Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill. It is a response to a gap in existing legislation and one that has been lobbied for by many people concerned with animal welfare over the years. I would like to believe that the little amount of lobbying on the current Bill reflects a general acceptance of what is proposed. One of the reasons for that was the wide-ranging public consultation which elicited submissions from an impressive number of organisations. I would certainly recommend that as a process that ought to be followed when framing all legislation and perhaps it is something that could also be brought more into the work of the committees here. Perhaps the fact that there was such a consultation accounts for the generally favourable response to the Bill as published.

The Minister will be aware that my party in the North has been the main mover behind similar animal welfare legislation and with similar objectives including measures specifically designed to combat the most blatant and horrific examples of animal abuse, namely, the breeding and keeping of dogs for fighting or in pursuit of barbaric practises such as badger baiting. Previous to this we had legislation dealing specifically with the keeping and care of dogs and a separate Bill relating to greyhounds which recognised the unique aspects of the greyhound sector.

The Dog Breeding Establishments Act and the Welfare of Greyhounds Act were met with general approval and met most concerns.

There are still people who favour banning greyhound coursing and racing but they do not have the support of many people. The bottom line must be that no one is allowed wilfully to abuse animals for profit or, even worse, for motives of cruelty. It is to be hoped the Bill will further narrow the scope for such individuals and put in place legislation under which such people can be prosecuted and have suitable punishment bestowed on them. Farm animals and other animals kept for commercial and sporting reasons, as well as domestic pets, are under the care and responsibility of humans and are therefore entitled to protection.

Despite the two items of legislation to which I referred, regarding so-called puppy farms and greyhounds, I and other public representatives continue to be lobbied by people regarding the welfare of dogs. Deputy Ó Cuív referred to thousands of e-mails and Members have been receiving them continuously, particularly in respect of puppy farming. None of us wants to see cruelty of any kind. Some people are straightforwardly opposed to racing and coursing of greyhounds. It is not a position I or my party share but there are legitimate grounds for concern. Any abuses within the sector must be policed by the greyhound sector, with rogue trainers and breeders exposed and thrown out of the sport. They should also be subject to the full rigour of the law.

On occasion, I go to coursing meetings and I am very impressed with the policing of meetings over recent years. The most stringent measures are in place to try to eliminate cruelty. Vets are also present to ensure that, if something happens, what follows is carried out in a humane fashion. The hares used in coursing are inoculated to ensure they are suitable for the course and are not easy prey for the greyhounds. In Abbeyfeale and in County Kerry, coursing is done in a humane way. Full credit is due to everyone associated with it.

The same reasoning should apply to farm animals. I welcome the tightening of legislation to ensure farm animals are provided with protection against cruelty. I would like to see greater rigour in respect of how commercially used species are kept. We may address this on Committee Stage.

I was brought up on a farm. When one is brought up with animals and one's livelihood depends on them, one understands it is in the interests of the farmer to ensure animals in his care are kept in the best possible way. I have seen certain people being extremely cruel to animals. In many instances, they got away with it. Anything that can be done to ensure we eradicate that kind of cruelty, whether domestic or commercial, should be done at all costs. There should be no place for any person to display cruelty towards domestic or other animals.

Part 3 refers to the provision of basic needs, such as food, water and shelter. Section 12 also refers specifically to cruelty. I wonder if that should be more clearly defined in respect of, for example, the type of accommodation in which animals are kept. Reference is made, in section 12(2)(a) to sanctions against people who convey or carry animals, or cause to convey or carry animals, in a way that causes them unnecessary suffering or endangers their lives or health. What that means should be specified. On Committee Stage, I would like to see that tied down more firmly. It is ambiguous and loose. I welcome it but wonder whether that might also not be extended, in some instances, to the day-to-day accommodation of animals kept for commercial purposes. It is argued that animal protection agencies currently have the power to remove pets from circumstances in which they are held which are similar to those deemed acceptable for commercially kept species. There is an issue regarding the manner in which poultry are kept in some commercial establishments, and perhaps that needs to be addressed.

We must consider the health aspect both from a human and animal perspective. The Bill seeks to tighten the protections against the outbreak and spread of disease, which can have enormous commercial implications and also present dangers for human health, as we witnessed in the case of outbreaks among farm animals over the past decade and more.

I am certain the Minister and all Members will recognise the key role that North-South co-operation played in limiting the negative impact of the most recent outbreaks. I look forward, as does my colleague, Michelle O'Neill, the corresponding Minister in the North, to closer and further co­operation across this area of concern and, indeed, the entire agricultural sector. There is a good working relationship between the Ministers, which is to be commended. Long may it continue.

Regarding the prevention and detection of disease and the imposition of the necessary controls, the Bill proposes to endow authorised officers with the power to enter premises and to make required inspections. No one can object to this in the light of the seriousness of the issues at stake but we must get the balance right. Concerns have been expressed regarding the powers to be granted to authorised officers. People are especially sensitive about people being given the power to search premises and gather information such as documents. All Members have been lobbied by the farming organisations on this point. It is a matter of getting the balance right. Those with inspection powers must approach the matter in a sensitive manner in order that they are not seen as forceful or dogmatic towards people witnessing the search of the premises.

It is important this matter is dealt with properly and that the persons authorised with such powers are properly qualified. I welcome the suggestion that such persons be duly qualified and appointed veterinary officers with temporary responsibility in this area. Some of the concerns expressed by the farming organisations, without putting too fine a point on it, relate to the manner in which the Department's special investigations unit has carried out investigations unrelated to animal welfare. That is the history of it and it must be carefully monitored. Those concerns have to do with other bureaucratic requirements regarding compliance and with other aspects of farming regulations, where some feel that a heavy-handed approach is taken. If the legislation is to work and if it is to gain the support and confidence of commercial farmers in particular, it is important due note is taken of those concerns.

It is important that anyone appointed as an inspector under the proposed legislation has been adequately trained and will act in a professional manner in respect of the duties undertaken under this legislation. It is also important the position of inspector should be filled from within relevant public bodies and not contracted privately. I am sure the issue will be fully dealt with, as necessary, during the course of the debate here and possibly through further amendment. The same powers also need to be available in the detection and investigation of cases of cruelty. I also welcome the proposed increase in the levels of lines proposed for breaches of health regulations and disease, given the potentially massive cost of a disease outbreak among farm animals. Anyone who breaches regulations in this respect needs to face heavy sanctions.

With regard to those engaged in breeding dogs and using dogs in organised fighting, I welcome the Minister's stated intention to stamp out this vile practice. It reflects similar legislation brought forward by Sinn Féin in the North.

It is important that this issue be tackled on an all-island basis as otherwise, organisers of such events could seek to evade prosecution and detection by moving their operations across the Border. Organised dogfighting is probably one of the most vile, cruel practices in this country. Dogs are bred specifically to tear each other asunder and there is crossbreeding and so forth to maximise cruelty. We should not tackle the organisers alone but also those who attend such cruel events. They should not be allowed to flout the law by saying they so happened to be at an event and did not know anything about it. This needs to be dealt with and there should be no sympathy for anybody involved in organised cruelty. It is not organised dogfighting but organised cruelty.

Any person who breeds dogs for fighting and allows them to fight, in the course of which the animals are at the very least brutalised and often badly injured and sometimes killed, is clearly an inadequate and disturbed person. There may be grounds for arguing for mental impairment in some cases of animal cruelty, however. This was mentioned by Deputy Ó Cuív, who spoke about individuals living alone in rural isolation. Search people may inflict cruelty on animals unintentionally. There would be sympathy for the perpetrator's mental condition in such cases.

I welcome the proposals in section 16, Part 3, to ban the mutilation of animals for other than strictly necessary purposes. There are still silly notions regarding certain breeds of dogs, an example being where breeders and owners believe the integrity of the breed in question requires that the dogs' tails be docked. Perhaps they are descendants of the Soviet scientist Lysenko who believed that if one cut the tails off mice, they would eventually be born without them. Interesting.

Section 16 also deals with the sale of animals to minors and contains a proposal to ban the sale of animals to people who are under 16. That, of course, does not prevent young people under that age from having pets, but it is correct that they not be able to keep them without proper care being taken to ensure they will be looked after properly. It ought to be a concern of the person selling an animal that it not be sold to people whom he does not believe will be able to care for it properly.

This issue arises most in regard to the sale of horses to young people. There are many young people, including in towns and cities, who are genuinely attached to and interested in horses. However, in a considerable number of cases, they are clearly not able to look after them. Those horses, without any intention on the part of their young owners, end up being kept in poor conditions and are, in effect, badly treated. In some cases, they are eventually abandoned to stray by owners who cannot afford to or are otherwise unable to look after them. This has never been more the case than in the past two years. The country is full of horses, many of which are abandoned. I have seen television programmes in the not-too-distant past about horses being abandoned in this city and the cruelty inflicted on them by very cruel individuals for their perverse pleasure. In every major town and even in smaller towns, one will find abandoned horses. Their price is so low that nothing is received for them. Therefore, they are abandoned and left to starve or roam the roadsides. This needs to be considered.

There are a number of local authority projects in Dublin and other places through which attempts are made to provide communal accommodation for horses and to help their owners care for them properly. I have been informed that where this has taken place, it has gone a long way towards addressing the problem of horses being badly cared for and roaming the streets. There are projects in certain areas that help young people in particular to express the concern they have for horses by using accommodation provided by local authorities. It is very good for young people to have a connection with animals that require goodness and care.

An issue arises regarding who ought to be responsible for the care of stray horses that are impounded. Some local authorities, not least my own, have run up considerable expenses through having to pay for impounded horses while waiting to see if the owners present themselves. The latter is unlikely given that most impounded horses have been deliberately and recklessly allowed to stray or have been abandoned. There clearly ought to be stricter guidelines on this and on the care of other abandoned or impounded animals in light of tighter legislation such as this Bill.

I would like the Minister to elaborate on Part 12 regarding the regulation of marts. Is it proposed that this provision will apply, if approved, to traditional horse fairs, one of which has been the centre of controversy for the past few years? As I understand it, Dublin City Council is to initiate public consultation on new draft by-laws to govern the holding of the Smithfield fair, which is held on the first Sunday of every month. The proposal is that the number of fairs would be reduced to two per year. As the Minister will be aware, the Smithfield fair is governed by a pre-Oireachtas statute. There is some unhappiness over the proposals and a belief that they are designed to put the fair out of business. Given its tradition and place within Dublin life and the fact that it has long been a centre of horse trading, would it not be better if it and similar fairs were brought under the proposals contained in Part 12? Perhaps the Minister will consider this. I am not certain of the practicalities but know that the people who currently organise the fair at Smithfield have no objection to safeguards, including horse passports and microchips, or to the health and safety regulations referred to in this Bill which could be policed properly and allow the fair to continue.

I affirm my party's support for the Bill. Any grey areas or omissions in regard to some of the issues I have referred to will be addressed through amendments. The legislation is long overdue. Both Deputy Ó Cuív and I were briefed this morning by the Minister's officials, which was helpful. Anything that can improve consultation when bringing legislation for the greater good to this House is to be welcomed and supported.

See this speech in context