has done and the questions it is raising it is appropriate that I have a separate independent review of the Department's investigation and any information that fed into it, to examine this further, provide feedback and look at what has been done. Twenty years is long time and there is a lot of water under the bridge. I respect the work of the committee, the priority and time it has collectively given to this issue and the assessment it has made. In recognition of this, it is fair that I ask an independent person to review the Department's work and investigation into this matter and any other information.

It is important to recount the work carried out by a number of State agencies since these events occurred 20 years ago or more. In 2003, the problems reported in Mr. Brennan's herd were initially investigated by the regional veterinary laboratory in Kilkenny. Because of the severity and intractable nature of the problem experienced on the farm, a legitimate question was raised about the possibility of environmental pollution playing a role in Mr. Brennan's farming difficulties. Having looked at all of the options and given the gravity of the situation, an interagency group was convened in line with the protocol for the investigative approach to serious animal and human health issues.

The substantial resources required to convene an interagency group meant this decision was not taken lightly. The decision to do so reflected the serious consideration given to Mr. Brennan's farm, the possible risks to the environment and the potential human health concerns also raised at the time. The interagency group comprised relevant and expert bodies of the State with competence to assess, on a scientific and objective basis, whether environmental pollution could have a role to play in the farm's difficulties.

The group was not in any way dismissive of the possibility that environmental pollution was a factor in the issues on the farm. Indeed, the opposite was the case because the group was expressly established to explore this possibility. The group comprised experts from the Department's veterinary laboratories, Teagasc, the South Eastern Health Board, as it then was, and Kilkenny County Council. The Environmental Protection Agency, as the body with specific expertise and responsibility for monitoring the control of environmental pollution, was also a member of the group. This joint and combined scientific investigation into Mr. Brennan's difficulties and the wider environment was impartial, detailed and substantial.

The veterinary laboratory's report of June 2006 details the comprehensive field and laboratory investigations undertaken on the farm. In tandem with the investigation, during the latter part of 2005 the Department funded a comprehensive animal health programme on the farm. On foot of this, we understand that animal health and production on the farm had shown a definite improvement from the first five months of 2006. Subsequently, and on foot of a request by Mr. Brennan and his advisers, University College Dublin's centre of veterinary epidemiology and risk analysis, CVERA, was commissioned to conduct further epidemiological studies on the farm. The CVERA report was completed in August 2009. Teagasc carried out animal production investigations, which included animal feeding and nutrition trials between 2003 and 2005, trace element analysis in 2004 and soil and herbage investigations in 2007, in support of the additional investigation of CVERA and the EPA.

Substantial and in-depth investigations were conducted by the EPA into fluoride emissions analysed by University College Cork, a tree survey conducted by UCD school of agriculture, an Environmental Protection Agency report on licence parameters and compliance monitoring, continuous emissions monitoring system outputs, dispersion modelling of cadmium emissions, production records regarding material safety data sheets, grass and soil analysis and an independent peer review of the work of the operations of the brick factory by US and UK environmental experts. The HSE reviewed human health parameters as part of the interagency group investigations. This involved an examination of any unusual patterns of human illness in the area. Kilkenny County Council carried out assessments of the water on the farm.

The interagency report of 2010 had regard to all of the reports by the various agencies involved. On the basis of scientific evaluation of these investigations, the interagency group issued its conclusions in its final report of August 2010. I understand that at all stages Mr. Brennan was kept apprised of ongoing studies and receive the reports as they were completed. Mr. Brennan and his advisers were also provided with opportunities to raise any concerns they may have had about the ongoing investigations. I am advised that Mr. Brennan sought a meeting with the authors of the 2009 CVERA report before the final draft was completed. On both occasions Mr. Brennan was given the opportunity to correct any factual errors in or omissions from the reports.

The final interagency report in 2010 specifically concluded there was no evidence of environmental pollution, cadmium or fluoride impact on the health of animals on Mr. Brennan's farm. These conclusions were based on wide-ranging clinical and pathological analysis of blood and tissues of animals on the farm and from extensive environmental analysis.

I acknowledge the report of the joint committee and I specifically note that the committee disagrees with some of the conclusions of the interagency report. However, it is evident that at the time the effort by the State to get to the bottom of the matter was significant. The agencies involved were there to serve the public interest. I do not have any reason to believe their efforts were intended to do anything other than establish the facts on this matter.

Notwithstanding the significant scientific work carried out by the five agencies as part of the interagency group, which concluded with the findings of the interagency report of 2010, I appreciate very much the human element of this.

I acknowledge the stress experienced by Mr. Brennan and his family due to the health issues in his herd, which undoubtedly have been very difficult. In recognition of that and of the work and request of the committee, I will now move to seek an independent review of the Department's investigation into this and of the reports that fed into it, to report back to me.

Again, I thank the committee for its work in giving time and attention to this, looking into it and bringing its final report before the Dáil. I acknowledge the presence of Dan Brennan with many of his supporters and colleagues, including the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for being here and warmly welcome Dan Brennan, his family and friends and representatives of the farm organisations.

Some facts are in dispute but this is what we know. The Brennan family ran a successful farm that was considered to be top-notch by anyone who ever saw it. Then problems began to emerge at the same time as activities taking place in a nearby factory. Animals got sick. Milk yield dramatically reduced. Biodiversity was destroyed. Plant life was wiped out. As the output of the adjoining factory intensified, the problems got worse and more intense. When the Brennan family complained and raised issues and concerns, they were told to varying degrees that either it was their fault, in once instance, or that the problems pertained to disease and not pollution. However, when animals that were severely underweight and severely under-yielding were taken from Dan Brennan's farm to a separate setting, their health improved dramatically. Throughout this time when all these issues were prevailing, Dan Brennan and his family were striving for answers. That is not the action of a deficient farmer. That is not the action of someone who is irresponsible. It is the action of someone who is desperately trying to find answers to what is happening on his farm.

Throughout that time, farm organisations, independent experts, academics, farm advisers and, from my reading, every objective person who analysed this found Dan Brennan was an excellent farmer. Indeed, farm leaders, as Deputy Cahill mentioned, and farming journalists staked their credibility on defending Dan Brennan as a farmer and arguing for answers. However, for some reason, the Department refused to accept all those facts. All those reports and work by various agencies as described by the Minister have been considered deficient. These are people who the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine considers to be experts when evidence is being sought. Then in December 2008, the brick factory closed and, literally overnight, farm conditions immediately began to improve to such a point that within a relatively short time, the farm again became a model of best practice.

Throughout the time since, Dan Brennan has fought like hell for the truth. I was not aware for much of that time of the efforts that he and others who were advocating for him had gone to. The first time I became aware of the case was in November 2022 when Dan Brennan and others associated with the case came before the joint committee. I have never been as struck by evidence that was put before the committee and I was pleased that the committee decided to bring forward this report. Since we brought forward the report, the initial response of the Department was to dismiss it entirely. In December, the month after the report was commissioned, then Deputy Kathleen Funchion, who is now a Member of the European Parliament, asked by way of oral question that these issues be independently investigated. The Minister refused. In November 2023, Deputies Cahill, Fitzmaurice, McGuinness and I raised a Topical Issue matter to ask questions and call for an independent examination. That request was refused as it has been in subsequent Topical Issue matters since.

Today the Minister has committed to ensuring there is an independent review of all these circumstances and I absolutely welcome that. I appeal to him not to take the goodness out of it. He has taken an important step forward today. I ask him to sit down with Dan Brennan and the leaders of the IFA and the ICMSA to agree how that independent review will take place, how it will operate and function. With no disrespect to any of the Department officials, it is clear from the evidence we heard that the Department has not been up to the standard we expect in getting answers. I therefore appeal to the Minister to sit around a table with those people to agree a terms of reference for this and allow us to get to the point where we get to the truth.

I was struck when I was talking to a young person in my office, trying to explain the complexity of these issues in a short time, whose retort was to ask me to imagine a situation where a farmer was accused of causing widespread destruction to wildlife and plant life for many years, and any time an examination was done, it was said that it was not the farmer's fault at all. Then all of a sudden the farm stopped operating and the problems solved themselves immediately. We would not all be allowed to pretend it never happened. This House would be in uproar trying to get answers. It should be the same in this case, despite the fact that the factory closed in 2008 and whatever has happened. Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds with Dan Brennan knows the pain, hurt and anger that any farmer would feel if accused of being a bad farmer or of being somehow responsible for what happened on this farm. We should be equally as adamant that the truth must come out in this case.

I welcome the Minister's statement, especially, according to the language he used, that he will seek an independent review, ensure it is a truly independent review and that the terms and operation of that review are agreed beforehand so that we can all have confidence that at the end of the day, we might finally get a step closer to the truth.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Fitzmaurice. The Deputy has four minutes.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Excuse me, but I believe I have eight minutes.

I commend Deputy Cahill, the Chair of our committee. He has sunk his teeth into this. As Deputy Harkin said, Deputy Carthy is from Monaghan. I am from Roscommon-Galway. Dan Brennan does not live in our area. Deputy Cahill is from Tipperary. When Dan Brennan appeared before our committee, we knew that somebody does not keep something going for 20 years. This matters dates back to 2004. A person does not keep something going unless they feel there is a woeful injustice being done to them.

I commend the farming organisations. I welcome Dennis Drennan and Francie Gorman to the Gallery. I also want to remember Padraig Walshe, who, God rest him, was with Dan Brennan the day he appeared before the committee. I think of Mr. Walshe.

This is not just about Dan Brennan. This could be a farmer in Donegal, Kerry, Sligo, Tipperary or somewhere else. I do not care what Department said what down through the years. What happened in this case stinks to the high heavens, to be quite frank. I am no private investigator or scientist, but when one checks fodder and water and when one says to a farmer - and it is insulting to a farmer to be told this - that they are not looking after their cattle properly when they are doing so, that is not good. When all of these things are checked, and the farmer is not at fault, then, as Deputy Harkin has said, one has to take a helicopter view and look outside to see what is wrong.

There was a guy who appeared before our committee - I believe it was a Mr. Crilly - who spoke about samples that were taken from eave gutters. That guy talked from the heart.

A huge amount of research was done but it was not listened to. Something stinks when something goes over to Brussels but comes back without a person on the committee knowing about it, without it being discussed, without anyone asking what we are going to do with it and whether we are going to have a report on it, and how it came back. Something is wrong when people are talking about one gram versus one kilogram of cadmium. There is something amiss and something awfully wrong and suspicious when samples go to a place but they do not appear or they get lost. God, it is very convenient. That should not happen. There is something very wrong if a vet who had an opinion is moved.

In fairness, this was not in the Minister's time. No one is saying one thing about the current Minister because he was not the Minister at that time. As politicians, no more than with regard to other inquiries that have been brought up in the Dáil, we have a responsibility to try to undo a wrong that has been done. We have a responsibility to this wronged person, a farmer and family man. We could see it etched in Dan Brennan's face at our committee meeting. I did not know the man from Adam and nor did Deputy Carthy. Deputy Cahill might have known him but we did not know him from Adam and we could see etched in his face the years of torture that he and his family had gone through in trying to get justice.

I welcome the Minister's indication that there will be an inquiry. I listened to him use words like "inquiry" and that there would be a "review" of what the Department had done and I heard him say there was no new information. We need an independent person, not one nominated by the Department, to conduct this inquiry. The Minister should find an independent person or ask Deputy Cahill to do so and put whatever expertise is required at that person's disposal. I would like to see someone like a retired High Court judge being appointed. He or she might not know a lot about farming but the Minister can provide the wherewithal to get the expertise from outside the country. The biggest problem, if we are investigating ourselves, is that we are not too fond of hanging ourselves.

The EPA has a lot to answer for here. There are certain State or semi-State bodies that have a fair bit to answer for because one farm was sacrificed for the bigger picture. I ask the Minister to make sure we get closure on this. We are not here on a Thursday afternoon for the craic. We are here to try to make sure that Dan Brennan gets justice. I welcome the fact that the Minister has made this effort but I urge him to provide the necessary expertise, whether that needs to come from Germany, the UK or elsewhere. No more than a lot of things in this country, it is a small circle. Not alone do we need a review of the Department, we also need a review of every person who gave evidence, as well as any other evidence that can be brought forward. We need to hear from the likes of Jim Crilly and we need to go to UCD and all other relevant places and look for the answers. We also need to go to Brussels to find out what went on behind the scenes whereby a report was posted back but nobody knows who did it. There is something very fishy about that.

I can go through all of the different parts of this but in fairness to Deputy Cahill, he has outlined the case well. We have heard it. Basically, bones started growing on kidneys. There is something wrong because that does not happen. How many farmers around the country today have had that happen to their herd? Zero. There was something wrong that caused that and it was not the fault of that man up in the Public Gallery, Dan Brennan. There is no point in my going through all the tittle-tattle about what went on. That is what the person who is going to head up this inquiry needs to do. He or she needs to meticulously go through this with an open mind, get the expertise that is needed and listen to all of the players in this, including the ordinary people.

I welcome what the Minister has done and thank him for it. He must make sure that this does not drag on for a year, leaving us scratching our heads again. This needs to be done as soon as possible. We need to provide whatever time is required to do it meticulously but we must not kick the ball so far down the road that we are waiting and waiting again.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome Dan Brennan, Francie Gorman, Denis Drennan and representatives of the farm organisations to the House. I am sure Dan's family are watching at home as well. This is an important day for Dan and his family. I know Dan. He is a responsible and good farmer. I visited his farm with former Deputies Mary White and John Gormley during the depths of that crisis and saw at first hand what was going on. It was seriously untoward and wrong. I know Dan to be a good farmer and I know this is as much about pride and vindication of his practices as a farmer.

I welcome the work done by Deputy Cahill and the agriculture committee. I sat in on and watched that session and listened again to harrowing evidence from Dan. To have to relive that again must have been very difficult for him and his family but the committee did a good job in taking on board that evidence. The commitment that my ministerial colleague, Deputy McConalogue, has given today is an important one and I really welcome it. I welcome the fact that he has committed to an independent review of this awful case. As other Deputies have said, it needs to be an expansive review that looks at all of the scientific evidence and takes everything into account. The terms of reference for the review are going to be very important. Today is an important day and a good day for Dan after what has been a very long and arduous journey for him and his family to clear their name and vindicate what they had known all along, which was that there was something very amiss that was not of their making.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, the committee Chairman, Deputy Cahill, and all of the members of the committee for their report and the work they did on this. I acknowledge again the presence of Dan Brennan and his family members, as well as farm organisation representatives and supporters in the House today.

As I said in my earlier contribution, there has been significant investigation and assessment of this case over the years by many State agencies. I referenced the interagency group which was set up and included the Department's veterinary laboratories, Teagasc, the then South Eastern Health Board, Kilkenny County Council and the EPA, as well as UCD's centre for veterinary epidemiology and risk analysis, CVERA. There is long record here of assessments that have been done in the context of determining what happened. I acknowledge the work the Oireachtas committee has done. While my Department is clear that processes were followed and assessments were taken and looked into with all due regard, I accept the request for an independent review and assessment and will now carefully consider the next steps.

Again, I thank the parliamentary committee for its work. It invested significant Oireachtas time, on a cross-party basis, in assessing this issue, which I respect and which I will assess further in terms of the steps I am taking.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I sincerely thank the Minister for taking on board the request from the Oireachtas joint committee, which I am privileged to chair. I really appreciate him doing so. Our report is entitled Environmental Impact of Local Industrial Emissions in Castlecomer, Co. Kilkenny, and I welcome the fact that we will have a review of what happened there. I will not go back over what I said earlier in the debate but I very much welcome the Minister's decision. I hope we can bring this to a conclusion, as Deputy Fitzmaurice said, sooner rather than later, but as long as we do it comprehensively and in an efficient manner, that is what I and everyone else who is involved in this wants. I sincerely thank the Minister for his presence this evening and for listening to the committee and its concerns. We just want to get to the truth of the matter and bring it, as I said, to a conclusion with an impending investigation as speedily and efficiently as possible. I thank him again.