Seanad debates

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: Second Stage

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and am delighted he has initiated the Bill in the Seanad. As 11 of its Members were elected on the agricultural panel, there is deep interest in this Bill. The issues of food safety and food security are tied into the Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012. Enactment of this Bill will help to enhance Ireland's excellent reputation around the world in terms of food safety and security.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Coveney, on this initiative which is a substantial modernisation and overhaul of the law on animal health and welfare. A cursory glance at the Bill reveals it contains 76 sections and refers to almost 60 other pieces of legislation, some dating back to the 1800s. The consolidation of legislation is welcome in that it clarifies the obligations of those who own animals. Coming from a farming background, I know that keeping animals in the best health and caring for their welfare is essential for a number of reasons. An unhealthy or distressed animal will have reduced or no value from an economic point of view. There is a moral obligation on us to care for the animals we own. In Ireland, perhaps for cultural and economic reasons, animals tend to be well cared for. Farm animals generally have freedom in fields and intensive farming is, by and large, not a feature of life in Ireland, which, I imagine, is what the Chinese Vice-President found attractive about Irish produce on his recent visit to this country.

As a farmer, I am concerned about some aspects of the Bill, which perhaps the Minister will clarify. For example, the Bill makes several references to inspections, the very mention of which to farmers raises their antennae. While I recognise that inspections are necessary to ensure that this legislation is properly enforced, I would welcome clarification as to the nature, scope and extent of inspection envisaged under the Bill. Section 23 deals with humane destruction of animals where, in the opinion of an authorised officer or veterinary practitioner an animal is fatally injured; so severely injured, diseased or in such pain or distress that, for the alleviation of its suffering it should be killed; to prevent further suffering or is a danger to life and property. In these limited circumstances, the animal may be put down in a manner that would inflict as little suffering as possible. I welcome the Minister's clarification in his speech that knackeries can continue to carry out this work. There was concern that if only veterinary officers could do so the costs involved might lead to further suffering of animals.

I would welcome further clarification in the Bill of whom shall be an "authorised officer". Section 2 defines an "authorised officer" as a member of the Garda Siochána; an officer of Customs and Excise or a person appointed under section 37. It is the third category that I am particularly interested in. There is a need for further clarification in this regard. Section 37 provides that the Minister may for the purposes of enforcing this Act or an EU measure, appoint in writing such persons or classes of persons as he or she considers appropriate to be authorised officers for the exercise of all or any of the functions conferred on an authorised officer under this Act. What type of person does the Minister have in mind in the context of "authorised officers"? It is hoped that personnel from approved knackeries would qualify in this regard. As I stated, I am concerned that if there is a tightening of restrictions on whom a farmer could call in to put down a sick or suffering animal farmers would, in effect, be reliant on expensive veterinary services, which might result in a delay resulting in animal suffering. As knackeries are subject to regulation by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, they should be allowed to continue to do this work.

I am not sure if the Bill deals with exotic pets. Concern has been expressed in recent years about people keeping exotic pets such as snakes and their failure to ensure these pets do not escape. Three years ago the owner of a reptile zoo in Kilkenny expressed concern about the number of people coming to him to rehouse crocodiles and poisonous snakes, for which the zoo did not have capacity. Mr. James Hennessy, who runs the Reptile Village Zoo in Co Kilkenny, said he had been inundated with calls requesting him to rehouse crocodiles, poisonous snakes and turtles because their owners cannot look after them and that he had to turn away people with such animals because the zoo was full. He also said that the Internet has made it easier for people to order almost anything they want, pet-wise, and that it is the nature of wild animals to escape if they can. This may cause a danger to public health and safety and result in cruelty to the animals. Snakes and crocodiles may also pose a threat to animal welfare. There is no legislation in Ireland to cover exotic pets. Perhaps this falls outside the Minister's area of responsibility but it is an issue of concern, one which he might discuss with his colleagues at Cabinet.

I would also like to address the issue of bureaucracy and on the spot fines. We are all aware that if we park illegally we will get a parking ticket or be clamped, in respect of which emotions often run high. There is a need for caution in terms of the designation of "authorised officers" given they will be the people required to impose on the spot fines on farmers, in respect of which emotions may run high. This issue needs further consideration given the problems that could arise in certain rural areas.

I welcome this Bill and commend the Minister, Deputy Coveney, on its introduction. I look forward to hearing his response to the issues I have raised.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.