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

I do, particularly in respect of amendment No. 15 because what is being proposed here is good but it does not make legal sense to do it. I will explain why this is the case. What Deputies Ó Cuív and Pringle are proposing in amendment No. 15 is essentially to put the five freedoms into this legislation because for most people, they are the accepted measurement of whether one is looking after an animal properly. These conditions include whether animals are in a suitable environment, have an appropriate diet, are allowed to exhibit normal behavioural patterns, are housed in a way that is appropriate and are protected from unnecessary pain, suffering, injury and disease.

We are dealing with the five freedoms in far more detail in different parts of this legislation. I can tell members the areas in which we are doing this. The environment element is dealt with in section 11(1)(b). Diet is dealt with in section 13 and behaviour is dealt with in section 11(1)(a)(ii). Housing and safety from other animals is being dealt with in section 11(1)(b) 11(1)(a)(i)(II). Being free from pain and disease is being dealt with in section 11 1(a)(i) and section 12. It is not that we are not committed to the five freedoms and we need to be careful that we are not too glib about that because in a year's time, it might be a case of the six fundamentals. At the moment, the five freedoms is the benchmark set in respect of animal welfare and I agree with that as it is a good thing. However, amendment No. 15 does not change anything in the legislation but becomes repetitive and looks as if we are dealing with some of these issues in a way that is not as substantive as the way we are actually dealing with them.

If one looks at amendments Nos. 25a and 49a, both of which are mine, one will see that we are trying to deal in a more substantial way with some of the issues in those five freedoms. I am quoting all sorts of sections and it is very hard to follow if one does not have them in front of one. For example, amendment No. 25a proposes to insert shelter and warmth, adequate light and ventilation and adequate exercise into section 14(3)(c) to deal with Deputy Ferris's wish to see light and ventilation included in the responsibility for housing an animal. That is a good example of how we are dealing with the fourth freedom of housing, but doing so in a much more comprehensive way than just listing the five freedoms. I can give members a detailed note before Report Stage, if they wish, to show in a very clear way how we are dealing with each of the five freedoms. It is more comprehensive than simply listing them and then pretending that the job is done. Within the different sections that apply, be they the cruelty, housing or code of conduct sections, we are dealing with all five items but dealing with them in the appropriate section rather than just naming them one after the other on page 13, which is what is being proposed.

What I am proposing in amendment No. 25a is very similar to what Deputy Ferris is proposing in amendment No. 25b, and what I am proposing in amendment No. 49a is very similar to what Deputies Pringle and Ó Cuív are proposing in amendment No. 50. I agree with the principles and sentiment behind what the Deputies are proposing but we are doing it in a comprehensive way.