Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I am looking at the Northern Ireland legislation, which was cited earlier. Section 6 of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 states that a person commits an offence if that person removes the whole or any part of a dog's tail or causes the whole or any part of a dog's tail to be removed by another person. A person commits an offence if that person is responsible for a dog and another person removes the whole or any part of the dog's tail. The Act says that a person does not commit an offence if the whole or part of a dog's tail is removed by a veterinary surgeon for the purpose of medical treatment or in order to prevent or remove an immediate danger to the life of the dog in circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to have the tail, or, as the case may be, any part of the tail, removed by a veterinary surgeon.

The Northern Ireland Act also tries to get the balance right. What I am trying to do helps the circumstance raised by Senators Mooney and O'Neill. The difference between what I am now proposing and what is in Bill is in the opening of the subsection. Subsection 16(1) states:

A person shall not, except in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations, carry out an operation or procedure to mutilate or cause or permit another person to mutilate an animal, (including the docking or nicking of the tail of a bovine, canine or equine, the removal of horns or antlers from an animal or firing an equine).

I propose to substitute:

Nothing in subsection (1) prevents a registered veterinary practitioner acting as such from performing, in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations (if any), an operation or procedure for therapeutic purposes if the operation or procedure is necessary for the health and welfare of an individual animal.

We have spoken to Veterinary Ireland on this issue. If a vet deems that it is appropriate to dock a dog's tail, then he or she has the capacity to do it but he or she must do it within the health and welfare regulations and it must be in the interests of the animal that it would be done rather than just convenient for the owner. This is about trying to get the balance right. The section we are inserting now is much stronger than the previous section because it says that nothing in subsection (1) prevents a registered vet from docking a tail if that is the issue concerned, whereas it said previously an operation or procedure referred to in subsection (1) may be carried out. Essentially, we are excluding this section from the decision-making process in a case where a vet makes a decision to operate on a dog, or any other animal for that matter, if it is in the welfare interests of the animal. That is not an unreasonable balance. I am not sure how we could improve it but we have put the wording together following consultations with Veterinary Ireland. If there is a reason to carry out a procedure in terms of the welfare of the animal, then it can happen regardless of section 16(1), which I just read out.