Written answers
Tuesday, 9 July 2024
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Animal Welfare
Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
568. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the current location of the horses moved from Straffan; in whose care they are in; what verified condition they are in; the reason they have not been seized on welfare grounds given the evidence of cruelty shown on a TV documentary (details supplied), and an existing conviction for horse cruelty involving the company in question; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29218/24]
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am limited in what I can say on these matters as this relates to an ongoing investigation. I can confirm that the registered equine holding premises where footage of distressing animal welfare related incidents featured on the RTE Investigates programme has been subject to a legal notice since late May prohibiting the presence or entry of any horses. I can also confirm that my Department it is aware that equines that had been on that on that holding have since been re-located to a separate equine holding premises in the mid-west of the country that is registered in the same operator’s name, and that equine holding premises is also the subject of legal notices from the Department.
My Department is closely monitoring and verifying compliance by the operator with multiple legal notices that have been served on both of his equine holding premises. I also wish to point out more generally that the welfare of equines is protected by legislation which enables appropriate enforcement action to be taken where any breaches or shortcomings are identified.
My Department's understanding in relation to the previous conviction for cruelty is that this arose from a Garda-led prosecution under the 1911 Protection of Animals Act and was dealt by the Courts in 2012 by way of a fine, with no further restrictions imposed. A conviction of this nature c. 12 years ago does not provide a basis for the Department to seize animals.
No comments