Seanad debates

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: Second Stage

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)

It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister back to the House for the introduction of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012. I hope and trust the officials and the Minister, who must have worked very hard on this, were fed and watered appropriately because obviously it has been a labour of love as much as a labour of some difficulty I am sure. I acknowledge the hard work and dedication shown by the Minister with regard to the Bill. I have heard him speak on many occasions and I know these are matters in which he has a deep personal interest.

The Bill is certainly thorough and all embracing. It consolidates and modernises existing legislation some of which, as we heard from Senator Mooney, dates back to the 19th century. It does so in the face of many changes in the way we keep and manage animals, not to mention the changes in the type of animals we keep.

Before we proceed I must confess the fact that my ten year old daughter, in a moment of great madness or perhaps ingenuity on her part, decided having lost the cockerel to the fox that she would buy a cockerel from one of the lads in her class at school. The princely sum of €6 was exchanged for the purchase of a white bantam cockerel which now struts around the yard and has various nicknames, none of which is repeatable here. There is a culture among rural children, particularly those growing up on farms, of assisting their fathers and mothers and getting involved in a small amount of buying animals to try to raise some money or get involved themselves. I understand the spirit of the legislation in terms of those under 16 but I raise this with the Minister on foot of my personal experience and because I know of families where this happens when children are being encouraged into farming. I would hate to see the legislation discourage this type of entrepreneurial skill and interest in animal husbandry at an early age.

Before I speak about the substance of the Bill I wish to acknowledge, as did Senator Mooney, the concerns of farmers with regard to the potential increased costs to them arising from the legislation. As we know, farmers do not operate with high margins and it is unlikely they ever will. Increasingly they are being asked to operate to higher standards, which are appropriate, but a balance must be struck so they can maintain and pursue these standards while also being able to earn an appropriate income and standard of living. The only reason the food industry in Ireland has prospered and continues to do so and holds such promise for the future is because it is rooted in past traditions and skills all provided by farmers long before it was either profitable or popular to do so. We owe much to Irish farmers and how they have helped to build our modern food industry, an industry which is important domestically and internationally. This did not happen by accident. In creating modern forward-looking legislation that ensures the welfare of animals, we must not sacrifice the welfare of farmers to this end. I know the Minister has consulted widely and I know this is a thorough Bill but concerns are still being raised. Perhaps some of these may be addressed today and perhaps we need to go away and consider others. The purpose of Second Stage is to air these concerns. I know the Minister will take them back to his officials and he has made this abundantly clear.

I entirely agree with the Minister that this is not a political matter. We are working together across party lines to try to find legislation that will deal with the matters held dear by us all. Specific concerns related to the need for a vet for the humane destruction of animals have been raised time and again. It seems many of the powers to be invested in appointed authorised officers will be wide-ranging. I take the Minister's reassurances that these people will be trained but perhaps we need to take another look at these powers. Clarity must also be afforded with regard to the proposals for animal health levies, their imposition and collection.

As other speakers pointed out, the Bill encompasses two main areas, namely, the welfare of farmed animals in the food chain and the welfare and health of other animals. I propose to speak about the importance of animal welfare to the ever-lengthening food chain. Throughout Europe livestock farming alone is valued at €149 billion, accounting for 334 million animals and 2 billion birds. I do not know who did the counting but they must have been blind by the end of it. There are also an estimated further 120 million cats and dogs. We are not speaking about a small amount of animals; this is a huge amount of four legged and two legged creatures to take care of. The recent European report on animal welfare concluded there is a lack of knowledge of what animal welfare means among stakeholders dealing with animals. It also concluded there is a lack of enforcement by member states of the EU with regard to legislation. This is a serious statement given the number of animals we have identified in the system and the reliance consumers increasingly have on healthy and safe food. It is the backdrop to this legislation and demonstrates its need at this time.

The nature of the current export market for food and food products means animal welfare standards must be imposed and universal, particularly within the EU, so consumers can expect to eat and buy uniformly safe food. On foot of this report, the EU has pledged to improve the status of welfare and I know the Bill being introduced today forms part of our response to this pledge. Given that so much of it was outdated, it is indeed very timely.

I appreciate the legislation is aimed at driving down the incidence of disease, with all the advantages that accrue therefrom, not least that animals themselves are in better health and the status of our food and food exports is enhanced. However, the potential removal of compensation payments for diseased animals clearly is of concern to farmers and must be a point of further negotiation. Since disease-free herds are of such importance to farming, could a reduction or removal of compensation cause an increase in disease among herds, were farmers not so keen to come forward or acknowledge the presence of such diseases?

It is the Minister's aim that Irish farmers will pursue farm management and farm production that is top-class and world-class. Ultimately, healthy livestock will provide healthy, top-quality food and a reduction in the incidence of disease will reduce the presence of medicinal residues, among other benefits. Veterinary Ireland specifically referred to this point in its submission to the food harvest strategy and all Members support this aim. The Department and Teagasc must continue to encourage and support farmers to pursue disease-free herds and this emphasis must continue in years to come. Legislation that penalises farmers and other animal owners is only one part of the game, albeit a necessary part. However, what really is needed is increasing education and awareness, as well as a positive encouragement towards building what Veterinary Ireland described as "Ireland - the food island". I do not know how Members can legislate for that or where their role might be but I at least wish to put on record that while one can and must legislate against certain things, given that certain ways of doing things become habit-forming over the years, it will be very important to drive a public campaign to increase education and awareness. Ultimately, the trend is towards a form of food labelling familiar in the United States, whereby food is identified with labels such as "animal welfare approved" or "certified humane raised and handled". Education and training will assist in making possible such a system, as Irish farmers strive to ensure that the Farm Animal Welfare Council's definition of basic welfare for animals is complied with. I refer to freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, pain, injury and disease, freedom from fear and distress and the freedom to express normal behaviour. This must be the norm. I specifically welcome the provisions on traceability and the census of animals. My point is as the Minister has embarked with such enthusiasm on this particular Bill, I hope that in tandem, there will be a major public campaign down the line in respect of education, understanding and training. While I acknowledge much of this already goes on, more is needed.

In respect of the part of the Bill dealing with cruelty to animals, I welcome the changes in legislation that will provide for pre-emptive action in respect of cruelty to animals, rather than the existing provision, which prohibits cruelty without real powers of prevention. I welcome the broadening of offences involving animal fighting through the prohibition of the organisation or recording of, or participation in, a lengthy list of animal fighting, including animal baiting, dog fighting and cock fighting. Much useless and appalling cruelty is perpetrated on animals. I refer to a kind of mindless cruelty, including acts that have occurred in more urban settings, such as animals being set alight or being thrown into vats of oil. It is extremely difficult to legislate for all that but certainly, public awareness exists that such acts are not acceptable. I will conclude by noting that the telephone line allowing members of the public to contact the Department is a strong action that demonstrates the Minister's intent to get on top of the problem.

I greatly welcome this legislation and recognise the need for it to show care for animals and to strengthen the capacity of Irish farmers to produce top-quality food safely and disease-free. Ultimately, this will provide a premium for Irish food products and will build and develop the food industry.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.