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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 13, to delete lines 8 to 28 and substitute the following:“11.—(1) A person who has a protected animal in his or her possession or under his or her control shall, having regard to the animal’s nature, type, species, breed, development, adaptation, domestication, physiological and behavioural needs and environment, and in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge, take all necessary steps to ensure that—

(a) the animal is kept and treated in a manner that—

(i) safeguards the health and welfare of the animal, and

(ii) does not threaten the health or welfare of the animal or another animal,

and

(b) all buildings, gates, fences, hedges, boundary walls and other structures used to contain the animal are constructed and maintained in a manner so that they do not cause injury or unnecessary suffering to the animal.”.

This section sets out several basic and general principles relating to the duty of welfare owed to an animal by its owner or carer. The detailed discussion on Committee Stage was helpful, given the need for precision not only in the wording used but also in the ordering. While the points were certainly open to debate and it is perhaps unlikely that owners of more wilful species such as cats would be prosecuted for the behaviour of such animals because they are considered ungovernable - perhaps that is a questionable term - I took the view that there was strong enough merit in the points made by Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív to persuade me to reorganise the section to ensure the terminology relating to "having regard to the animal's nature" and so on was clarified to make it clear that this proviso applied to the section as a whole. While the amendment does not change the meaning or substance of this important provision, it removes any ambiguity. We held a long discussion on the matter on Committee Stage. I do not propose to accept Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's amendment on the topic because while it sets out to solve the same problem, it would weaken rather than qualify the basic duty of care on an animal owner. Therefore, it would have greater scope to be misused by unscrupulous persons. In other words, I have accommodated the Deputy's concerns in my amendment, while at the same time maintaining the strength of this important section in making clear the responsibility of an owner towards his or her animals.

See this speech in context