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

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 18, before section 16, to insert the following new section:
16.--(1) Subject to subsection (3), a person shall not, except in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations, carry out an operation or procedure to mutilate or cause or permit another person to mutilate an animal (including the docking or nicking of the tail of a bovine, canine or equine, the removal of horns or antlers from an animal or firing an equine).
(2) Where a person mentioned in subsection (3) proposes to carry out an operation or procedure referred to in subsection (1), he or she must be of the opinion that the operation or procedure is necessary for the health and welfare of an individual animal and is for diagnostic, therapeutic or other medical purpose.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to--(a) a veterinary practitioner,
(b) a veterinary nurse, or
(c) a person carrying out an operation or procedure in relation to or connected with the practice of veterinary medicine prescribed in regulations made under section 54A (inserted by section 2 of the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Act 2012) of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005,acting in accordance with the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 and subsection (2).
(4) A person shall not mutilate or cause or permit another person to mutilate an animal for--(a) cosmetic reasons, or
(b) in a manner that obliterates or obscures any mark identifying the animal or that renders the identification of the owner of the animal more difficult.(5) A person shall not show an animal at an event to which members of the public have access if the animal has been mutilated in contravention of subsection (1).
(6) A person who contravenes this section commits an offence.
(7) Nothing in section 12 applies to an operation or procedure carried out under and in accordance with this section.
(8) In this section--
“docking” means the removing of a bone or a part of a bone from the tail;
“firing” means the application of a hot liquid, caustic chemical or a heated iron or instrument to the leg of an equine;
“mutilate” means to carry out an operation or procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissue or the bone structure of an animal;
“nicking” means the severing of a tendon or muscle in the tail.”.

We are proposing to insert a new section 16. This has been a difficult area to deal with and there has been a good deal of toing and froing between veterinary representative bodies and the Department to try to get the balance right on issues such as tail docking, when it can be justified, when it cannot be justified, who should do it, how it should be done and what restrictions and controls should be in place. This new section is a significant improvement on the original section 16 dealing with the mutilation of animals.

Concerns were raised about this section and its possible interaction with the Veterinary Practice Act. Therefore, the section was re-worded to make clear that it does not impede the operation of that Act. On the face of it, this section outlaws all operations other than where they are allowed by regulation or where they are carried out under the Veterinary Practice Act. This includes a wide variety of activities including castration, de-horning and so on which are currently done on farms. However, the intention is that these will all continue to be allowed by regulation. The regulations will give clear guidance on what is acceptable, what time periods may apply or what equipment may or may not be used. I do not intend to interfere with normal farming practices. However, on the other hand I do not wish to allow a free-for-all whereby people can cut off bits of animals as they see fit. Therefore, operations which do not benefit the animals themselves should be regulated. Work has already commenced on draft regulations and I will be happy to forward details to the members of the committee in due course and we can discuss them.

I propose to restrict the docking of tails for cosmetic and showing purposes. It is possible to further restrict the activity by regulation if needed but I do not propose to do so at this juncture. I do not propose to follow the route taken in Northern Ireland, which is based on the concept of a working dog, because this is an artificial concept and introduces unnecessary bureaucracy. The option exists in animal health and welfare regulations to make provision having regard to breed and type of activity of the individual dogs concerned.

Amendments Nos. 32 to 34, inclusive, are rendered redundant by the redrafting of section 16. Specifically, since the reference to firing has been removed, amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are no longer relevant. This can be dealt with under regulation and it could apply at the end of the process i.e. after examining a series of other treatments and so on.

Amendment No. 89 is a knock-on amendment from the changes to section 16. It amends section 52. Since the numbering of section 16 has changed, the cross-reference must be updated. It is difficult to deal fully with issues such as tail docking, firing and other specific practices, which may be justified in some cases but not others, in a blunt manner with primary legislation. This is why, like other areas, we are looking to introduce a series of codes and new regulations to ensure that when these practices take place, they occur in an acceptable manner.

I have spoken to vets about these issues. Strong views have been expressed about tail docking in particular. There have also been strong views from some specialist equine vets on firing. Firing is a way of treating inflamed legs or shins on horses when no other treatment is available. I have held some detailed discussions with one vet in particular to understand how and why this could be justified. As someone who is involved with horses on a regular basis I was keen to understand how one could justify the firing of a horse's leg. Anyway, there is justification for it in certain circumstances but we need to regulate it. We are trying to deal with the complexity of these practices in a sensible way rather than impose a blunt ban.

Having said that we are introducing some clear bans in the legislation. For example, the new section will make clear that one cannot mutilate an animal for cosmetic reasons. We are also making clear that a person will not be allowed to show an animal if it has had its tail docked for cosmetic reasons. This will not be popular with some but I do not believe we should inflict pain and arguably mutilation on an animal for the purposes of making it look nice. If there is a reason for it because it is a working animal, because there is no alternative or on welfare grounds because of the environment it will be working or operating in, then so be it and we should deal with it through regulation.

There is a link with the Veterinary Practice Act. The regulation must cross-reference several Acts and is not simply related to this legislation. This is why we must work with vets and other organisations representative of various sectors, whether farming or other sectors, to ensure we get the regulations right and that they are consistent not only with this legislation but with the recently introduced veterinary legislation.

We were trying to do the right thing with the original drafting of section 16. However, from various conversations and discussions held it turns out it is somewhat more complex than had originally been thought. The new section 16 allows us to deal with some of that complexity through regulation. We can sit around the table with the people involved, primarily vets, to get the balance right between what is acceptable and what is not and under what conditions.

We should not forget that regulations are not voluntary codes of conduct. They are instruments of law but they are not defined through primary legislation. We can return and discuss the regulations at committee level at a later stage and that is a more sensible way to deal with it. Otherwise we would have to provide for it in this legislation and, as a consequence, we may have to amend it at a later stage, but the amending of primary legislation is not a straightforward matter.

As a consequence we may have to amend it a later stage. The need to amend primary legislation is not a straightforward matter.