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

Amendment No. 20 relates to an authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing a person is offending against the section with regard to an animal. The authorised officer may require the person to immediately desist from so offending. The Deputy is asking me to remove "reasonable grounds" and provide for an authorised officer "who has evidence" for believing that a person is offending against the section.

In this legislation we are trying to ensure that authorised officers can intervene before events happen, if possible. One of the weaknesses of existing legislation in this area is that there must be evidence before action can be taken. That means cruelty would have already occurred. One of the fundamental changes this legislation is bringing into law is allowing us to take action early and issue a welfare notice, for example, which is a new mechanism. Some people may see it as an on-the-spot fine but the idea is to try to keep people out of court unless they must be brought there.

An authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing there is a problem should be able to take action on the back of it. It is up to the authorised officer to subsequently show that there were reasonable grounds for this. In other words, an authorised officer may get a call from a person whose neighbour is beating an animal at night, as can be heard from yelps and howls from the garden. The officer could take action on the back of that if there are reasonable grounds to act, with a likelihood of cruelty occurring. In a farming case, there may be a report that a neighbour mistreats animals or injects them with something that should not be used. An officer would be able to take action on the back of that if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that something that should not have happened has occurred.

If there must be evidence before such action, an officer would have to procure a warrant and put a case together. That may be difficult without taking the action we are looking to provide for. Later we will discuss how an authorised officer, under certain conditions, may enter a residential premises if there is reason to believe that evidence will be destroyed if immediate action is not taken. I am sure we will have a discussion about the circumstances - which would be very restrictive - as to when that may be allowed. This is all about trying to ensure that authorised officers can take action on the basis of reasonable grounds, as opposed to having the full onus of collecting and producing evidence before anything is done.

This is about prevention as well as responding to acts of cruelty. It is also about prevention of intentional spreading of disease rather than dealing with consequences afterwards.

If we include evidence, it will make it much more difficult for an authorised officer to take action, even if he or she has has a strong reason to believe something is happening which must be prevented. I understand the Deputy's motivation, but I do not agree with the amendment.