Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister of State for his response. The amendment is a genuine attempt to provide a clear definition of the term "authorised person". To clarify the matter for Senator Ó Brolcháin, a local authority official can be a veterinary official of that authority, accountable to that authority and fully responsible. A departmental veterinary official is already accountable to the Minister and Department for which he or she works.

The wording of the Bill is too vague. It states that an authorised person can be a person connected with animal welfare under section 15 of the 1986 Act. However, as other Senators noted, following consultation with the local authority, a member of a voluntary charitable organisation may be appointed as an authorised person. I reiterate that the majority of such organisations do great work which I admire but there is a significant risk that they will be infiltrated by any Tom, Dick or Harry given that any person may be appointed an inspector under the terms of the Bill. Such a scenario would pose a major threat to the well-established dog breeding industry.

I do not have a problem with proper scrutiny of puppy breeding establishments and the introduction of appropriate standards. The rogues who have given the industry a bad name should be rooted out. While the Fine Gael Party supports these objectives, the Bill, as drafted, proposes to give enormous powers to people about whose background and qualifications it does not provide clarity. The amendment provides a clear definition of an authorised person in requiring that he or she be a local authority official or a veterinary officer of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The latter already visit farms as part of their daily work. Rather than placing an additional burden on the Exchequer by appointing additional officials, as proposed in the Bill, to enter farms and places where dogs are bred, the amendment would ensure this function is captured under the inspections carried out by departmental veterinary officials. It is a reasonable amendment which attempts to introduce clarity, objectivity and fairness, all of which are important in due process and law. I am addressing real concerns about the industry. I have stated there are people involved in animal welfare organisations who have a dubious track record with regard to animal liberation and pose a threat to individuals legitimately involved in country sports, including hunting and greyhound racing. Those involved in these rural pursuits are not breaking any law; they are only doing what previous generations did. They are concerned that the Bill will affect the viability of these pursuits, in the process threatening their existence. I can appreciate their concerns, which is why we have tabled amendments to protect an indigenous industry that dates back many generations.