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

There is a difference of opinion between some veterinary practitioners and our legal advisors with regard to the meaning of "acute". This section provides that an authorised officer may require a person to take such steps as are necessary to alleviate a case where an animal is in acute distress or an acute state of distress. This would include obtaining necessary veterinary care or providing appropriate shelter or food. A person who fails to comply with this provision commits an offence. Should this not be enough, the officer may seize and detain the animal before disposing of it, including by re-homing.

I understand the reason for this amendment is that in the veterinary profession, "acute" has a more limited meaning than in ordinary language. I have been advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that in interpreting legislation, the courts will follow the ordinary meaning of language, having regard to the context in which it is used rather than specialist use. For that reason we are not proposing to accept the amendment. Basically, I am taking the advice of Parliamentary Counsel over that of some veterinary practitioners around the concern about using the word "acute" in the profession. I am obliged to take that advice.