Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy O'Sullivan on presenting this Private Members' motion this evening. I was delighted to sign up to it with the Independents 4 Change. I welcome the NGOs, volunteers and activists in the Gallery. It reflects the interest and concern people have in animal welfare and health.

There is an expression that a society is judged by how it treats, supports and protects its vulnerable. I believe societies should also be judged by how they treat and respect animals who are vulnerable and who are in the care of society. I have serious questions on how the Government has responded to the housing crisis, where we have 3,000 children in hotels and hostels. As an Opposition Deputy, I believe we should also challenge the Government's policy on the Animal Health and Welfare Act. With regard to hare coursing, the 130 coursing trials using only 64 hares, which took place in September, have already been mentioned. This is against the provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare Act. We know of people taking the hares as they are released after coursing and collecting and selling them back in the interests of profit. There are many areas in hare coursing where there are serious problems and people are breaking the provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare Act.

If the Government deems hare coursing worthy of licensing, we maintain it should be consistent and ensure all coursing fixtures are subject to National Parks and Wildlife Service monitoring. Where monitors are not present, coursing clubs have repeatedly shown over the years that they tend to act in breach of the licensing conditions. If the State lacks the manpower or commitment to monitor all these animal baiting events, it should stop licensing them and simply outlaw hare coursing, an option favoured by the majority of people according to opinion polls.

I want to take up the point on animals being exported from Ireland. The Guardiandid a very detailed examination of this back in May, which showed evidence of exported animals being cruelly treated from the point of view of welfare. It did not criticise the fact that animals are being exported and how they are exported on the ships. It was about where they ended up, often outside European laws, how they were treated, which was absolutely disgusting, with their throats being slit and their being hung by one leg and slaughtered while alive, and some of the conditions, such as having no water or food and the transport conditions of these animals. What we and people who are concerned about animal welfare want to hear is that there is real transparency, that any country to where animals are exported should be very clear that its animal welfare legislation should be of high quality also, and that wherever the animals are transported to, they should be respected in the same way as they are respected here, even though there is a huge question mark about how we actually use animals.

We have been contacted by the ISPCA, which states it welcomed the Act introduced in 2014, but the punishments for prosecutions are too small and do not serve to create a deterrent to those who are cruel to animals. For cases dealt with by the District Court the fine is up to €5,000 or six months' imprisonment, and in the Circuit Court the fine is up to €250,000 and five years' imprisonment. The 2016 report by the ISPCA gives a few examples of cases that went to court. All the people involved were fined €500 and ordered to pay €750 costs. In only one case was the person disqualified for keeping dogs for two years. What should be done is that anybody prosecuted in the courts for cruelty to animals should be disqualified from keeping animals for at least five years. There should not be a maximum fine of €5,000 but a minimum fine of €4,000 or €5,000 for people who are found to be cruel to animals. Some of the cruelty the ISPCA has dealt with is absolutely horrific, and these people should not be allowed to keep animals in any shape or form over the next period of time. The ISPCA wants more resources and more officers on the ground, and this should be done. If the Minister cannot implement or provide this, it makes a mockery of the legislation. The Minister should deal with this and come back with how he intends to increase the number of officers in the area to deal with the issues.

See this speech in context