Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

Perhaps the Senator should go to the Dáil now to discuss fox farming as it was being discussed there this afternoon.

This is a totally different situation as the other is governed by an EU regulation. I acknowledge that Senators are sincere in their views. The definition of "emergency" is being inserted into the legislation to cater for practical situations which I am aware can arise when it is necessary to treat, and in some cases, put down, an animal before a vet is available. Such situations would include cases where animals were severely injured and suffering severe pain and distress. The definition of "emergency" is necessary to avoid farmers and others, who would act out of concern for the welfare of the animal, being criminalised due to the fact that the practice of veterinary medicine is being legally defined in precise terms for the first time in this legislation.

The definition cannot be seen in isolation from other sections in the Bill. I refer in particular to sections 56 and 60, which regulate how an unregistered person may act to deal with an emergency situation. I will propose two amendments to section 56, one of which mirrors an amendment tabled by Senator Henry which will provide for significant additional safeguards for the unfortunate animal involved.

This amendment also addresses the essential concerns underpinning the amendment put forward by Senators McCarthy, Ryan, O'Meara, McDowell and Tuffy. The first amendment will stress that the primary issue is the welfare of the animal and the second will provide for a more realistic assessment of the timescale within which a vet would be available, by replacing the phrase, "immediately available" with, "available within a reasonable period of time".

What I wish to say is that a person other than a vet, before deciding to put down an animal, would have to base his or her decision on the welfare of the animal. The means of putting down the animal might not in all cases be totally painless but would nonetheless avoid further suffering and, therefore, would be in the interest of the overall welfare of the animal.

Given the term "euthanasia" implies a painless death, it would not be appropriate to use it in these circumstances. I stress that this is an exceptional provision which could not be relied upon by non-vets as a cover. The emergency must be real and the welfare of the animal must be the primary consideration.

I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which have been proposed regarding the definition of "emergency". In the proposals for section 56 I believe I will be able to address the concerns expressed by the Members.