Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)

The Minister is stating the clause is not 100%. Perhaps, therefore, he might rethink before Report Stage because there are problems with it. Presuming, merely because an animal is on somebody's land, that the person owns it is a dangerous precedent to set. For example, if I want to get rid of an emaciated horse, I could leave it on the Minister's land and then warn the authorities. I do not know how he would prove that he did not own it. If the Minister was to tell the judge that it was not his, it could possibly be off the book. It is still a grey issue. If there are perpetrators of cruelty, we need to find a mechanism to bring them to task. Certainly, my party has an issue with automatically assuming that the owner of the land is the one who should be punished. In the case the Minister cited in which a horse has been taken into care and has been subject to cruelty, the owner who caused the animal to be taken into care in the first place should be taken to task. I appreciate from where the Minister is coming in that he does not believe my party's amendment is 100%, but certainly there is an issue with the Bill. Perhaps we might look at the matter again on Report Stage or he might have his officials look at it again. If he is not willing to do this, my party will have to put the matter to a vote because it is unfair to put the onus on the owner.