Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, and his officials to the House.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 23a, 24 and 25 are related and may be discussed together.

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

This section has attracted a great deal of discussion. It is easy to find examples in which it seems overly restrictive, and equally examples in which it does not go far enough. One member of the House said that 16 was too young, and we should raise the age to 18. Therefore, the current age limit strikes a good balance. However, following suggestions from Senators, this amendment adds a restriction on the granting of animals to minors as competition prizes. Following the discussions we had two sessions ago, I was trying to achieve a balance in terms of not being overly restrictive if a child under the age of 16 wins, say, a cockerel as a prize, while not allowing a situation in which children are dealing in the buying and selling of animals. What we had in the original Bill was that a person shall not sell an animal to a person who is apparently under the age of 16.

With regard to amendments Nos. 24 and 25, Sinn Féin wanted to make an exception for the awarding of a prize. In our amendment, we propose that a person shall not give an animal as a prize to a person who is apparently under the age of 16, unless that person is accompanied by a person of full age. In other words, if a child is accompanied, he or she can collect a prize at a mart or whatever, which is not something we are seeking to restrict. We have tried to achieve a good balance and improve the wording while taking into account the legitimate concerns that were expressed by some Senators. I hope Senators are happy with that.

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

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire arís agus muid ag plé an Bhille thábhachtaigh seo. Tógfaidh mé ar bord an méid atá ráite aige agus glacaim leis go bhfuil sé le gach dea-mhéin ag glacadh leis an moladh a bhí déanta againn. I applaud the Minister for having the foresight to consider the point made by Sinn Féin that there was a potential loophole in the legislation. It is interesting that this has happened just after our debate on Seanad reform. We are sometimes critical of Ministers who do not consider suggestions we make, but this Minister has done so on a number of occasions. We mentioned not only that the legislation would have an impact on people under 16 who owned animals, but also that we needed to cover the eventuality of a person under 16 being in possession of an animal that had been won as a prize. We have considered the amendment tabled by the Minister and we feel it deals with our concerns. Therefore, we will not press amendment No. 24. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an moladh a thógáil ar bord.

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

I thank the Minister for engaging constructively with the House. He listened to what was said in the Chamber and came back with this amendment which takes into account the concerns we expressed the other day. We are perfectly happy to accept the amendment.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 27a, 28 and 51 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

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

I acknowledge that a number of suggestions have been received about this section, and I find I am of like mind. Therefore, I am accepting the spirit of a number of the amendments that have been proposed, and I have tried to accommodate them in a new amendment. As I stated during my Second Stage speech, there was never any intention to interfere with the current approach whereby, in emergency situations, an animal may be humanely killed by a knackery operative. Despite efforts to make it clear that this was intended, the previous wording still seemed to cause some confusion, and therefore I have had to redraft. I should be clear that the new subsection 23(1) allows any competent knackery operative to carry out such a killing. Many people misread section 23(2) as the general rule covering all situations in which an animal needs to be humanely killed. This is incorrect, as it does not say that only an authorised officer may kill. It states that if an authorised officer is of the opinion that an animal is fatally injured, he or she may kill the animal. Section 23(2) applies only to a situation in which an authorised officer or vet needs to humanely kill an animal that has been abandoned or where the owner is not taking adequate care and responsibility. Amendment 27a clarifies this. The new amendment No. 26 amends section 23(1) as follows: "Subject to this section, a person shall not kill a protected animal or cause or permit another person to kill a protected animal, unless the person killing the animal is competent to kill it in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations (if any) and does so in such manner as to inflict as little suffering as possible in the circumstances."

It is a sensitive and awkward issue to be required to kill an animal unexpectedly. When an animal breaks its leg while being loaded onto a trailer what does one do if a veterinarian is not on site? Who is considered competent to put the animal down? Numerous practical examples can be presented of animals suffering significant pain and requiring to be put down. If a veterinarian or other authorised officer is not available, one needs either a competent farmer or somebody from a knackery yard to perform the task as humanely as possible. This is the balance we are trying to strike in the section. I accept there is no perfect wording but we do not want to be overly restrictive. It is often the case that the humane response to a suffering animal is to put it down quickly and efficiently. If the skills required for such a task are available either on the farm or in a local knackery yard we should allow them to be applied rather than wasting hours locating a veterinarian.

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

I thank the Minister for considering this issue and reverting to us with a Government amendment which I am willing to accept. The concerns expressed by farming organisations on section 27 related to the requirement to procure the services of a veterinary practitioner where a protected animal needed to be put down, thereby incurring additional expense for the farmer. The revised amendment No. 26 will allow knackery workers or competent farmers to perform this task. Many farmers are as skilled as any veterinarian and are more than capable in this regard.

In my constituency of West Donegal it would take a veterinarian one hour and 15 minutes to travel to a farm in order to issue a certificate allowing an animal to be put down. One could not permit an animal to wait that long. I have witnessed instances of capable farmers administering injections to relieve animals of pain. In light of the wording of the revised amendment, we are prepared to support it.

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

I commend the Minister on the revised amendment. He has taken on board the concerns expressed by farming organisations and farmers. This is an animal welfare Bill which seeks to protect the welfare of animals and ensure they do not suffer. The revised amendment has removed the ambiguity which previously existed in the Bill.

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

Amendment No. 27a inserts into section 23(2) the phrase: ", without having to seek the consent of its owner or the person in control of it". It permits a competent officer to deal with, for example, an animal which is lying in a ditch after being hit by a truck and which clearly needs to be put down in circumstances where it has been abandoned or its owner cannot be determined. It is a practical approach to situations where it is not possible to find the owner or person who is in control of the animal. Sometimes the decision has to be made on the spot in order to be as sympathetic as possible towards the animal. We believed this amendment was required to make it crystal clear that such an intervention was permitted. On that basis I will withdraw amendment No. 28.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 29 is ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

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

Section 25 makes reference to codes of practice. Has the Minister indicated what code of practice he intends to adopt? I understand that a number of the organisations which will be affected by this legislation have already devised codes of practice.

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

We have made it clear from the outset that we will not prescribe codes of practice in the legislation but will give the Minister the power to put in place codes of conduct, whether by establishing new codes or adopting codes that have been published elsewhere. Clearly if we put in place a code of practice that affects commercial farming, for example, we would do so in conjunction with stakeholders and farming organisations. I have already put in place a code of practice for the operation of rescue homes for dogs, cats, horses and donkeys. There are numerous good examples of practical codes of conduct which offer guidelines for the treatment of animals. I want to leave it open to me or any future Minister to negotiate and put in place codes of conduct through ministerial order if it is deemed appropriate to do so.

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

I wish to refer generally to section 25. Bearing in mind what the Minister said, codes of conduct have garnered many views and opinions within farming organisations. Currently, voluntary codes of practice are in place, many of which were written by Teagasc and which work effectively. The argument of farming organisations and farmers is that they are licensed to the Department through flock number or herd number. The number is registered to the individual farmer or farming unit and the Department has a records system. Nevertheless, there is a major difficulty in this country. There was a difficult case in the constituency in which I live over the weekend, whereby a pet was mutilated by a third party. There are no codes of practice for owners of pets, cats or birds. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the distinction between introducing a code of practice on a statutory footing for pet owners and the need to have flexibility, scope and negotiation with the farming organisations in respect of statutory codes of practice for farm animals. Perhaps the Minister can bear that distinction in mind and liaise with farming organisations before setting anything on a statutory footing. I appreciate where the Minister is coming from and there is a need to protect animals at every level, including animals on the farm. It is important there are clear guidelines. Some 99.9% of farmers comply with voluntary codes of practice so they should not have anything to worry about. However, organisations need some reassurance.

Section 25(1)(b) refers to how the Minister may "adopt a code of practice published by another person (whether within the State or otherwise)". Codes of practice in other jurisdictions may not fit our jurisdiction. The expertise exists within the Department and Teagasc to draw up a code of practice. Perhaps the Minister should take that approach instead of duplicating the approach of another jurisdiction in the US or in Europe. I am not sure whether the Minister can come back on Report Stage but perhaps there will be an opportunity in the consultative process with organisations to take on board this point before introducing the code on a statutory footing.

Averil Power (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I supports the call of Senator Ó Domhnaill for a code of practice with regard to pets. The Minister is aware of codes in other countries, such as New Zealand, which has a clear code of conduct for looking after dogs. Unfortunately, when people take home puppies or receive them as gifts, they are not aware of the care a dog needs and the cost and responsibility that comes with owning a pet. It is important to set out these aspects so that animal welfare is prioritised and people are clear on their responsibilities when they take care of an animal.

There is a different context when we talk about farm animals because it is someone's profession to work with animals so they will have a certain awareness. People are not aware of the basic checklist of requirements for pet owners. I call on the Minister to prioritise it. I will speak later on the more general issues of animal welfare.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I certainly hope Senator Power does so.

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

Senator Ó Domhnaill's contribution referred to farm animals. We are dealing with three categories, including farm animals and those used by hunting organisations. On Second Stage, I drew attention to the legal requirements on pet owners in the UK. Pet owners are now legally obliged to care for the pet properly by providing the five basic needs. I will not repeat them. Hunting organisations have a code of practice, which is up to internationally accepted standards, and have never received a single animal welfare complaint under their code of practice. Perhaps the Minister will flesh out how to reconcile differing categories of farm animals, domestic pets and hunting organisations. I am sure the Minister will examine this. Will he have three separate codes of conduct? Will he devise a new code of conduct to take account of these categories? Perhaps it is preferable that the Minister accepts a code of practice that is internationally recognised.

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

Senator Mooney touched on section 25(4), which states: "A person who has in his or her possession or under his or her control an animal of a particular class or description shall have due regard to a code of practice... that applies in relation to an animal of that class or description." If a person has an animal in possession or control, is that automatically a protected animal? If a person is in control or possession of an animal, does the Animal Health and Welfare Bill automatically apply to it? Hunting is within the remit of the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, although it is part of the Minister's Department.

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

I will start with the last point. The Bill applies to all animals, wild animals and protected animals, in the control of a person. They may be farm animals or pets. Senator O'Neill left out the words in parentheses, "if any", when reading section 25(4) because there are no codes of conduct for most animals. Standards are imposed on 99% of farms in the farming sector. There are also animal husbandry requirements under cross compliance measures and these are linked to the single farm payment entitlements. Over the past 20 or 30 years, we have significantly raised the standard of animal welfare. Last January, separate items of legislation changed the conditions under which poultry farms operate in respect of the space for hens laying eggs. Battery hens no longer exist. From next January, all breeding sows must be in open housing situations. The tethering of sows will no longer be allowed under EU regulations. Farmers or pet owners are obliged to abide by a series of laws, whether EU laws or national legislation.

If there are sectors or categories that could benefit from a set of guidelines or rules, whether voluntary or statutory, the section gives the Minister the power to work with stakeholders to introduce the set of guidelines. A good example is the animal welfare guidelines for horses, ponies and donkeys. It outlines the five freedoms to which Senator Mooney referred. It is an international best practice standard related to the freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition, freedom from discomfort, pain injury and disease, freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour and freedom from fear and distress. These are internationally accepted in the western world as the five freedoms that apply to animals. They are the basis for codes of conduct but obviously we will have different types of codes of conduct depending on the sector. Let us suppose one keeps a set of hounds for hunting or beagling. These are very different circumstances from those of keeping a domestic pet. We are simply giving the Minister the power in this legislation to work with industry to put in place a code of conduct, where appropriate, in certain sectors as it should apply to them. Sometimes there are sectors within sectors. For example, the code of conduct which one may put in place for poultry housing or piggeries would be entirely different from a code of conduct for cattle or sheep. I take on board the point made by Senator Power about the need to consider international best practice on codes of conduct for domestic animals, especially dogs.

One thing we are trying to do with the legislation is to create an all-island approach towards animal welfare. Northern Ireland put in place animal welfare legislation last year. We have examined it and we are trying, where possible and practical, to mirror what they have done north of the Border so that there are common standards for animal welfare and animal health. I hope to move the towards a complete common standard north and south of the Border with a series of measures from disease control to welfare requirements. That is our purpose. I do not see the legislation as a threat to any sector. On the contrary, it is about applying best practice where appropriate in order that we look after animals properly.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and may discussed together by agreement

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

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 28, subsection (1)(h), line 5, to delete "identified" and substitute "possible to identify".

Section 31 deals with compensation to farmers. The issue will affect farmers because the compensation arrangements will be changed. Section 31(1) states: "The Minister may, subject to this Part, pay compensation." Until now there have been various compensation schemes, including the regime of the on-farm market valuations scheme, the income supplement, the depopulation grants, the hardship grants and the various other grants available. The understanding, if not the legislative position, was that these grants would be made available in cases of hardship, for example, where a farmer had a herd turned down. The section continues: "The Minister may, subject to this Part, pay compensation, the amount of which is to be determined by way of an assessment carried out by a valuer or an arbitrator, in accordance with any guidelines..."

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

I believe we are dealing with the previous section.

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

This is section 31.

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

This is section 30, amendment No. 31.

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

The Acting Chairman has me confused. I was calling him Donald Trump this morning because of his hairstyle and he has since gone with the haircut.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe the hairstyle of the Acting Chairman has any bearing on the animal welfare legislation. I am sorry if I have confused you but we are on section 30, amendment No. 31. If I have confused you in any way I am sorry but I think you have confused yourself; I have nothing to do with your confusion. We are very tolerant.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 33 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue and we are not allowing any discussion on it.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are out of order because they involve a potential charge on the Revenue and we are not allowing any discussion on them.

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

I was discussing this earlier. It relates to the payments and the compensation regime to farmers based on the compensation payments which heretofore have been available when a herd was turned down. According to my reading of the section, the major issue is that where a heard is turned down "The Minister may, subject to this Part, pay compensation". Clearly, this is as long as it is wide because if the Minister may do so, then it is at his discretion. Given the tradition of valuation schemes, this option would be available. The fear, however, is the lack of compensation were the Minister to decide that a farmer's herd being turned down in one instance means financial destruction for the farmer. If compensation was not readily available in the case where a herd had to be destroyed or if it were to be reduced, the farmer would be unable to restock and this is where the difficulty arises.

Section 31(4) states: "An application for compensation shall be in such form and contain such information as the Minister may determine." Will the Minister outline further the nature of this information? It is not stated in the Bill but will it be introduced by regulation? The next section is section 32 and I it will not elaborate on it now.

This is an important issue because there should be a definitive ruling or guideline issued. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide it today. If the Minister can do so I will rest at ease. I am reluctant to let this section go because further down the road, perhaps not in the Minister's time but perhaps in five or ten years time, we will end up in a position where a farmer's herd is turned down, he cannot afford to replace it and his compensation has been greatly reduced although he has made the application correctly. The farmer may not meet the standard criteria or the compensation may be so reduced that he can not replace his herd and he has no option but to leave farming although he has done everything correctly as a farmer. This is the difficulty. I recognise that the Minister understands the point I am making.

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

This is an important issue and this section and the next section are probably of most concern to farm organisations. For this reason I am keen to clarify several things. Let us consider the case of a farmer with a reactor in his herd or who must have his herd destroyed in an effort to prevent disease spreading because of a bio-security risk. That farmer will be compensated and such a person need not feel threatened by this legislation. There must be some flexibility, however, for a Minister with regard to laying down in legislation and the requirement to pay compensation. For example, if someone steals an animal and the animal turns out to be diseased and has to be destroyed, should that farmer be compensated? If a person has imported animals illegally and they infects his herd, should the person be compensated or given full compensation? These are the possibilities we are trying to cover in the legislation.

Section 35 deals with the abatement of compensation.

The House will note "the Minister may reduce or refuse to pay an amount of compensation to an owner in respect of a farm animal ... if in his or her opinion, the owner..." has done X, Y or Z. We can look at that list on Report Stage and again in the Dáil if the Senator feels the list is inappropriate, too restrictive or too open. However, a Minister has to be able to make a refusal to compensate in certain circumstances where somebody either should not have the animal, has deliberately spread disease and there is proof of that, or if downright neglect has resulted in animals being diseased. Again, the 99% of farmers who go about their business and who are sometimes hit by disease through no fault of their own, or where there is a fault and they still deserve to be fully compensated, will still be compensated.

I am glad we are spending less money on TB controls than we have spent in a very long time because TB is affecting Irish herds less than at any time since the 1950s, so far as I know. We are also making steady progress in regard to BVD. The control measures are working reasonably well. The compensation that goes with that is not going to change but if we are inserting in up-to-date legislation a requirement on the Minister to pay compensation, there has to be some flexibility if it is clearly not appropriate that compensation should be paid. That is all we are doing.

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

I appreciate exactly where the Minister is coming from because he is covering a very wide range of farming activities and malpractices. While I take on board the Minister's explanation, the Minister "may" pay compensation for animals removed under the disease programmes whereas the current Diseases of Animals Act states the Minister "shall" pay compensation, not "may". That is where the difficulty lies. The Diseases of Animals Act covers what the Minister has outlined would possibly be covered in any event.

I agree with the Minister that any farmer or anyone else should not receive compensation if, due to their negligence and fault, their animals fall into a state of ill health or die - that is only right and fair. However, we are talking about the difficulty coming down the road where the Department in the future may decide it is not going to pay the compensation under some future Minister and that it is up to the insurance companies to pay it. We would then be into a real game of brinkmanship with insurance companies and we know the way they are treating people at present. I know of cases in my constituency where people have genuine claims but the companies are not paying out on them. Insurance assessors are losing their jobs throughout the country at a drastic rate because the insurance companies have closed shop and stopped paying out compensation claims. I would be very fearful that if there were genuine claims from farmers, the insurance companies would find a way of not paying compensation.

Perhaps what is needed is a very specific addition to the disease compensation terms to include in this Bill all of the diseases covered under the Diseases of Animals Act that are currently covered by the term "the Minister shall pay" to ensure the Minister of the day is in a position to pay. What will happen, in my view, having spoken to people in Macra na Feirme and others, is that younger farmers in particular may be less optimistic and more cautious. They may decide not to invest because they are fearful that, if there is an outbreak on a farm, this could potentially bankrupt them if they are left hoping for an insurance claim. I hope the Minister can reflect on this issue and reconsider it for Report Stage.

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

The Minister is right in regard to the phrases "may pay" and "shall pay". If "shall pay" had been included in the legislation, then during the biggest threat to Irish agriculture in recent years, the foot and mouth outbreak, the person who brought those sheep illegally onto the Cooley peninsula would perhaps have been entitled to compensation. Under the new wording of "may pay", I doubt if this will happen. Anybody who imports animals into this country illegally where this leads to a disease outbreak in a herd should not be entitled to compensation. The Minister is right in this regard. The word "shall" cannot remain in place.

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

I am glad the Cooley farms legal case was raised. I would like to make a few points in this regard as it is important we address this fully and I do not want to leave any doubt. First, this Bill is in line with the Cooley farms case, which stated clearly that the Constitution protects property and, therefore, people will get paid as a result of losing their property if the State requires them to do so. If we were to unilaterally cut compensation, we would be in court very quickly unless we could show it was a reasonable course of action around some of the issues I have already raised.

On the other point in regard to the 1966 Act, which uses the terminology "shall pay", it is somewhat selective to just quote the "shall pay" element because it is then stated in the Act that this is subject to agreement with the Minister for Finance, which is essentially an out. Therefore, the Department will pay, subject to agreement with the Department of Finance, but if the Department of Finance raises a concern as to why there should be a payment of money, the payment does not go ahead. We have actually taken the Department of Finance out of the equation in this Bill and have stated that the Minister "may" pay. As far I understand it, section 35 lists the circumstances whereby there may be a doubt in regard to whether there is full payment or no payment.

There is no effort here, as Senator Ó Domhnaill suggests, to try to shift the onus for payment onto insurance companies. I can assure him that is not the issue. The idea that farmers would have to pay a fortune for insurance to cover the costs of reactors in their herds is not something we are asking farmers to do. This is a State-sponsored eradication programme for TB and any of the other diseases we are targeting. If a farmer's herd unfortunately picks up TB from wildlife through a badger or some other animal, or from a contiguous herd, then that farmer will have compensation applied to him or her. With regard to the other disease control mechanisms or in the case of a bio-security breach where there is an outbreak of a very serious disease and herds have to be slaughtered en masse, the point is that a person cannot insure against such a situation, which hopefully we will not see in my time as a Minister, although we never know.

This is not supposed to be targeting farmers or shifting the onus away from the State to try to save money or anything like that, quite the opposite. It provides more clarity than the previous legislation, which required payments to be subject to agreement from the Minister for Finance. I believe we have provided more clarity here than was perhaps in that 1966 legislation.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 36 to 38, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 29, subsection (1), line 22, to delete "one or more persons as valuers" and substitute "a panel of valuers".

This amendment relates to the section dealing with valuations and seeks to establish a panel of valuers. Farmers would thus be allowed to select from a panel of valuers, instead of the wording currently in section 32(1) which states that the Minister may appoint for the purpose of carrying out evaluations of farm animals, animal products, animal feed or other things relating to farm animals "one or more persons as valuers, if the Minister is satisfied that the person appointed...". Ultimately, what will be required is a panel from which people can select. The panel would be independent and acceptable to the Department and individual farmers could then select from it. Geography will dictate matters also because people will not travel from Cork to Donegal for a valuer or vice versa.

The amendment seeks to open things up a little. The fear is that if farmers are given a list of only two or three valuers, why not give them the entire list if the Department is happy with them? I am not sure how many valuers have been approved by the Department. Would I be right in guessing it is around 50 or 60?

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

I do not have the exact figure, but it is somewhere around that.

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

It is something in that region but I am only guessing. In that case, instead of having a prescriptive list, we are seeking a wider, open one. If all the valuers are on the Department's list in any event, it should be opened out so that farmers can select one from the entire list.

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

I am not going to accept these amendments at the moment, but this is an area we are examining. I am trying to get the balance right in ensuring that one has a genuinely independent valuer. One of the good things about rural Ireland is that people know each other. They are likely to bump into the valuer in a pub or outside the church. That is a strength but it is also a potential weakness because when one has a social relationship with the person who is coming to value one's herd, there may be undue pressure on that person to give a favourable valuation. We are trying to ensure, therefore, that there is a separation in terms of picking someone who is genuinely independent. Everyone on the valuation list is professional in what they do and how they do it, so I do not want to over egg this potential issue.

There are essentially three processes here and in the context of these amendments we have to talk about the full section. If somebody is being compensated for his or her herd or for an animal that has been destroyed, there is a valuation process which hopefully will be acceptable to the farmer and the Minister, so that the money gets paid out. If the initial valuation is not accepted either by the farmer or the Minister, it can be challenged. There is an appeals process, including a panel of valuers on the appeals panel, one of which will be chosen to do a second valuation. If on the basis of that second valuation there is not agreement either from the Minister's or farmer's side, then it can go to arbitration.

In section 33, which is linked to this section, we are saying that the Minister will appoint a person or persons for the arbitration panel as well. My gut feeling is that we have gone a little overboard. Whether it is the initial panel, the appeals panel or the arbitration panel, all of these people are being chosen by the Minister and the farmer has no input in terms of choosing an appropriate person. For example, somebody may be chosen to value a herd with whom the farmer has had a falling out, although nobody knows about that. If a farmer is likely to have someone coming onto his or her farm who may have some past history, we do not want to allow that situation. Having said that, however, I do not want a situation where the farmer always chooses the valuer because that is not healthy either in the initial valuation, the appeal or in arbitration. At some point, if farmers feel they are being unfairly treated in the initial valuation they should have a role in choosing somebody from a panel, perhaps in the appeals process. Therefore, we will examine that matter and I will come forward with a proposal on Report Stage to try to improve the situation.

We may be overly suspicious in that there is no role for the farmer in choosing the person from a panel. Farmers are basically assigned someone who does the valuation and if they do not like it they are assigned a second person for the appeal. If they do not like that they are assigned somebody for arbitration. In one of those three mechanisms it would not be unreasonable to give a farmer some say in choosing from a panel of three, four or five people.

There is another point we will examine because it makes sense to do so. It should be possible to consider an automatic valuation process initially. That could, potentially, provide a quicker valuation which would not have to put the Department to the expense of a farm visit for a valuation, looking at dead animals or whatever. If a farmer has a certain number of animals of a certain weight and size, and a certain species, it should be reasonable to extrapolate the likely value of those cattle. Perhaps it should be an option for a farmer to accept that valuation or else have somebody come to undertake a full inspection and valuation on that basis. We are therefore examining all those things and we might come back with something that is a bit more balanced.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is amendment No. 36 being pressed?

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

No.

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

This is a fairly straightforward amendment which seeks to change the number of days from 14 to five. If the Minister or owner of a farm animal, animal product, animal feed or other thing related to the farm animal being valued, on receipt of the report referred to in subsection (6), which is the valuation, is dissatisfied with the determination of the valuer on the first valuation, he or she should require a second valuation not later than five days after the valuation. In other words, we are trying to get the process under way quickly, rather than leaving it for two weeks.

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

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 30, lines 17 to 21, to delete subsection (9).

This amendment seeks to delete subsection (9). That subsection states that the Minister may issue guidelines relating to the valuation of an animal, animal product, feed or other thing relating to the farm animal, or an arbiter may have regard to those guidelines. The subsection is very prescriptive and sets out the terms of reference of what that valuation should be. Farming organisations have argued that the Department is appointing the valuer but only after the guidelines of what they should be looking for have been established. The Minister's earlier comments on a kind of book-value model, which is widely available, would perhaps be a better starting point, rather than being prescriptive on details concerning guidelines. I am not sure exactly what those guidelines will be on the valuation of animals, but I am sure the Minister will explain them. How will they be brought into account? The animal product obviously refers to feed and other products. However, if one is setting guidelines and also selecting the valuer, it seems that is where the issue would be.

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

It is one thing to choose the valuer in terms of the possibility of a personal relationship being an influencing factor on the valuation. While that is only a slim possibility, we need to legislate for it. It is another thing to suggest that an issue has arisen in terms of issuing guidelines. When it comes to valuations, we need consistency. If one wants consistency, there must be guidelines in terms of how it is to be calculated. It is stated in my note that allowing the Minister to issue guidelines is an important policy which should ensure uniformity and fairness between different valuation arrangements. It would serve to protect to the overall public interest. This is about ensuring that the valuation process is the same in Buncrana as it is in Ballydehob. It cannot be left up to the valuer to put in place guidelines. There is a need for a clear set of rules to ensure everyone makes their valuation on the same basis. It is no more complex than that.

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

I accept that.

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

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 30, line 37, to delete "arbitration" and substitute the following:

"an arbitration panel which includes a representative of the applicant and".

The Bill states that if the Minister or owner of the farm animal product, animal feed or any other thing relating to the farm animal is dissatisfied with the second valuation he or she may, not later than 14 days from the date of that the valuer's report, request that that matter be settled by arbitration. The amendment proposes to delete the word "arbitration" and replace it with "an arbitration panel which includes a representative of the applicant and" which would ensure the applicant is represented at a hearing. I would welcome the Minister's view on this proposal.

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

This is linked to the appeals process and the original valuation. We are trying to strike a balance between the three processes so that if a mistake is made on the original valuation it will be picked up on during the appeal and if not picked on then will go through the arbitration system, which will come up with a fair valuation. To accept an amendment on one without knowing what we are going to do in respect of the other two would not be too smart on my part. I appeal to the Senator to withdraw the amendment until I have looked at the matter again. If the Senator has further suggestions he could perhaps withdraw the amendment now with a view to resubmit it for Report Stage, when we can look at it in the context of the new wording I will put together.

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

This proposal clarifies the arrangements for abatement of compensation and makes them more generous in that instead of abatement only being totalled, a partial limitation can be applied. This relates to the particular circumstances in respect of which one would limit compensation. Rather than giving full compensation one would have the capacity to give partial compensation in the circumstances outlined in this amendment.

The main thinking behind this is particularly valuable animals. For example, a race horse in Coolmore, from which a person may be breeding, which picks up a disease which we are trying to stamp out and as a result of which the animal has to be destroyed, which would result in the exposure of the State to €50 million, €60 million or €100 million in compensation. There must be some limitations on the State in terms of exposure in this regard and a balance between what the insurance company and the State would be asked to pay. That is my understanding of the reason for this provision. It is an unlikely enough scenario but there are bulls which are particularly valuable. Race horses are an obvious example. I am anxious in the context of biosecurity not to expose the State to compensation of tens of millions of euros. That is what we are doing in terms of the limitation on compensation.

I stand to be corrected on this but I do not believe it will have any practical impact on normal compensation around disease control, be it an outbreak of foot and mouth disease or TB. This provision is being introduced in an effort to limit the exposure of the State to very large sums of compensation where a person would have to destroy a particularly valuable animal.

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

So, there is no change to schemes such as the BSE scheme where an outbreak occurs?

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

No.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 43, 48 and 49 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 32, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following paragraph:

"(d) shall inform the owner of the independent appeals process to the decision and the associated timeframe.".

This amendment seeks to insert a new paragraph (d) which states: "shall inform the owner of the independent appeals process to the decision and the associated timeframe." This relates to the Minister reducing or refusing to pay compensation to an owner of a farm animal. I have no difficulty with paragraph (a) which relates to where a farmer fails to take reasonable measures. However, I believe that it should be provided in the Bill that the owner of the animal be informed that an independent appeals process will be established and that an indicative timeframe in that regard should be laid out, so that the owner of the animal, if refused compensation, would have the opportunity to make an appeal. Perhaps that is already provided for in the legislation.

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

I understand that there may be some concern on this matter. The Bill provides on page 32, line 24, subsection (3)(b) that the Minister may consider any representations duly made. People can essentially make their case and the Minister takes that into account. Ultimately, if the second valuation, appeal of valuation and arbitration structures do not apply because the Minister has deemed that it is appropriate not to pay out compensation then, my understanding is - I stand to be corrected on this - that the appeal process for a person at that stage is to the courts to have a judge make a decision on the matter. It would be a fairly serious decision for a Minister to refuse to pay compensation. There would need to be good reason for his or her doing so. The legislation could be tested in court if people felt that was appropriate. I will take another look at this. I do not want a long appeals structure put in place, which is unlikely to be used very often, just for the sake of having it. Having said this, if a person is refused compensation he or she has the right to question the process. The question is whether we encourage people to go to court to do this or put in place a formalised appeals structure. Essentially a decision by the Minister would be appealed within the Department which does not make sense. It would undermine the Minister's authority. This is not like the valuation whereby if one does not get agreement on the valuation one can appeal it and if one is not happy with the outcome of the appeal one can go to arbitration. This is a more serious decision by the Minister to either reduce or not pay compensation for the reasons outlined the legislation. The party concerned can make representations for consideration by the Minister and it is up to the Minister to make a judgment. If a person is inconsistent with the law he or she can be taken to court. There is no separate appeals process for this element.

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

I welcome the Minister's clarification and I appreciate what he stated. Amendment No. 48 relates to going to court and all this brings with it. This would create an exposure to the taxpayer because the Department would have to represent the taxpayer in court which would cost money if the case is lost. I argue the State would be further exposed by having a system whereby the District Court decides. We all know what the legal profession is like; from the applicant's view in particular it will keep cases going. Amendment No. 48 proposes to have an appeals system only.

This is probably a poor example to give because it has such a serious backlog at present, but in the Department of Social Protection officials make a decision, representations are made to the Minister by elected representatives on behalf of their constituents, and the applicant has an opportunity to make an appeal to the independent appeals office which is within the Department and ultimately under the control of the Minister. This may be a template worth considering and may ensure the Minister will not end up fighting court cases every other week. Nothing would be worse for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which liaises with farmers and that is not always easy, than ending up in court cases against farmers with regard to compensation which are highlighted by the media. It would not be good for the industry, the farmers or the image of the Department. I appreciate it would be defending the State's interest but the cost would be very high. I am not a legal person but I know when one gets caught up in the District Court system it takes months or years to reach an outcome. I do not think this would benefit anyone, particularly the farmer. Will the Minister consider a system of representation to the Minister prior to or after an independent appeal hearing? This may be a way to avoid undermining the authority of the Minister. The independent appeal could be heard first after which the ultimate judge would be the Minister. This is just a suggestion.

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

I do not know why amendment No. 48 is being taken with amendment No. 43 because they are on entirely different issues. One amendment is about an appeal with regard to an animal welfare notice, and we will discuss that section shortly, which is an entirely different issue to somebody not receiving compensation after a disease outbreak which caused the destruction of a herd because the animals were stolen or illegally owned. I will consider Deputy Ó Domhnaill's concerns. Obviously we do not want to bring farmers to court unnecessarily. I stress there would need to be a very good reason for us not to compensate somebody required under the legislation to destroy a herd. It would be a fairly cut and dry decision for a Minister. I will come back to this issue on Report Stage.

I make decisions as the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and often when it comes to decisions on quota allocations there are winners and losers with some people happy and others unhappy. We find ourselves in court all of the time. We need clear guidelines and a transparent decision-making process. It is normally the process which is tested in court and it would be the same in this case. If there is good reason for the legislation to be applied resulting in a farmer not receiving full compensation or any compensation I suspect it would be the process that would be questioned in law rather than the actual decision itself. I do not know whether one needs an appeals process. I will examine it. The Deputy can press the amendment if he wishes but at present I cannot accept it.

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

In light of what the Minister has said I will not press the amendment.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recall the incident of a farmer in County Louth. In the interest of not spreading TB to neighbouring farms he was advised by the Department to cull his entire herd of deer, and I am speaking about the four-legged deer. I thank the Minister for considering the case sympathetically. The man was advised verbally to do what was in the best interests of the farming community and neighbouring farms. He destroyed all of his herd. I cannot say whether the compensation he received was adequate. As we are discussing compensation and examining cases, the Minister told me he would examine this case and did so, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the departmental officials and the Minister for doing so.

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

I thank the Deputy.

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

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 32, subsection (1), line 29, after "regulations" to insert the following:

"based on sound scientific information and the cost benefit of such".

This relates to the regulations the Minister will make under the legislation on preventing or minimising the risk or spread of disease, controlling and eradicating disease or a disease agent, protecting or enhancing animal health and welfare, controlling or prohibiting species, specific uses or activities involving or relating to animals and animal products, the keeping, movement, transportation and sale of animals and providing for all matters set out in the schedule. I fully support this and have no issue with it. I propose that these regulations should be based on sound scientific information and the cost benefit of such and the Minister may feel this is appropriate. This would protect the Minister in cases taken against the Department. I assume any decision taken by the Minister in this area will take these words into consideration in any event and I ask that they be included in the legislation if possible.

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

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.

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

This is a technical amendment which was recommended by the Office of the Attorney General because it uses more exact language. Any Member who is a barrister or solicitor will probably appreciate the difference in the terminology but it is not an issue of substance.

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

I ask whether insects and beekeeping are covered by the section. The spread of disease among bees has resulted in the destruction of hives and threats to human consumption of honey.

Averil Power (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the powers granted to the Minister to set these regulations and agree that effective interventions should not have to wait on the outcome of court cases. However, while I welcome the improvements in animal welfare provided for in the Bill I am disappointed that the Government decided against banning live hare coursing. As the Minister is aware, the practice has been banned in most other countries, including the UK and Northern Ireland, and it is my strong personal view that it is a cruel pursuit. Other countries have managed to create a sport out of drag coursing without inflicting pain and cruelty on animals.

I have expressed this view to my colleague, Senator Ó Domhnaill, and our Dáil spokesperson, Deputy Moynihan, and I recognise that my personal opinion is in the minority in my party. I have discussed some of my party's other

amendments with my colleagues. They are being presented on behalf of the party and reflect the majority point of view. I am probably in a minority of one on some of the amendments with which I do not fully agree.

I note the Minister will have the power to make regulations and I hope he will consider a ban on live coursing. Fine Gael's position on stag hunting appears to have moved on, or at least it has not implemented its pre-election commitment to overturn the ban introduced by the previous Government. I hope its position on animal welfare issues will evolve in a similar manner.

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

I am not going to get into a debate on hare coursing but I respect the Senator's views. We have endeavoured to get the balance right with this legislation in order to protect vulnerable animals, to ensure people realise the responsibility that comes with ownership of animals and to act more effectively on bio-security issues. We have deliberately left alone the legal status of hunting and coursing. We dealt with these issues under a previous section by providing for recognised codes of conduct for field sports and hunting. That will not change unless the codes are breached in a blatant way that brings other elements of the Bill into effect. We will, therefore, not be changing the status of hare coursing in this Bill.

In regard to whether the section covers bees, I may have to dial a friend for the answer.

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

Has the Minister a friend who knows the answer?

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

I fear I may be ridiculed if I read my note on the matter.

Averil Power (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the official accompanying the Minister knows the answer I will be very impressed.

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

On a serious note there is a significant threat to the health of bee populations in Ireland and across Europe and North America, with the result that honey has become a valuable commodity. We should be much more proactive in developing a commercial honey industry in this country. One should consider what has been achieved in Scotland in the Scottish Highlands on the back of heather in particular, where tens of thousands of tonnes of highly valuable honey now are being produced very successfully on a farmed basis. While the industry here seeks to expand, efforts are being made to bring under control one particular disease issue. Unless I am mistaken, approval is close for a treatment for the pest in question. I am unsure whether it has been approved yet but it certainly is on the way to being approved. As regards the welfare of bees, my understanding is that beekeeping is covered. However, I might revert to Senator Brennan in writing on that to avoid being quoted in the next edition of the Phoenix magazine or something similar.

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

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 33, lines 36 to 40, to delete subsection (1).

I intend to withdraw this amendment because it is far too sweeping. There has been a great deal of discussion on the position regarding authorised officers since the amendment was first formulated. While I will withdraw the amendment, I seek an explanation from the Minister in respect of authorised officers. The Bill's explanatory memorandum states the Minister will appoint authorised officers under section 37 of the Bill. If my recollection is correct, this will involve county veterinary officers under the remit of county councils and other vets from the Department or otherwise that would be appointed. In other words, this pertains to professional staff whose credentials cannot be questioned and who are required in any event to implement the legislation.

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

In this context and to save time, I also seek a response from the Minister with regard to authorised officers. I understand that existing practice with the Irish Greyhound Board is that inspections are carried out in the presence of a Bord na gCon representative. Is the Minister minded to apply a similar criterion to this legislation in respect of inspections? In other words, when inspections take place the authorised officer would be accompanied by approved vets from the relevant organisation.

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

While I will consider this suggestion, one must allow authorised officers to inspect. For example, in an emergency case in which a rapid inspection was necessary, not being legally allowed to go on-site unless one was accompanied by an appointed authorised officer from another organisation would be very limiting. While it will be difficult to accommodate this proposal, I will consider what is being proposed in the context of the provisions of the Welfare of Greyhounds Act.

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

Yes, that is relevant.

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

It is a specific industry with regard to the breeding and training of dogs, which is the reason there was a separation into two different Bills between what became known as the puppy farming legislation and the greyhound legislation. They were dealing with quite different sectors, one of which pertained to a narrow sectoral area, while the other was a much broader animal welfare issue.

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

This suggestion comes from those hunting organisations that keep dogs in kennels.

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

Someone's mobile telephone is buzzing. While I do not know whose it is, it is not mine.

I will consider the suggestion and will revert to the Senator. However, I do not believe it will be possible to apply this proposal across the board because the Department then would be obliged to prescribe which organisations would be allowed to have an accompanying officer and which would not, at which point one begins to enter a quite complex area. For example, in the case of farmers would it be a farming organisation and should it be the beekeepers' association in the case of bees?

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

I was referring to the hunting organisations.

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

I do not mean to make light of the request.

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

I understand the Minister's point of view.

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

I will examine the relevant greyhound legislation.

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

I thank the Minister. I have been reluctant to spell out the identity of the organisation because I wanted to get a sense of the Minister's perspective. I was merely using the example of Bord na gCon in the Welfare of Greyhounds Act as a point of comparison in which an authorised officer is accompanied by a Bord na gCon vet. To be specific, this proposal would apply to those with hunting dogs in kennels.

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

The issue of authorised officers is sensitive and what one wishes to avoid is having people who do not understand how farming works and how agriculture works going onto farms. Consequently, to provide reassurance, the inspection procedures and the authorised officers who will go onto farms essentially will be as they are present. Those concerned will be departmental vets, local authority vets and so on. However, there will be a new category of inspection following the enactment of this legislation, which will pertain to domestic pets. When someone uses the currently available freefone number to make a complaint or to express a concern that animal cruelty is going on in his or her neighbourhood or whatever, I must put in place authorised officers who can follow up on that complaint. In most circumstances, I would like such authorised officers to be either vets or veterinary nurses. However, it should be open to the Minister to work with, for example, a welfare organisation such as the ISPCA, which already is operating and which receives calls from people who make statements of concern with regard to animal welfare and which in consequence has much experience in this regard.

I have spoken to the ISPCA about this and have made it clear that I would not authorise any of its officers for farm inspections or for inspections concerning commercial farm activity because there already is a sufficient number of authorised officers available to do that. However, I also told the ISPCA that I would not discount its officers, who have a great deal of experience, in respect of the follow-up calls or inspections that may have to be made regarding domestic pets, animal cruelty and so on. There is much expertise available, particularly in the ISPCA, and I would like to be able to include such individuals within a certain category of authorised officer for certain tasks if it is necessary to increase the size of the panel. This makes sense and the ISPCA has been absolutely reasonable on this issue. It does not seek access onto farms, which is a different type of role. I wish to flag this point because I had stated previously that the authorised officers all would be vets or veterinary nurses. There could be some exceptions to this but proof of experience or expertise or both in respect of animal welfare or animal cruelty cases would be necessary.

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

I am a little concerned because my understanding is the RSPCA, the ISPCA's equivalent in the United Kingdom, is anti-field sports. I do not have evidence of this but I base it on a briefing I received, as is the Dogs Trust, which openly discredits hunting. Therefore, those who represent the hunting fraternity in Ireland are completely opposed to any extension of the authorised officers into their area of activity. I understand the Minister's perspective with regard to domestic animals and so on but I put down the marker that the Minister should tread with caution in this regard. He does not want to have the hunting and fishing organisations come down on his head on this issue. As there always is an extreme when putting forward a view and while I do not suggest I agree with this, I will cite one extreme example. In the United Kingdom, the RSPCA brought an elderly couple to court for having an obese dog. It even removed the couple's pet for its own so-called safekeeping. While this is an extreme example, it obviously happened and this is the reason the hunting organisations are particularly concerned about any extension beyond what the Minister originally outlined, to the effect the authorised officers would be vets. I appreciate the point from which the Minister is coming and I am not against the idea but I make the point there is another dimension to this issue of which the Minister should take account.

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

I take account of this point. This proposal is about trying to use the available expertise and relates to those who are willing to help and who may not even be seeking payment. At the same time, one must ensure one does not use people who may be involved in animal welfare organisations for all the right reasons but who may not have the skill set to be able to follow up on the basis of reports.

It is about using judgment. I can assure Members that anybody we appoint as an authorised officer will have to show some expertise and experience. Such people will not be undertaking inspections in an area where they have a fundamental or ideological opposition; that would be crazy. From a practical point of view, there is a great deal of expertise available and we should use it, particularly for the domestic or household pet situation.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, namely, that we adjourn Committee Stage at 6 p.m.and resume later.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I compliment the Leader on his initiative in this regard. We are very close to completion so it should not take too long.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ag 10.30 a.m., maidin amárach.