Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I will give the legalistic answer and then my view on it. The proposed amendment weakens the welfare thrust of this Bill. We have worked hard to achieve a fine balance between the rights of the individual and the need for the State to have the power to intervene where offences have occurred. The Attorney General and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel have been closely involved in the drafting of this Bill and have been very active in ensuring civil liberties and constitutional rights are upheld. The reason we have sought legal advice on this is that we do not want a situation in which people go to court and say in their defence that they did not mean to do it. If an animal is abused when someone comes home with too much drink taken or if a person flicks a cigarette into a barn and it goes up in flames, killing or burning animals, the person should not be able to defend himself or herself by saying it was not on purpose. In the normal course of law, a person will have a natural defence, if something goes to court, that there were reasons that were outside his or her control. I know exactly what the Senator is saying, and it is not unreasonable. However, according to my legal advice, if we put in the word "intentionally" to obtain the phrase "A person shall not ... intentionally do, or fail to do, anything or cause or permit anything to be done to an animal that causes injury (including disfigurement) or unnecessary suffering to, or endanger the health or welfare of, an animal", it will severely weaken the capacity to achieve prosecutions where appropriate. I can drop the Senators a note on our understanding of that, if they wish.

I can understand why farming organisations have concerns in this regard. Sometimes there are reasons, such as mental health problems, for a person behaving out of character or doing something unintentionally to cause suffering to animals in his or her ownership or control, but those circumstances would be taken account of anyway in a court of law, even if it were not put in as an excuse in the legislation. Such an amendment would weaken the Bill. In every case, solicitors and barristers would try to base their cases around whether the act was intentional. To be fair, much of the cruelty that takes place in Ireland is probably not intentional. Nevertheless, it may be significant, and we need to try to act on that to ensure behaviour changes.

I am told that section 61 provides for mental health problems, so there is another section that deals with that particular issue. I know there have been cases in which severe depression or other challenges may have led people - especially those living in isolation - to behave as they would not normally behave, and we need to take account of such things. That type of person does not belong in prison, and should not be fined; they need help.

In essence, this amendment weakens what we are trying to do, and I am not in a position to accept it.