Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will accept amendment No. 21 as I agree it will improve the situation because it will allow action to be taken on what might happen rather than what is happening at present or what has happened. To shorten the list, we agree on amendments Nos. 22 and 23 because we are seeking the same end and I believe our wording is a little better. I thank Deputy Ó Cuív for accepting it.

Section 12 deals with the prohibition of animal cruelty so it and the previous section we dealt with on animal welfare are the key sections of the Bill. With regard to amendment No. 16, we are trying to bring as much legal certainty as we can and we do not want excuses to be given such as that a person did not mean to do something. Very few people are intentionally cruel to an animal and if they are it is an open and shut case. Proving someone is intentionally cruel is very difficult in a court of law.

A person who owns a dog and comes home drunk at night and kicks it around the garden or does not feed it could make the case that he or she was not being cruel because he or she did not do so intentionally but because he or she was drunk. This type of excuse has been used in cases of domestic violence. I do not want an easy out for people who are responsible for cruelty to animals.

Provision is made in a later section for a person with a mental illness accused of cruelty to an animal. We do not want to be pursuing a person who for reasons of mental illness is not capable of looking after animals but is accused of neglect or cruelty. This type of person needs help rather than the imposition of a fine or imprisonment. With that exception, we do not want to create unnecessary ambiguity through the provision of a legal mechanism which enables people get out of cruelty cases. From that point of view, I do not agree with Deputy Ó Cuív. I do, however, agree with him on amendment No. 17, which might surprise some people. This section provides that a person shall not do, or fail to do, anything or cause to 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. There is no need for the inclusion in this section of the words "injury (including disfigurement, or". This is dealt with in another section and will be further dealt with by way of regulation or codes of conduct.

This section deals with cruelty. As such, it is perfectly acceptable that it would simply provide that a person shall not do, or fail to do, anything or cause to permit anything to be done, to an animal that causes unnecessary suffering to, or endangers the health or welfare of, an animal. I see no reason for the inclusion of the words "including disfigurement" at this point because of dehorning or putting a ring on a lamb's tail and so on.