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

I do not propose to accept the amendment. I can understand what the Deputy is getting at, namely, if an authorised officer is to require somebody to stop what they are doing because the officer has a concern there may be a welfare implication, the person who is supposedly offending should have an opportunity to give an explanation.

The problem with it is that it would weaken the power of authorised officers. If one reads the section of the Bill which it is proposed to amend, it states:

An authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is offending against this section, in relation to an animal, may require the person to immediately desist from so offending, and, if necessary, to take such action as the officer may require in the interests of the health and welfare of the animal.

The purpose is to prioritise the protection of the welfare of the animal. If the authorised officer has reasonable grounds for believing a person is offending, he or she has to be able to take action, in some cases quickly. In keeping with the training of authorised officers in a code of standard to which they must operate, in the vast majority of cases it will be the case that an authorised officer will have a conversation with somebody who may be committing an offence before action is taken. However, there are certain circumstances where there is no need for an explanation and where seeking an explanation would simply be wasting time. We must ensure people do not adopt delaying tactics by giving long and detailed explanations to which the authorised officer would have to listen if this amendment was accepted. In certain circumstances an authorised officer must have the power to act quickly, decisively and in the interests of the animal or animals concerned, regardless of whether they are on the back of a trailer coming off a ship, in a farmyard or garage where dog fighting could be happening. I understand the point the Deputy is making, but the amendment would weakens the section. Therefore, I do not propose to accept it.

See this speech in context