Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I do not propose to accept the amendment because I do not want a situation where a Minister makes a regulation conditional on something that is difficult to define. Everything would be conditional on sound scientific information. If one acts on a report about blatant cruelty to an animal, it would have nothing to do with sound scientific information. The word "scientific" suggests an onus of proof on the part of the Minister before he or she can act. The point of this legislation is to move away from requiring a case of cruelty to be proven before action can be taken, to a situation where a Minister or an authorised officer is permitted to act early on the basis of suspicion, credible reports or experience. Bio-security and disease control are equally important but the fundamental legal problem with cruelty in the past was that there was no measure between doing nothing and full prosecution. A case had to be constructed, with all the evidence that such a process requires, before anything could be done and, in the meantime, the animal continued to be abused.

The point of this legislation is to introduce measures providing for a welfare notice to be issued. If there is reason to believe problems have arisen in respect of an individual's animals it will be possible to send a notice asking him or her to do X, Y and Z. If the individual complies, it is the end of the story and the Garda or the courts need not get involved. It is similar to a yellow card system for animal cruelty and welfare. Clear scientific information would not be relevant to such a course of action.

We are trying to build up a team of authorised officers who will work on behalf of local authorities and my Department to protect animal welfare, alongside experts in farming and farm inspections. We will not recruit a new army of people to inspect farms. If there is a suspicion about problems with bio-security or disease outbreaks, they would be able to inspect the herds to address the problem at the earliest opportunity.

I understand the Senator's perspective but his amendment is not in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve.