Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This Bill seeks to ban fur and skin farming of certain animals. The explanatory memorandum published by the Oireachtas states:

...there is now a broad consensus among veterinary and other scientific experts that certain animals should not be farmed for their fur or skin because of serious animal welfare concerns that cannot be mitigated. There are also increasing serious societal concerns in this regard.

First of all, I am always very concerned about the use of phrases such as "a broad consensus". History and current events should display very clearly the dangers of using broad consensus as a way of justifying decisions. By way of example, 20 months ago we were told there was a broad consensus not to wear masks, but a few weeks later they were made compulsory. More recent, only a few weeks ago, there was a broad consensus from the National Public Health Emergency Team, NPHET, that antigen testing was not worth a damn. In fact, the terms used was "snake oil". The broad consensus now is they should be mandatory. There was a broad consensus at the start of the vaccination programme that two doses would be enough, and now the so-called broad consensus is we need at least three and maybe more. Recent events alone should warn us against making law based on notions such as broad consensus.

If we look more carefully at the arguments in favour of supporting this Bill, I would be very concerned that, in the future, similar arguments might be used to try to ban or curtail more mainstream farming of animals. We already hear talk of the ridiculous notion that limiting or reducing the total herd in Ireland will somehow make a material impact on climate change. We see through the withholding of Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, payments until certain eco schemes are put in place that farmers are being targeted in an unfair manner.

The reason, of course, the fur farming Bill will receive Government support is partly as a compromise to get the Green Party on board in Government negotiations, but also because it is an easy and relatively non-controversial way of making a government look compassionate. There are only three fur farms in Ireland so it will not be a big vote loser for any party in Government, but it sets a very concerning precedent. I welcome the provision of a compensation scheme for those affected, because they will need it if this Bill is passed, but we cannot take away people's livelihoods without ensuring they are financially compensated. I ask the Government to bear in mind with regard to licence holding and salmon drift net fishers that it might ensure they are compensated.

Section 6 contains a definition of a specified animal. It lists a host of different animals to which this Bill will apply. It further states the Minister may, by order, designate any animal or class of animal as a specified animal for the purpose of paragraph (h) of the definition of "specified animal" in subsection (1). That gives the Minister the power to add any animal he or she likes to which this legislation applies without ever having to consult the House again. That concerns me in terms of what might lie before us in future. It would effectively give the Minister to close down the Irish woollen industry at the stroke of a pen.

See this speech in context