Seanad debates

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] Report and Final Stages

 

2:35 pm

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The ninth group concerns an issue about which I personally feel strongly, as I suspect do other colleagues. It pertains to the prohibition on animal fighting. Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 are to section 15. There has been some concern over section 15 of the Bill, despite the fact that it relates clearly to performances. I have had this section re-examined and am satisfied this provision will not be used as a basis for prosecutions against either farmers or educators.

It has been suggested that I should add a clause making it clear that normal farming practice is not covered by the section. Aside from the difficulty with defining normal farming practice, there is the added problem that were I to specify this was not covered, I would be obliged to similarly allow for every other legitimate activity, which might involve animals from riding schools to sporting events to even walking a dog in terms of the actual legal definition. Obviously, this list would never be complete and would therefore be pointless.

However, we made a few amendments on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 17 makes clear that performances with an untrained bovine rather than merely a bull are covered. That addresses a concern that unscrupulous operators could use freshly castrated bullocks to circumvent the ban on such performances. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 were introduced to clarify the situation for a lawful investigative purpose to justify filming an animal fighting event or to show said material afterwards. That is not particularly well written but, essentially, what it means is that not only is it unlawful to organise, participate in or attend a dog fight, cock fight or other such fight, but it is also unlawful to film it and to put it online to make money from it.

I also proposed a minor amendment No. 20 on the roping of horses. As currently worded, performances involving that activity are banned where they cause suffering. However, there are specialists who carry out the activity in a humane and non-coercive fashion and my amendment proposes to allow such an activity where no unnecessary suffering is caused. I refer in other words to a horse whisperer situation where one is breaking an animal using unconventional but proven methods, for example, the work of Monty Roberts. That type of performance should not be banned by the legislation when there is a proven beneficial effect on animals and is a humane way to break a horse if it is done properly.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.