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

We held a lengthy discussion on the humane destruction of animals in a previous meeting. Deputy Ó Cuív and others were anxious that authorised officers be required to seek the advice of a vet before destroying an animal in order to ensure animals are put down only when necessary. I indicated that I would revert to them on Committee Stage or Report Stage with improved wording.

Amendment No. a43a brings us back to the example of a traffic accident involving a truck carrying live cattle. The scene is horrific, with animals in pain, and the authorised officer must make a decision about putting them down. He or she would be required to seek the advice of a vet or at least attempt to do so before making the decision on welfare grounds. We have taken legal advice on the wording of the amendment and we think it deals with the concerns expressed by Deputy Ó Cuív in particular. I was anxious to deal with the matter before Report Stage rather than leaving a list of detailed amendments to be discussed.

Amendment No. 43a does something similar. We could accept both amendments or on their own merits but they are complementary. Amendment No. 43a requires an authorised officer to take account of a code of practice or veterinary opinion before making a decision. Perhaps a vet sent an e-mail in response to a particularly inquiry and, as Deputy Ó Cuív suggested, that should suffice. The combination of amendments Nos. a43a and 43a puts an obligation on the person who makes a judgment call on putting an animal down to seek veterinary advice or apply best practice.