(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete ", except in the definition of ‘substance' and section 11 (1) (e),”.
In the definition of animal the Bill states: "except in the definition of "substance" and section 11 (1) (e), means any animal in relation to which this Act applies by virtue of section 2". Why is the phrase "except in the definition of "substance" and section 11 (1) (e)" included? In defining substance the Bill states that substance means any matter irrespective of origin, whether such matter is of human origin, animal origin, vegetable origin, chemical origin, any other substance or any combination of the foregoing. I do not know how animal can be defined as being any of these things. Section 11 (1) (e), which is the greatest load of gobbledegook, states: "in, on, under or from any land or premises or in, on or from any vehicle, there is or was any animal of any species to which an animal remedy is being or has been administered or there is or was any food derived from such an animal or any carcase of such an animal." That is accepted as not coming under the heading of "animal". I am not surprised as I would never suspect for one minute that it concerned the defintion of an animal. Section 1 says:
"animal", except in the definition of "substance"...means any animal in relation to which this Act applies by virtue of section 2.
Section 2 (2) (a) defines animals very clearly as being a domestic animal, a wild animal in captivity, or any other wild animal; and subsection (1) lists birds, fish, reptiles, etc. I would like to know the reason those with expertise in the draftsman's office inserted the word "except" in the definition of "animal".