Seanad debates

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

SECTION 13

1:00 pm

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 15, subsection (1), lines 22 to 25, to delete paragraph (c).

The amendment proposes the deletion of section 13(1)(c). I accept I may be wrong but my rationale for this is that the paragraph appears to be extremely vague. It refers to "such other nourishment having regard to its nature, type, species, breed, development, adaptation, domestication and state of health and to the animal's physiological or behavioural needs". Is there any way whereby the position in this regard might be better defined?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is the terminology that is used in existing legislation and it relates to the type of mineral licks farmers give to cattle, sheep and horses. The section refers to nourishment that is required by certain species or breeds. This may involve extra minerals which may be required in the context of their development or growth. The paragraph adds to what is contained in section 13(1)(a) and (b), which refer to "a sufficient quantity of wholesome and uncontaminated drinking water" and "a quantity of suitable and wholesome food sufficient to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the animal", respectively. Provision is made in paragraph (c) for any extra minerals or additives which may be required by a particular animal.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am quite happy with the Minister's explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 13 agreed to.

SECTION 14

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 16, subsection (3)(c), to delete line 28.

This amendment relates to the prohibition on the abandonment of animals. Section 14(3)(c)(iii) refers to "adequate exercise". Will the Minister outline the aim of this provision?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are trying to ensure that when people leave animals for a period there will be adequate shelter and warmth as well as suitable food and water and that the animal will be provided with adequate exercise. A practical example would involve someone working during the day who has a dog in a stable, porch or shed. An effort should be made. The legislation has the term "what is reasonably required by way of". This is so that people will know there is an obligation to provide an opportunity for an animal to run or move around or, for example, to be taken for a walk in the case of a domestic dog. In other words, if we are leaving animals for long periods, there should be a requirement, within reason, such that people should take account of the exercise needs of those animals. That makes sense. We are not going over the top. We have deliberately used a phrase which I know the Senator is fond of after yesterday's debate, namely,"reasonably required by way of". This is about ensuring animals are exercising and surviving when people are unable to look after them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 17:

In page 16, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) In this section abandonment does not include—

(a) release into the wild of an animal—

(i) normally found in a wild state in Ireland, or

(ii) formerly found in a wild state in Ireland, as part of a programme to reintroduce animals of that species,

(b) stocking land with game birds,

if the animal, having regard to its type, species, breed and development is able to survive and to fulfil its normal needs.".

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment was a result of a representation made to me and it was drafted following consultation with various groups. A concern was raised that certain activities might be construed as abandonment. While I consider that neither the re-introduction of wild animals nor the stocking of game birds constitutes abandonment, it is best to remove any doubt. The amendment makes it clear that the section on abandonment does not apply to these areas. We are introducing an add-in after section 14(5) relating to the prohibition on abandonment. We suggest that abandonment does not include release into the wild of an animal normally found in a wild state in Ireland or formally found in a wild state in Ireland as part of a programme to re-introduce animals of that species. It also applies to stocking land with game birds or, if one is raising animals, releasing them into the wild. This could be the case with game birds such as pheasants or if one were trying to implement a restocking programme for certain wild birds or fish which one bred and raised domestically for the purposes of releasing them into the wild. This will not be deemed abandonment under the legislation. It makes sense.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The same issue affecting section 8(4) arises in section 14(5). Section 14(5) states: "Where a person having possession or control of a protected animal contravenes subsection (1) or (2) and that person is not the owner, then the owner of the animal shall also have committed an offence under subsection (4)." I realise the Minister explained his position yesterday. Anyway, it appears that if I am the owner of an animal and I give it to an animal contract rearing facility, a bed and breakfast facility or to a mart, I remain liable if someone at the cattle mart, the cattle rearing facility or bed and breakfast facility were to carry out something in contravention of the legislation. Under the paragraph, as drafted, the owner would be committing an offence and this is a cause of concern.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire. Is breá an rud deis a fháil labhairt ar an mBille tábhachtach seo. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to one particular matter. The joint policing committee meeting in Galway on Monday was a strange place for something relating to the Animal Health and Welfare Bill to come up. The question raised was about who owns the horses. This is a serious problem for Galway City Council at the moment. The council spent €90,000 last year on abandoned horses. The council is not allowed to put down the horses but when they are abandoned on the side of the road, the council must take them somewhere. They are kept in stables in the countryside. The council has a serious issue. I welcome what the Minister is doing with the legislation. How will the legislation address the case in which someone has abandoned a horse or animal in an urban area and the local council must take it on board? The council is obliged to keep the animal somewhere until the rightful owner comes back. At the moment this is incurring a cost on the State. I would welcome any comments of the Minister in this regard.

Photo of Michael ComiskeyMichael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. This is a problem. I agree with Senator Ó Clochartaigh's point. Often at marts one sees animals abandoned or left behind. I heard of one occasion where a farmer came with his horse box and had two horses in it which did not belong to him. We will be able to overcome this with the micro-chipping of animals. When horses and donkeys are micro-chipped they will be traceable back to the owner. This is where micro-chipping comes into its own.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The point raised by Senator Ó Domhnaill is in the same category as the two paragraphs we discussed yesterday. We will examine the matter. We do not want to prosecute in an unreasonable way owners of animals who have entrusted those animals to either a professional, a family member or a friend for minding in good faith. In some cases the owners will be paying for it. Let us suppose one keeps a pony in a livery for one's son or daughter to ride at the weekend. If the horse is then mistreated or abandoned by someone who the owner has no cause to believe would do so, having taken reasonable account of the likelihood of that occurring, then I do not believe we should prosecute the owner. There should be some obligation on owners, however, to ensure that if they entrust an animal to someone else, then, at least, they take reasonable measures to ensure the animal will be looked after as opposed to putting it into a field and forgetting about it. The issue has been raised by several people yesterday and today. The point has been made that we need to get the balance right with regard to the onus of responsibility. We will examine it in advance of Report Stage.

The terminology used yesterday included "shall have reason to believe that all necessary measures in the circumstances were taken to comply with". The idea is that someone should have good reason to believe that his horse, dog, sheep or bullock is looked after and not abandoned. I will examine it.

We have undertaken a good deal of work on the broader issue of the abandonment of horses. We provided part-funding for the Irish Equine Centre to carry out some research into the level of abandonment of horses. One of the problems of the recession has been that many people during the so-called boom years in Ireland wanted to buy the leg of a horse, whether a sports horse for show jumping or eventing or a race horse. Subsequently because of dropping incomes loss of jobs and emigration many of these people could no longer afford to keep them, nor could they sell them. This brought about the problem of abandonment. We are trying to get a handle of the numbers. Some people have exaggerated the problem and others are ignoring it. We are trying to get a balanced position in terms of the problem and the best response to it. The Senator will be aware that my Department has increased funding for animal welfare organisations, some of which look after abandoned horses and donkeys, as well as dogs, cats and other animals.

On the Galway issue, I have spoken to the person who is responsible for taking horses from Galway County Council. Many of those horses are stabled in the midlands, not in Galway. To be fair, local authority veterinarians and managers are trying to do their best on this, and we need to try to help them in that regard.

From my perspective, when dealing with an abandoned animal there is always an obligation to try to rehome it if it is possible but also to take responsible decisions, if necessary, to destroy that animal if it is very sick or old. We must be practical in that respect and, where possible, find homes for animals in Ireland or perhaps in the United Kingdom where there is a sophisticated animal welfare structure around rehoming of both horses and dogs. We can tap into that but there is a cost implication also that cannot be ignored. It is about getting the balance right in respect of all of those aspects. That is the reason we have introduced codes of conduct, which we spoke about yesterday, for animal welfare organisations in return for those animal welfare organisations getting financial support from me. We must also talk to local authorities to make sure they are getting the support that is reasonable to expect from my Department in terms of issues to do with abandoned horses.

On the identification of those horses, that is a problem on which we are taking quite a hard line. If someone has a horse, it needs to be identified. If someone has a foal they must identify, micro-chip it and get a passport for it within six months of birth. If not, that horse can never enter the food chain. In other words, when that horse is put down the owner cannot sell it to the factory for €600 or €800. In terms of a record of where horses have been and the drugs they have been treated with, we cannot legally allow meat from unidentified horses get into the food chain, and I agree with that. There is an issue in terms of horses that have been abandoned without identification. It is very difficult to track down owners. If we could do that it becomes a much easier problem because we can prosecute under this legislation in terms of abandonment.

Two issues arise. First, we need simple and easy to understand legislation on the abandonment of animals, and I believe we have that in this Bill. Second, we must have a proper and affordable identification mechanism for horses but also for other animals to ensure that if an animal is abandoned we can easily track where it came from, who had responsibility for it and, in the case of horses, the commercial value of that animal at the end of its days in terms of it entering the food chain as opposed to going to the knackery yard. These are issues we are trying to get on top of, and we have done a good deal in those areas in 12 months. The horse industry is responding to that. I am trying to get the balance right in terms of giving it the time and space to do that while at the same time taking a firm position on the need for identification.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is spot on as regards the Galway issue. It is mainly horses that were bought in the boom times, apparently as show horses or for horse racing.

On the other issue that arises, when the council picks up an abandoned horse it appears to be obliged to keep that horse until the owner turns up to collect it. If a horse is being kept in the midlands for a number of weeks or months is there a specified timescale following which it is reasonable to assume the owner no longer intends to claim it and therefore the animal can either be sold or disposed of by other means? One of the issues is the cost of keeping the horses. I am sure the Minister has addressed that with the councils.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a fair point and it is the reason we need codes of conduct in welfare organisations, not just for horses but for other animals as well. We must balance the support for well-meaning people who in many cases are looking after abandoned animals at their own expense. I know a number of them and they are well-meaning animal lovers who are looking to help as many abandoned animals as they can and set up partnerships with welfare organisations in the United Kingdom to have animals rehomed there when it is appropriate to do so. That is welcome but we must put some regulations in place that are not necessarily legally binding but would be put in place by a code of conduct. For example, if a horse is abandoned in Galway, picked up by the local authority and taken to a safe location such as stables in the midlands or wherever, we must allow an authorised officer or an veterinarian to make a decision on that animal in terms of its state of health, age and so on, whether it is suitable for rehoming and if it is not, within a reasonable period of time that animal should be put down.

We cannot have a situation whereby animals are kept for very long periods in the hope an owner might show up. An agreed period of time must be laid down in codes of conduct that I can change and improve, depending on circumstances, to allow us get on with rehoming animals or put them down in a humane way if it is possible and appropriate to do that. That is the kind of limbo councils find very frustrating in that they are being asked to care for animals indefinitely while somebody somewhere is making a decision or, in some cases, nobody anywhere is making a decision. We need to either rehome these animals or make a decision on putting them down and allow an adequate period in which somebody can reclaim the animal if they know it is missing but, unfortunately, most of these animals are abandoned for a reason and the likelihood of them being reclaimed is slim. The kind of abandonment that requires reclaiming is when someone leaves a gate open or a fence breaks and an animal gets out and it is picked up. In those type of instances owners will look for their animals and want them back, and they deserve a reasonable period to be able to do that.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise for labouring the point but is the Minister saying that is covered by this legislation as long as a code of practice is put in place?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. There are codes of practice in place. There is a long section on codes of practice which we will reach shortly.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there an issue over the transfer of title of the ownership? For example, if Galway County Council or Galway City Council was to sell a horse within a certain period does an issue of title arise if a person came to the authority and complained that it sold their horse while they were in England or doing something else? Does a question arise over the legal title in such a scenario or has the Minister examined that issue?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have just been advised that the normal period we would financially support the council in terms of keeping animals is five days. These are issues we can review if they are not appropriate. The point of having flexibility around codes of conduct is to be able to extend or reduce them, depending on what is appropriate. We are trying to get this right, which is why putting a timeframe into a Bill such as this would be wrong. For example, as people increasingly use social media we can get out messages to them much more quickly and allow them to pick up their animals. We need the flexibility, through codes of conduct, to be able to change, improve and adapt the length of time horses will be kept. In terms of the financial support we give to local authorities for looking after abandoned horses, however, my information is that that is based on a period of five days.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Galway City Council, for example, is only obliged to keep a horse for five days. Is the Minister saying it will then be allowed to sell it or give it to a better home if one can be found? It wants to be sure that it is covered legally in that regard.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the responsibility of local authorities in this area. We play a supervisory role, and we are talking to local authorities about how we can financially support them. Obviously, we have spoken to local authorities about trying to get this legislation right. My understanding is that there is an obligation on a local authority to collect and look after horses if they have been abandoned. When that happens, they get taken to a holding unit of stables, which I think is in the midlands. The obligation on Galway City Council or Galway County Council would be to look after the horse for a minimum five-day period, which is what we support them for financially. That agreement is not necessarily laid down in law. We have an agreement with local authorities on what is reasonable in looking after those horses, but I think there is an obligation during that period to make a judgment call on the horse. Some of those horses will be kept for a lot longer than five days. If we have a horse that is clearly suitable for rehoming, there is an onus on us to do that. If we have a horse that is sick, very old and is unlikely to be rehomed, then I think we can make the responsible decision on destroying that animal. People have to use their cop-on as well, but the basis of the relationship between Galway city and county councils at the moment is that we fund them to keep the horses for a five-day period on average. Some of the horses may be very unwell or have an injury that requires them to be put down within hours, but I understand our benchmark is five days.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there a maximum amount of time?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is not, as far as I know.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there a maximum from a funding perspective? There is not an infinite budget. That was the councils' problem. They would have spent about €90,000 last year on the issue. In some of the cases, it was because the horses were quite healthy and they were not sure how long they should be kept in the stables.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a joint responsibility. Local authorities cannot say that they want all of this to be paid for by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. There is a also responsibility on local authorities, their veterinary officers and their authorised officers to ensure that horses are not abandoned. This is a joint approach. We spent just over €2 million last year supporting local authorities in trying to deal financially with abandoned horses. That money was spread across many different local authorities and that is where the benchmark period of five days came into play. The Control of Horses Act goes back to 1996 and it applies to looking after abandoned horses and so on. This legislation will add to that in respect of the responsibility of owners or keepers of horses, and abandonment. However, if there is an unidentified horse trotting down the street, then the local authority has to respond to that, pick up the animal, take it to a holding point, make a judgment call on its health, its age, its capacity for rehoming or not, whether it is has a micro-chip and whether it is identified. We put a fund together last year to help local authorities to deal with this problem, but it is not just my problem. It is also the problem of the county manager and the vets, so collectively we need to deal with it.

To be honest, I would like to have more money for this issue, but there is a limit to the budget at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 15

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 16, subsection (1)(a), line 39, after "animal" to insert ", save for normal, necessary farm practices".

The previous amendment is related to the abandonment of horses, and I would like to put on record the excellent work being done by a number of organisations in my own county in caring for animals that have been abandoned. Unfortunately, due to the current climate, people are getting pets at Christmas or as gifts but financially they cannot take care of them, and the animals are being abandoned. Therefore, it is important that resources be made available, although we are living in times where it is difficult to provide those resources. One example of which the Minister is aware is the Donegal Donkey Sanctuary in Raphoe. Danny Curran, who operates the sanctuary, picked up a donkey just after Christmas which was so mutilated it was an absolute disgrace. The sanctuary took it into care and brought it back to full health, and this shows us some of the excellent voluntary work that is taking place to which the Minister referred.

This issue relates to animal fighting. I welcome section 15. It is very important because unfortunately, there are people in this country who are involved in animal fighting for financial gain in many cases. My three amendments in this section are all linked. Perhaps there may not be a need for them. I will accept that if I can get an assurance from the Minister that the word "performance" in section 15(1) excludes any farming activities. I just want to make sure that the section refers exclusively to the disgraceful activities and events in which some people are engaged, such as animal fighting or cock fighting, whether for some kind of fun or for financial reward. If the word "performance" excludes farming activities, I would be happy to withdraw the three amendments.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had quite a long conversation about this issue this morning. I think what the Senator is asking for is not unreasonable. This section is clearly not about farming, unless somebody is farming animals for fighting. If that is the case, we are coming after such people. This is one of the sections about which I feel very strongly. That is why this section refers to anyone who records, bets on, keeps, breeds, generates income from, provides information, publicity or promotion for any form of dog fighting, cock fighting, animal baiting, wrestling, fighting or struggling with an animal, or throwing or casting ropes on animals. In other words, human beings should not be entertaining themselves by organising and breeding animals to fight each other. That is something which we will deal with comprehensively in this Bill.

If we look at this in a legalistic way, the Senator's concerns are probably not founded, but I would like to put it in as a belt and braces approach to make sure that nobody is under any illusions. We have said that we would look at a wording on Report Stage that would put this issue beyond doubt. The beginning of the section states that "A person shall not organise or cause or permit to take place any performance involving", and then it lists a series of activities, including "riding or attempting to ride an animal which, by the use of any appliance or treatment, is or has been stimulated with the intention of making it buck, or any other activity that may cause unnecessary suffering to an animal and is prohibited by animal health and welfare regulations." We cover almost everything in this list, but for the avoidance of any doubt, it may be no harm that any normal farm practices should not be included in this category. We will have a look at the wording. It probably only means adding one or two extra words. I take the spirit of the Senator's amendments, and we will try to bring something back on Report Stage to reflect that spirit, so that farmers and farming organisations do not have a concern. I hope the Senator will withdraw his amendments, on the basis of the commitments I have given.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate what the Minister has said with regard to amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 and I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to over-egg this point. However, a really good example of lack of animal welfare legislation is seen in the practices of dog fighting, dog baiting and cock fighting and the underground culture that goes with them which is, unfortunately, quite active across the country. I hope the Bill will send out a strong signal to people who are participating in those activities that they are no longer acceptable, that we will make examples of people who are involved in them and that we will use this legislation to its maximum effect to stamp them out. Section 15 is all about that. It is easy to understand. We are going to great lengths to make it as easy as possible for gardaí to secure convictions against people who are organising this type of activity and even of those who merely turn up to watch. That should send out a strong signal to those people.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 16

Government amendment No. 21:

In page 18, lines 33 to 36, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) 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.".

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 16 has given quite a few people cause for concern. The amendment is brought forward following consultation with the Select Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture. It brings additional clarity to section 16. It makes it clear that, irrespective of whether or not an operation is covered by a regulation under subsection 16(1), a veterinary practitioner may perform the operation for therapeutic purposes.

I think it was Deputy Michael McNamara who raised this issue with my officials. The amendment replaces subsection 16(2) with a better wording which provides more clarity for veterinary practitioners and others who may undertake therapeutic work with animals. I am told the new version provides more clarity on the issue.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful to the Minister. We were a little perplexed as to why it was felt necessary to change the wording of the original subsection. In essence, the two versions seem to be much the same. However, we accept the Minster's bona fides in this regard.

The amendment uses the words, "Nothing in subsection (1)". This allows me to raise the issue of the docking of animals' tails. This arose under a previous section and arises here again. Senator Pat O'Neill, like myself, is a nominee of the National Association of Regional Game Councils, which has expressed concern at this aspect of the Bill. Senator O'Neill may have an opinion on this section although, of course, I do not speak for him. I merely acknowledge the fact that we both represent the same nominating body.

I would be grateful for the Minister's observations on the briefing we received from the National Association of Regional Game Councils. The association describes the prohibition of the docking of dogs' tails as "somewhat controversial". My reading of the Bill is that it does provide for exceptions. I seek clarity, either under this amendment or under the section, as to what exactly the Minister intends in this regard.

The provision is understood not to be clear enough and leaves open the possibility of subjective misinterpretation, depending on who is applying the proposed provision. I share the view of the National Association of Regional Game Councils that there should be a clear-cut exemption for the docking of the tails of working dogs, similar to that applied by legislation in Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and, more recently, in Northern Ireland. I would be grateful for the Minister's observations in this regard.

The Government amendment, in providing clarity, does allow a veterinary practitioner to dock a tail, where he or she believes it necessary. However, subsection 16(1) states that a person shall not mutilate an animal, "including the docking or nicking of the tail of a bovine, canine or equine". The subsection refers to an exception if the procedure is carried out in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations. This seems to be the core of what the section is about and may address the concerns of those who feel docking legislation should be clear. The subsection may allow the Minister to introduce a regulation or statutory instrument to add further clarity to the section.

I remain to be convinced about this. When I first read the Bill, banning the docking of tails seemed to me to be a perfectly humane way of going about things. However, it was pointed out to me that a hunting dog with a long tail can get caught up in brambles and undergrowth. A dog can suffer as a result of having a long tail and it is, therefore, a humane practice to dock the tails of hunting dogs.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment Senator Mooney on the way he put this issue. We received nominations for the Seanad election from the same body.

Like Senator Mooney, I ask the Minister for clarification. Will a list of working dogs that are exempt under subsection 16(1) and the new subsection 16(2) be drawn up? Our nearest neighbours in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland changed their legislation last year to allow the docking of tails and the removal of the dewclaw on pups, which is an unnecessary claw that can be humanely removed from a young pup. I ask the Minister for clarification on this matter.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not totally reassured by the Minister's reply but I understand where he is coming from. He said he consulted veterinarians. Let us suppose in a hypothetical situation a vet is anti-hunting - he has a visceral hatred of hunting as a concept – and the people who own the dogs, who are responsible people, say it is a long-standing practice and is in the interests of the health and welfare of the hunting dog but the vet does not agree. Does the Minister not think, therefore, it would be better and wiser he should retain the right to decide under health and safety regulations?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I do not think so. I am not a qualified vet. First, I would like to think vets are professional enough to be able to make decisions on the welfare of animals without being clouded in their judgment by whether they support hunting. The issue at stake is the welfare of the animal, be it a hound or a horse, just as in the case of farming. Vets should be able to carry out their work on the basis of the circumstances animals are in or are going to be in, such as in the case of harriers for hunting, for example. Vets are the people who are best placed to make such decisions rather than a Minister making a decision on a matter without looking at it case by case.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said he had consulted Veterinary Ireland. My understanding is the Department has not consulted regional game councils. Therefore, the Minister is only getting one part of the equation. I do not wish in any way to cast aspersions on the professional integrity and objectivity of the veterinary profession. I raise the point to ensure there is no ambiguity or ambivalence on the matter, as the Minister attempted to do by moving his amendment, within the framework of health and safety and of the amendment, and the long-standing practice, as exercised by responsible hunting people, will not in any way be inhibited because of the law being interpreted in such a way as to prevent it happening by someone saying it is not in the best interests of the health and welfare of the animal.

I focus specifically on dogs. On a personal level it seems a horrible practice to dock dogs' tails. I think of my pet at home. I am trying to put forward a particular argument to ensure that if docking has been working in practice and there are no indications through the Department of it being interpreted in the narrow context in which I debate the issue as being the mutilation of an animal or the animal's health and welfare being compromised, the Minister can ensure through the legislation the practice will continue but with oversight. I accept there must be a form of oversight. That was my only reason to suggest it to the Minister. I did not intend him or whoever holds the office to do it, but that the Minister would have the resources available to him or her to ensure a balanced conclusion.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The regional game councils or people involved in hunting, shooting or hunting by hounds seek reassurance, as Senator Mooney has pointed out, that the law cannot be misinterpreted by either a veterinary surgeon or, if it goes to a court of law, that their sports and hobbies will be taken into account in this regard. It is in the best interests of certain hunting dogs that their tail is docked due to the fact that it may be a welfare issue.

What is the position on show dogs of certain breeds that have their tails docked? One sees dogs on television at Crufts, for example, that have their tails docked. Could one say it is a welfare issue for a show dog to have its tail docked? I would welcome a comment from the Minister on the matter.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, for the record, I have received a submission from the Countryside Alliance. We have had submissions from many different organisations. As Members are aware, the Countryside Alliance is a strong supporter of hunting and other such pursuits.

The first paragraph of section 16 states: "A person shall not, except in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations, carry out an operation". I must put in place regulations that will go with the legislation to clarify the various measures. The regulation that currently exists refers to excepted operations:

The rendering in emergency of first aid for the purpose of saving a life or relieving pain.

The docking of the tail of a dog under one month old.

The amputation of the dew claws of a dog before its eyes are open.

The castration of a male animal specified in the following table before it has reached the age so specified, that is to say:

Bull - six months

Sheep – three months

Goat – two months;

Pig – two months

Cat - four months.

That is the current regulation which is now outdated. We must put a new set of regulations in place that provides clarity on the issue. What we are trying to do is put into the main Bill a consistent wording that will allow us to put a more detailed regulation in place when we clarify the specifics of what is being said.

To be honest, I do not know that much about show dogs-----

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Neither do I.

3:00 pm

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----although I know a lot about dogs. My dog is certainly not a show dog. My understanding is one cannot dock a dog's tail for display purposes. I am pretty confident about that. Perhaps I am wrong but if it is taking place, my view is that I do not think we should allow it. We should not dock a dog's tail to make it look pretty. If there is a reason to dock a dog's tail in terms of the activities it is involved in such as hunting, if they are likely to get injured or if there is an infection risk that docking a dog's tail would prevent – that holds true for other animals also – then there is a reason to do it.

There may be a reason to dock a dog or another animal's tail, for example, if it is used in hunting, if it is likely to be injured or if there is a risk of infection that can be avoided. If I am wrong or anyone wants to correct me-----

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Most of the terrier breeds-----

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister to continue, without interruption.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If someone wants to make representations to me on the issue, I will consider it in the context of regulations, but I would need to be convinced that we should be docking dogs' tails to make them look like nicer show animals. I am being patronising. There are many show breeders and I have no difficulty with that activity. I am supportive of it. However, many of the people concerned are animal lovers and most people who keep dogs will not dock animals' tails unnecessarily. The provision should apply to show animals, as it does to hunting animals.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to clarify something. My colleague-----

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will revert to the Senator.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the amendment and section 16 in general, the Minister has stated the section will enter into force following the publication and signing of the regulations. This is the crux of the matter and the reason for the industry's confusion. People are concerned that they do not know what the regulations will be. It is normal procedure for a Minister and his or her officials to design and sign off on a set of regulations.

There is docking in the agriculture sector, be it of sheep or lambs. Such docking is common practice to ensure a lamb's well-being rather than its good looks. Every farmer has engaged in docking and a registered vet must visit the farm. This provision is a source of concern for many sheep farmers. Will the regulations curtail this practice? Perhaps the Minister's opinion differs.

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Senator Pat O'Neill still wish to provide clarification?

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the use of modern technology, Senator Cáit Keane mentioned the iPad. In the United Kingdom it became illegal two years ago to dock the tail of any dog, except a working dog. People have been asking how dogs with docked tails are still appearing at Crufts, but these animals were bred before the introduction of the ban. I have not seen many Jack Russells with long tails.

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator for providing that clarification.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am reassured more than I was before the Minister's response. It is not that I doubted his intent, as he is unquestionably operating in the best interests of animals. He understands the concerns expressed by my colleague in respect of agriculture, as well as the concerns held in the hunting and fishing industries. Providing greater clarity on the issue is important for the efficient operation of the legislation. I hope the regulations the Minister is formulating will provide for that clarity.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will reassure Members. We will not introduce a statutory instrument with a series of regulations without having engaged in broad consultations. It is important that we not do anything that would inconvenience people or animals unnecessarily. The legislation will not have a negative impact on commercial farming where there is good reason to use normal, sensible farming practices in dealing with animals. There will be no change in that regard.

The regulations will probably need to bring clarity to the issue of hunting dogs. I take that point on board and we will try to address it through the regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 17

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The wording used in the section appears to be broad. Why is there no definition? For example, the provisions of the section may prohibit common commercial farming activities such as budding or the ringing or lambs, for which the services of a vet to administer an anaesthetic would need to be employed. Will this issue be covered by the proposed regulations?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Senator reads the section, he will see that it reads, a "person shall not, except in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations, [this is where the statutory instrument comes in] perform an operation or procedure (with or without the use of instruments) involving interference with the sensitive tissue". It is a question of ensuring people do not cut costs and corners by operating on animals without providing appropriate painkillers. Doing otherwise is not acceptable. However, the requirement laid down must be within reason. The statutory instrument will provide for clarity in this regard. We will discuss the matter with farming organisations, in particular. People will understand the Bill's overall thrust is to ensure animals are not operated on without the obligation to kill or control their pain being met. Most Members present know what activities constitute normal farming practices, be they the minding of sheep or cattle. They will be covered in the statutory instrument.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I seek clarification in respect of laboratory animals. Are they covered by this provision, or are they considered to be outside its remit? Is there a separate regulation for them?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been told that the 1876 Act applies. In fairness, that is not a credible answer for me to give. The issue raised by the Senator is predominantly the responsibility of the Department of Health, as it is not an agricultural animal issue as such, rather it is a scientific and animal testing issue. Some are uncomfortable with the activity, but others regard it as a necessary evil. This section does not encompass it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 18

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 19, lines 15 to 17, to delete subsection (1).

There may be another way to deal with this matter. The word "vermin" is not defined in the Bill. There are animals and birds that carry diseases and are a threat to the health and welfare of humans and animals. Inserting a definition in section 2 might be worthwhile.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is an important section. In certain circumstances land owners and business people have the right to lay poison to protect their health or that of their animals. What about the illegal use of poisons in the countryside which poses a greater risk to wildlife than the laying of poisons by farmers? If a farmer lays poison, it must be registered. We should consider the illegal use of poisons.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am uncertain as to whether I can raise my point under this amendment as opposed to the section. Like many others, I have an interest in protecting animals from poison. In particular, I am concerned about raptors that are at risk. I draw the Minister's attention to a fine article that appeared in The Irish Times on Tuesday, 13 March, and which relates to section 18. As we are debating the possible deletion of this, I am not sure whether it comes under the amendment or in the context of section 18(2)(b) which states a person shall not "lay poison by a method or in a manner that a protected animal or a prescribed wild bird would have access to the poison".

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had a discussion about this whole section in the Department before coming into the Seanad today. There is a problem with this because several Departments and several Acts deal with poison. They could be the wildlife Acts which come under the responsibility of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, or Department of Health rules and regulations in place around the use of poisons. There is some ambiguity here with which I am not happy. We are looking at deleting section 18 in its entirety with a view to relying on the NPWS regulations and providing a legal basis for dealing with poisons, how they can be used, who can use them and so forth.

While certain protected species, such as raptors, need to be protected from poison, we must allow a farmer to deal with a lodging problem in a crop such as thousands of crows eating a field of barley or wheat. There is a practical response needed here as well. We want to re-examine this section and maybe even get rid of it. The Department should deal with the use of poison on land in its entirety or let some other Department do it. To have three different Departments with slightly contradictory points on poison will only lead to uncertainty. I am not happy with this section and the Department wants more time to examine it. The Senator's amendment sparked off this discussion in the Department. I am more than happy to come back on Report Stage with an improved or deleted section, if the Senator so wishes.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know my friend and colleague, Senator Ó Domhnaill, will deal with the specific amendment and the Minister's reply. I want to address the wider context of the sustainability of this particular section. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is best placed to deal with these issues rather than the Wildlife Act which has less resources. I am not in any way taking away from the wardens, inspectors and others doing a wonderful job under the Wildlife Act.

The Irish Times article states, "The indiscriminate use of poisons to kill rats or mice has been linked to an alarming decline in some of Ireland's most iconic birds of prey, such as barn owls and kestrels." The birds under threat include the merlin, the peregrine falcon, the long-eared owl, the red kite, the tree-nesting raptor, the common buzzard, the barn owl, the kestrel, the white-tailed eagle, the hen harrier and the golden eagle. That is an astonishing list of birds common to our environment. The article also stated:

Since 2010, the practice of using poisoned meat baits to control farmland pests such as foxes and crows has been outlawed because of the knock-on effects on other species.

However, there are currently no regulations concerning the use of poisons to kill rats or mice. In Britain, there are restrictions against the use of certain rodenticides in outside areas in order to protect other species, and ornithologists want similar regulations adopted here.

Will the Minister clarify whether it is his Department or the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht that enforces the ban on poisoned meat baits? The article continued:

Ireland unfortunately has had a poor record in protecting its native raptor species, arguably the worst in Europe [...]

Since a ban on DDT was implemented, the peregrine population in Ireland, which had dwindled to little more than 60 pairs in the 1970s, has rebounded significantly, and the birds are now no longer a conservation concern.

That proves when proactive initiatives are introduced in this area, there are real gains not just for the protection but also for the enhancement of bird species. It is important the Minister sorts this problem out quickly as we are behind the rest of Europe. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose many of the birds I have mentioned.

The golden eagle became extinct in Ireland in the 20th century and was recently reintroduced into Donegal. One of these birds was recently both poisoned and shot. The long-eared owl, now thought to be more common, is on the wane because of the use of poisons and loss of habitat. The red kite, a tree-nesting raptor, was reintroduced to Ireland in 2007 after 200 years of absence. There were 14 breeding pairs of red kites in Wicklow as of last year but they are under threat again.

We are all singing from the one hymn sheet here. Does the Minister believe he should take this area under his wing - excuse the pun – rather than it being covered by the Wildlife Act? In whatever little turf war is breaking out over this, the Department should assert its rights in this regard. I have no monopoly of wisdom in this area and I want to hear other points of view on this. However, BirdWatch Ireland and John Lusby, who has done extraordinary work in this area, have a real concern and want action to be taken to address the methods of laying down poison. It is not about the banning of poison but ensuring proper methods are in place.

The Minister goes some way in addressing that in this Bill. BirdWatch Ireland is happy about the proposals in section 18 because it believes they go a long way to addressing the void in our legislation. This is not a popular issue and there are no votes in it. It would be a considerable loss to the country, however, if these wonderful birds were lost because we could not get the legislation right or get the right Department to decide on it. Will the Minister be assertive in this regard? Nothing has happened in this area until now. That is why this article appeared. Our neighbours are way ahead of us in this regard. There is a powerful argument for the Minister to say at Cabinet that this section addresses to a large extent the loss of these species and it will protect and enhance the bird population.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My friend, Senator Mooney, was obviously saving that pun all day.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was not.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My friend, Senator Comiskey, might possibly outdo the Senator with his recommendation that there be no foul play. I commend the Fianna Fáil Party's interest in rare birds. I support Senator Mooney's comments and particularly the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's enormous interest in food, the green island, health and our natural environment. The Minister has been able to say to the world that our green grass and natural environment has served us well in terms of food production and our food chain. If he could raise the plight of those birds in this context and if the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was to take the lead, that would surely fit with his vision of what Ireland can do in the food area. Although it does not appear on the face of it as a natural fit, I suggest it might be.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This issue has sparked something of a debate on the whole area. I am picking up on the points raised by my colleagues, Senator Mooney and Senator O'Keeffe, in respect of the wider issues. For example, the bird species mentioned by Senator Mooney are protected by EU legislation and EU directives with which we have to comply. Not only do we have to protect the animal species but also we must designate land within the landmass of the State where the corncrake and the barnacle goose can breed. There are large tracts of land in west Donegal in my area designated for the protection of the corncrake. They arrive in April and migrate to Africa in September where they are caught in nets and eaten as a delicacy, yet they are being protected here under an EU directive. They are a beautiful bird species and we should protect them. However, there is a lack of joined-up thinking in respect of the protection of those birds.

In other EU states, such as Portugal or Spain, the designation of the lands is carried out following only public consultation and agreement with the landowners. What happens here is that the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs draws lines on a map and designates an area as a special protection area for the birds. The area is then designated without public consultation and farmers are invited to make submissions if they wish to object. Those requests to farmers fall on deaf ears and there are no changes. We should examine models adopted in other countries. I agree with Senator Mooney that the Minister's Department should take the lead because it has got the expertise and is better able to deal with landowners. There is a need for joined-up thinking as there are other issues in regard to bogs in the west, such as in Connemara and other places, where large special protection areas and special areas of conservation are designated as bogland. This affects turf cutters.

In my parish in County Donegal, about 5,000 acres is designated as a special protection area because there were corncrakes on the land between 1997 and 2003. Last year, there was no recording of corncrakes on the lands in question. However, one corncrake was recorded in that geographical area but it was about half a mile outside the area that has recently been designated. The figures being used are outdated. Highly intensive agricultural lands are being designated and farmers will not be allowed cut silage without the permission of the National Parks and Wildlife Service under the remit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs. If the Minister's Department took the lead role, there would be much better co-operation from farmers and landowners. As the majority of landowners are farmers, it would make sense. The Minister has got the team, the officials and the expertise, and the farmers would buy in and trust the Department. I am not casting aspersions on the officials in the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs but they do not have the resources to deal with the number of queries. One official cannot be expected to cover the west in respect of this issue.

The term "vermin" can be as broad as one wishes depending on the disease it brings to a farm. Farmers should be given the scope and flexibility to lay poison but how that is done should be regulated to ensure children who may wander through fields do not pick it up. Everyone needs to buy in. If a code of practice is required anywhere, it is in this area. We have to absolutely certain that if poison is laid, there is no danger to human health, especially to young children who may wander through fields. On the other side there must be a mechanism to protect these bird species. If, from a farming point of view, non-productive land was designated for the protected bird species under EU directives, the need to lay poison may not be as great and there would be buy-in from farmers.

The case of the golden eagle leaving Glenveagh National Park was mentioned. The golden eagle flew out of the park. A farmer in west Donegal had laid poison, not to catch the golden eagle, even though there had been reports in the local media that one of the golden eagles had picked up a small lamb. However, the golden eagle picked up the poison and died. This was devastating in terms of the good work being done at Glenveagh National Park.

There is a need for wider debate and joined-up thinking between a number of Departments. I suggest the Minister and his officials take the lead role given the expertise in his Department and his relationship with the farming organisations and farmers generally. We do not want a situation where 300 or 400 landowners in a county may appeal a decision after it has been taken. That is the wrong way to do business. That would get farmers' backs up and they would cut the silage and end up committing an offence under the terms of the EU directive. There is a need to do business in a smarter way. I appreciate the Minister does not have ministerial responsibility for that area but given the Department for which he has responsibility, he should have it.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For what it is worth, my understanding is that the National Parks and Wildlife Service wanted us to ban the laying of all poisons except for rats and mice. We were trying to put limits on how poison can be used and where it can be used to protect the birds Senators have mentioned. We all have an obligation to protect wildlife. There is no reason commercial farming cannot take place at the same time as the protection of vulnerable species. Certainly, the project in Donegal, where eagles being reintroduced into the wild was heralded as a great success, came to naught because of that unfortunate incident. The sense I am getting from Members is that they would like us to deal with the issue rather than rely on legislation from another Department. We will try to do that. The section is not bad and contains a lot of good stuff. Our team has done a pretty good job on it. The problem is that confusion can be created when two or three Departments are dealing with the same issue. One of the objectives of the legislation is to pull a series of different pieces of legislation, some of them under the remit of different Departments, into one comprehensive animal welfare Bill and I have examined section 18 in that context. We are trying to reduce the amount of legislation that people need to read in order to understand the rules. I will examine it again and see if we can provide the clarity that is sought by everyone.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope that I am speaking for everybody here when I say that we are very grateful to the Minister for his response. The indications received from all sides of the House and the confidence that we place in him, his officials and his Department, in the context of this amendment and wider section, should stiffen his resolve around the Cabinet table to ensure that he proceeds with the section. It might also lead to him absorbing the other legislation into this Bill in order to diminish, and hopefully eliminate, any ambiguity in the area.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I withdraw my amendment and thank the Minister for his indulgence, for listening to us and for his response. Before the legislation reaches Report Stage we are willing to do anything that we can to assist him and his officials in the Department.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 20, subsection (1), lines 12 to 29, to delete all words from and including "and—" in line 12 down to and including "animal." in line 29 and substitute "and its health and welfare needs are being met.".

My amendment is on section 19 which deals with the inspection of protected animals and equipment. I proposed the deletion of lines 12 to 29, inclusive. My amendment is also linked to sections 19 and 20 because it deals with paperwork. Section 19 states:

(1) A person who has in his or her possession or under his or her control a protected animal shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the animal is regularly inspected and—

It continues and states three or four different criteria. Obviously there will be a substantial amount of paperwork necessary for those inspections. It states as follows:

(a) in case the animal is being kept in an intensive unit, not less than once a day—

(i) thoroughly inspect the animal's condition and state of health or cause the condition and state of health of the animal to be so inspected, and (ii) for the purpose of ensuring that the automatic or other technical equipment used in the unit is free from defects, either—

(I) if he or she is competent to do so, thoroughly inspect the equipment, or

(II) cause the equipment to be thoroughly inspected by a competent person, or ....

Again, the words "competent to do so" are used. The legislation does not state how often the equipment must be inspected or who the "competent person" would be. Do I take that to mean a professional farmer? Is it someone else?

The criteria for the "competent person" has not been referred to. The section continues, "(b) in case the animal is not kept in an intensive unit, at intervals sufficient to avoid the animal being caused injury or unnecessary suffering." I understand where the Minister is coming from on that point. It appears that section 19, and I will get to section 20 in a minute, will result in burdensome paperwork and confusion over who is meant by the term "competent person."

There are two issues related to the inspection of equipment. First, the competent person will inspect the equipment and there is duplication in section 19(1)(a)(ii)(I) and (II) which state: "(I) if he or she is competent to do so, thoroughly inspect the equipment, or, (II) cause the equipment to be thoroughly inspected by a competent person." Perhaps there is a rational explanation for that.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a brief question. Throughout the legislation emphasis has been placed on agricultural animals. I am not saying it does so exclusively but the main thrust of the legislation is about agricultural animals. As the Minister is aware, certain sections relate to who is legally entitled to buy an animal, under or over a particular age, and there are provisions to ensure that the animals are properly maintained. In the UK there is specific legislation for domestic pets. It is my understanding, having talked to the Minister's officials, that domestic pets are covered by nearly all of this legislation. A reference made to "protected animals" does not mean agricultural animals exclusively. It also means others, particularly domestic pets. I welcome the Minister's clarity in this regard.

The only reason that I raise the issue is that in the UK, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, pet owners are now legally obliged to care for their pet properly - and most owners do so - by providing five basic needs. They are as follows: somewhere suitable to live; a proper diet, including fresh water; the ability to express normal behaviour; for any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and protection from, and treatment of, illness and injury. Can the Minister assure us that the Bill will address those five basic needs even though they are not overtly stated? Is he satisfied that they are? Can he assure us that the proposed legislation covers domestic pets and the responsibilities placed on their owners?

In this Bill there is a great deal of talk about cruelty to farm animals that might arise but some private citizens are far more cruel to their pets, even domestic pets. Some of the siblings of those animals have got out of control in certain parts of the country. Some people carry out the most obscene and obnoxious cruelty on dogs and cats. The Minister or any of us in this House have nothing to fear from the farming organisation or industry when it comes to the protection and proper maintenance of animals. They care for animals because they are closer to the land and understand nature. I cannot remember any major examples of cruelty among the farming community. There have been cases of cruelty by people who have purchased horses. There is the odd exception to the rule. Perhaps there have been extraneous reasons that animals have not been properly catered for but those are the exception rather than the rule. That is why I raised the issue of placing obligations on domestic pet owners. Is the Minister satisfied that they are covered by the legislation?

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise to Senator Ó Clochartaigh because I should have called him before Senator Mooney.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is all right. Go raibh míle maith agat.

I will make the opposite case to previous Senators. The legislation is an example of good co-operation between the North and South because it is in line with the legislation in the North. I often castigate certain Ministers for having little regard for what is happening in the North but I commend the Minister today because he does, on a regular basis, consult his counterpart in the North, Ms Michelle O'Neill, on these issues. The legislation is also in line with international best practice. Section 19 specifically deals with the inspection of protected animals and equipment and my party supports the retention of the section under those conditions. The legislation brings us more in line with what is happening in the North and keeps us all singing off the same hymn sheet. As the Minister has often stated, the latter is so important. The agriculture industry blurs the Border much more than other industries and it is very important that we have good co-operation and that our legislation is brought in line as much as possible.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will clarify a number of things. The legislation is about all animals and that is the point. It is about bringing all animals, whether they are domestic pets, companions or used on farms or for sports, under a common standard and set of rules that are required to outline how they should be protected and the responsibility that goes with ownership of an animal.

The five freedoms referred to by the Senator are guiding lights for legislation such as this. They are freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress. They are international benchmarks in drafting codes of conduct and legislation on the protection of animals. It is not a coincidence that they can be found on page 3 of the code of practice for the welfare of pigs which was published by the farm animal welfare advisory council which is linked to my Department. Good work is ongoing in this area and farming organisations are at the heart of it. Unfortunately, every now and again, we witness examples of malnutrition, cruelty or unacceptable animal husbandry practices on Irish farms, but they are becoming more rare. The farming organisations have been up-front about trying to address and eradicate such behaviour. Sometimes, for complex reasons, people are unable to look after their animals and that is when the State needs to step in and take action. That is what the legislation is about. If somebody has a pet at home that is being blatantly abused, that needs to be legislated for also. Most important, when there is deliberate and flagrant abuse of animals, for example, throwing a cat on a bonfire or cutting the tendon of a horse as part of a family feud, there needs to be a legal framework in place to send a strong signal to those who may consider mutilation and so on that they are likely to end up in jail or face a massive fine.

The section is very much about dealing with intensive farming, predominantly pigs and poultry. The Senator referred to additional bureaucracy and form filling, but what we are doing is repeating the current legislative provisions in the Bill. We are, therefore, not introducing anything new. The section he proposes to delete is contained in the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Act 1984, one of many Acts we are trying to amalgamate in this legislation. We are reinforcing current legislation and not adding anything new, which makes sense. If somebody keeps pigs or poultry in intensive housing units, he or she has a responsibility to check them once a day to make sure their welfare is monitored. Under current legislation, he or she also has an obligation to record this in a recording system in the same way as a fisherman has a responsibility to record catches. There is an obligation on those who intensively farm and have responsibility for thousands of animals, particularly in the poultry industry, to inspect and record the condition of the animals in their care. Therefore, I am restating what is in place; there is no new additional form filling or bureaucracy. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment.

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill pressing the amendment?

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. Section 19 refers to protected animals, but was the Minister referring to section 20 when he mentioned pigs and poultry? They are unlikely to be classified as protected animals.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Farm animals are protected animals.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has stated legislation has been in place since 1984. It seems many records must be kept. Does the section apply to intensive housing units for cattle and sheep? It refers to individual records. Does this mean a record must be kept for each animal? If there are 5,000 pigs or chickens in an intensive housing unit or 1,000 sheep or bullocks, does a record need to be kept for each of them? If that has been the case since 1984, I am not sure it has been fully implemented.

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

According to the order of the House, the debate must be adjourned at 3.45 p.m., but I am anxious that we conclude the discussion on the section.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A protected animal is defined as "...an animal of a kind commonly kept for farming, recreational, domestic or sporting purposes on the island of Ireland ... when it is in the possession or under the control of a human being, whether permanently or on a temporary basis or not living in a wild state...". In other words, the animal must be in captivity. An intensive housing unit is defined as "a premises on which farm animals are kept under the husbandry system for the purpose of providing for the care of the animal on automatic equipment to such an extent that a failure of that equipment would, if it were not rectified or if some alternative arrangements were not made for the care of the animal contained therein, cause the animal unnecessary suffering". The inspections ensure the feeding and water systems are working and cover poultry units, intensive piggeries and so on. Farmers with slatted sheds should not have a concern. I will examine the issues raised by the Senator, but unless officials got the legislation wrong in 1984, there will not be a problem.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that. We can discuss the issue further when we resume on section 20.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 19 agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.