Seanad debates

Wednesday, 10 February 2010

Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: Committee Stage

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent)

Someone once said that people who are nice to animals will generally be nice to humans, although there have been examples in history of people who lavished affection on animals and withheld it from humanity. Having listened with interest to the various contributions, I note that some of the language used was suggestive of various blood sports. We heard about people trying to get off the hook, for instance, while Senator Hannigan referred to saving skins. We also heard the word "U-turn" used more times than one would see U-turns at the average coursing meeting.

I am not convinced by the arguments made by either side and I say this is as someone who is committed to animal welfare. I shall enjoy reminding Senators who express commitment to animal welfare when we have tricky and thorny debates on abortion and other socially sensitive subjects that they should be at least as concerned about human dignity as they are about animal welfare. I try to maintain a consistent position on this issue, one which recognises that human dignity should be at the apex of our consideration but that animal welfare should not be forgotten.

What I find unconvincing is the argument by Opposition Senators that since animals are well looked after by hunt clubs, such clubs should not be submitted to the same standard as dog breeding establishments of the type the legislation proposes to monitor and regulate. If a good standard of animal husbandry and welfare is being maintained, the provisions of the Bill will not be onerous.

I do not subscribe to the slippery slope argument. It is possible to reserve one's position on hunting while supporting the idea that the requirements of the Bill should extend to hunt clubs. That said, I ask the Minister of State to explain the basis of his statement that it would not be feasible to exclude these clubs. I do not follow the logic of his position as such an exclusion would not necessarily create an additional administrative burden. While this may not be what the Minister of State meant, it is incumbent on us to support our arguments by setting out grounds for the positions we hold. I say this as someone who will support the Government's position on this matter, notwithstanding the interesting fact that the Minister appears to have given commitments to the contrary. As the principle of the proposal is good, I will support it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.