Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

This is a matter that concerns Senator O'Neill and which he has partially addressed. The Minister indicated there could be a response down the line. Will the Minister clarify section 8(4), which relates to where a person having possession or control of a farm animal fails to comply with subsection (1) and that person is not the owner of the farm animal, then the owner shall also have committed an offence? There is probably a reasonable explanation for it but it would seem to me that where a person operating an animal feed lot or livery stable does not conduct his or her business properly under the law, the owner of the animal could also be prosecuted. Perhaps there is an explanation but it appears that if the person is not the owner of the farm animal, the owner shall also be deemed to have committed an offence.

In layman's terms it appears to me that if I am the owner of a horse and the horse is in livery in a stable where, unknown to me, things are not operating as they should and there is some sort of inspection, it is not just the operator who is liable to prosecution but I, as the owner of the animal, could also be considered responsible for the difficulty. The way the provision is written would appear to indicate the owner of the animal shall also have a liability. Where a person who is not the owner of an animal but is in possession of it fails to comply with the section, the owner shall also have committed an offence. Perhaps the Minister might reflect on this provision. There may be an explanation, but it is not jumping off the page for any of us. Senator O'Neill brought this matter to my attention and I am sure that he will contribute. In particular, I have in mind people in the equine business. Livery is an important part of the care of horses. As the Senator mentioned to me, a horse might break out of a livery yard or stable where the owner of said stable does not have matters fully in order. That person is not the animal's owner, yet this provision seems to indicate that the owner would also be guilty of an offence. A little clarification might be required.