Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I will try to clarify the matter. I understand the issue raised, although Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh's amendment would not solve that problem. It states, "In proceedings for an offence under this Act an animal, animal product, animal feed or other thing is presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to be owned by the occupier or person in charge of the land or premises...". One must determine who the owner of the animal is. If one cannot do this because there is no tag on the ear of a sheep or calf, the Bill states that, if proceedings are taken, an assumption will be made that the owner of the animal is the person who owns or is in control of the land that the animal is on, unless the contrary is shown by that person; in other words, there will be an onus to provide proof on the person to show that the animal is not his or hers and state why that is so. If there is to be a presumption of ownership of animals, one must have some parameters. This is a reasonable starting point, that the likelihood is that if there is an animal on a person's land, he or she owns it and if he or she does not own it, he or she will at least be able to prove this because the animal is not included in his or her records. The section headed, "Presumption of ownership ...", states "the owner of the animal shall be held responsible". If one finds on a farm an animal that is diseased or has been abused, as a starting point it is not unreasonable to assume that the animal is owned by the farmer who owns or is leasing the land. If the farmer can prove it is not his or her animal, that it has wandered onto his or her land by crossing over a ditch, that is fine. The onus must be on somebody to prove something other is the case when an animal that is not microchipped, that does not have a tag and that has clearly been abused is the subject of a prosecution or proceedings. It is not always the case that the owner must take responsibility, but as part of proceedings one must establish who the owner is in putting the case together. We had this debate earlier. Somebody who takes an animal into care, who may not own it but is responsible for it, may well be the person ultimately held responsible for its neglect. This section is merely about the presumption of ownership. It is not overly contentious to make a presumption that a farmer who has an animal on his or her land that is the subject of proceedings is the owner, unless he or she can prove otherwise. That is not unreasonable. The amendment does not deal with the fundamental problem - what does one do when one finds an animal and does not know who owns it? It is not unreasonable to assume that the person who owns the land owns the animal. If he or she can prove otherwise, so be it, but if he or she cannot, the animal is likely to be his or hers. That is all we are saying.