Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Feb 1984

Vol. 348 No. 5

Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes, Bill, 1984: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Hegarty)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable Ireland to ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes which was signed by us in June 1978. The convention has already been ratified by all other member states of the European Community with the exception of Italy and Greece. The convention was approved on behalf of the Community in 1978 although the Community has not yet become a party to it.

The convention contains 18 articles of which Articles 1 to 7 deal with general principles, and Articles 8 to 13 with detailed implementation.

The general principles, which cover housing, feeding, watering and care, set out the requirements necessary to safeguard the welfare of animals kept for farming purposes, in particular those kept in modern intensive stock-farming systems. Article 1 defines "animals" as animals bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes and "modern intensive stock-farming systems" as systems which predominantly employ technical installations operated principally by means of automatic processes. Article 2 imposes an obligation on the contracting parties to give effect to the principles in the convention. Article 3 requires that animals be housed and provided with food, water and care appropriate to their needs. Article 4 requires that the animals have freedom of movement and Article 5 requires that the animals are kept in physical conditions appropriate to their needs. Food and liquid may not be provided so as to cause unnecessary suffering according to Article 6. Article 7 contains the convention's main specific provision, that is that animals and technical equipment used in modern intensive stock-farming systems should be thoroughly inspected at least once a day.

The detailed implementing provisions of the convention provide for the establishment of a standing committee representative of the contracting parties. The standing committee shall be responsible for the elaboration and adoption of recommendations to the contracting parties in conformity with the general principles of the convention and based on scientific knowledge concerning the various species. These recommendations shall become effective six months after their adoption by the standing committee. As from that date each contracting party shall either implement them or indicate why it cannot do so. The standing committee are empowered to act in order to facilitate the friendly settlement of any difficulty arising between contracting parties out of the execution of the convention. At the request of a contracting party they are authorised to give an advisory opinion on any question concerning the protection of animals. Each contracting party may appoint advisory bodies to facilitate the work of the standing committee.

By our signature of the convention we gave consent to the principles enshrined in it. Since then there has been an increasing realisation of the importance of animal welfare. Indeed, I think that this is a very worthwhile development. We, in Ireland, must not lag behind in our concept of the necessity for animal welfare and this Bill will enable us to keep step with our partners in Europe. Even from an economic point of view, animal welfare is very desirable. I hardly have to say that animals which are well cared for thrive and give better production returns.

Our existing national law relating to the protection of animals is contained in a number of enactments including the Cruelty to Animals Act, going back as far as 1876, the Protection of Animals Acts, 1911 and 1965, the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1960 and the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966. None of this law enables me to legislate by order for the promotion of animal welfare or in particular for the requirements of the convention.

You will note that the main purpose of the convention and, indeed, of the Bill is to look after the welfare of animals in intensive units. There has been over the years a lot of criticism and comment on these units but they are nowadays a fact of life, particularly as regards hen and pig rearing and poultry generally. The convention, as I have mentioned, required that animals kept in these units must be inspected at least once a day and appropriate steps taken to ensure that the animals are not caused any unnecessary suffering. Similarly, the equipment used in the unit must be examined and repaired if any defects are discovered. I think it will be accepted that this is at least some progress towards looking after the welfare of these animals and it ties in with good husbandry.

The Bill before us today brings those terms of the convention into effect here and I am sure that animal lovers will welcome it as well as those farmers who think about animal welfare as well as the economics of raising animals. In the case of animals not kept in "intensive units", their inspection will be necessary at intervals sufficient to avoid their being caused unnecessary suffering. The Act will require simple records of these inspections to be kept.

A person will also be prohibited from feeding to an animal or causing to be fed to an animal to which the Act applies, any food or liquid in a manner or of a kind which may cause it injury or suffering.

The Bill also gives the Minister power to make regulations in relation to the care and welfare of animals, particularly as regards providing a proper supply of food and water, adequate space and legislating for the construction and layout of housing for animals covered by the Act to ensure that there are proper facilities by way of lighting, ventilation, drainage and so on.

The Minister will be able to appoint veterinary surgeons to be inspectors for the purpose of this Act and they will have powers to enter premises or land, to inspect, examine or test animals, food or liquid and equipment, as well as to take samples from animals, food or liquid and examine, test or analyse any sample so taken. They will also have power to inspect records. Officers of my Department who are not veterinary surgeons may also be given such of the inspectors' powers as I specify, while a member of the Garda Síochána shall have all the powers of an inspector other than the power to examine, test or take samples from animals.

There are safeguard clauses contained in the Bill to give farmers a defence in certain cases. In order to remove any doubts, certificates relating to examinations, tests, analyses purporting to be signed by the State chemist et cetera will be accepted as such by the courts unless the contrary is shown.

This Bill, therefore, is a relatively simple but very important one as it marks a stride forward on the road to improved farm animal welfare, an area which, I fear, has probably been neglected in the past but which I feel certain will become more prominent in the future.

I commend this Bill to the House and am confident that it will secure the approval of all Deputies.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): As the Minister of State said, the main purpose of the Bill is to enable Ireland to ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes which was signed by us in June 1978. Apart from that purpose one would question the need for such a Bill because many of the items contained in it are part and parcel of good farming. We have certain reservations with regard to certain sections and subsections of the Bill and we shall deal with this on Committee Stage when we will have an opportunity to table some amendments. I suggest that it might be appropriate to refer this Bill to a special committee of the House to ensure that matters of agricultural and farming interest may be considered. This Bill might be considered to cast a slight on the capacity of farmers to do their job. One might also question the necessity of having the regulations prescribed by statute apart from the necessity of conforming with the Convention. I agree that in certain cases there is cruelty to animals but this is rare. In most modern farming operations and in the intensive farming units safeguards with regard to size, ventilation and the provision of food and water are provided. In this connection one questions the advisability of having this Bill and we hope to table quite a number of amendments on Committee Stage. A number of sections could be considered hostile and not in the interests of the farming community and of good farming husbandry. In addition, there is not adequate protection for farmers and this must be considered. There are strong powers under certain sections with regard to entry onto farms by officials of the Department of Agriculture, by members of the veterinary profession and, in certain instances, by the Garda Síochána. It may be possible to amend this on Committee Stage and it is something we shall consider.

The provisions of certain sections, in particular section 3, are far-reaching. The Minister may by regulation make such provision with regard to the care and welfare of animals as he thinks fit. I hope the regulations will be made in consultation with the relevant farming organisations. Have consultations been held with them or will consultations be held before the Bill goes through the House?

The provision in relation to the supply of food and water for animals is far-fetched. Surely all farmers know about this and will ensure that they will have proper supplies of food and water? There are other provisions for the care and welfare of animals such as section 3 (1) (b) which is as follows:

For the purpose of ensuring that, having regard to their physiological and ethological needs, there is as regards such animals adequate space for their free movement or other needs, provisions specifying the housing space to be provided in relation to them;

Such matters also seem far-fetched for inclusion in legislation and we on this side are concerned about it. However, this can be gone into more thoroughly on Committee Stage. Section 4 provides for inspection of animals and equipment as follows:

(1) The person who is the owner of or for the time being has under his control animals to which this Act applies shall—

(a) in case the animals are for the time being kept in an intensive unit, not less than once per day,

(i) thoroughly inspect the animals' condition and state of health or cause their condition and state of health to be so inspected,

(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 is competent so to do, thoroughly inspect such equipment, or

(II) cause such equipment to be thoroughly inspected by a competent person,

All these things have to be done by farmers, as if farmers have not enough work to do already in the matter of keeping records. These records must be kept for two months and I suggest that this is going too far, that there is no need to have such detailed powers and regulations in the form of legislation. Section 8 deals with powers of entry, inspection and so on. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) provide as follows:

An inspector may at all reasonable times—

(a) for the purpose of exercising any of the other powers conferred on him by this section enter any premises or other land,

(b) inspect, examine or test—

(i) any animal which he reasonably believes to be an animal to which this Act applies and which is found by him in or on any premises or other land so entered,

(ii) any food or liquid so found and which he so believes is used or is to be used to feed animals to which this Act applies,

(iii) any equipment so found,

A garda will have the right of entry. I hope the persons entering farms for the purpose of inspection and for the taking of samples will be properly qualified. I suggest that the Garda Síochána are not trained and therefore have no qualifications to carry out inspections of animals and machinery.

I question the need for this Bill at all because it only puts into legislative form practices farmers have been engaged in already. Section 4 provides that there shall be inspection of animals and machinery for the purpose of ensuring that automatic or other technical equipment used in a unit will be free from defects. The section is rather vague and I hope the Minister will give us details of what is involved.

I suggest that the Minister should take another look at the need to keep records because this puts an extra obligation on farmers. If such records are necessary they should be kept simple and should not be in such detailed form as is specified in the Bill at present.

Entry into farms should be the function of veterinary surgeons and officials who are qualified rather than members of the Garda Síochána, particularly with regard to the taking of samples. I hope that there will be an opportunity to bring in an amendment restricting entrance of the Garda on to any farm without prior notice to the farmer.

One could also question the omissions from the Bill, one of which relates to the question of the transport of animals, where cruelty is being caused to them in transport to and from different farms and to the marts, but perhaps this is covered by other Acts. The Minister might consider introducing such a section. It is in the interests of farmers to look into the problems outlined in this Bill, many of which have arisen because of lack of housing, in many cases through lack of finance because of the restriction of the grant system and the suspension last year by this Government of the farm modernisation scheme. Adequate housing is a prerequisite to the implementation of this legislation. We must have a farm modernisation scheme which is not too rigid and will give adequate grants for proper construction of housing. At present many problems affect farmers.

As the Minister said, this Bill must conform to the Convention which we signed in June 1978, but he must ensure that it is implemented in as simple a manner as possible. I ask him to indicate whether the inclusions in the Bill are necessary to conform to this Convention, or if they have been included by the officials in his Department.

I do not wish to stray too far from the subject matter of the debate and I am sure the Chair will call me to order if I do so. We have called for a long time for a proper farm modernisation scheme, with grants which will ensure proper housing of cattle during the winter months, thus saving them suffering. Certain aspects can be adequately covered by the legislation, but in other aspects cattle can be suffering. I hope that the Minister will consider my suggestion that the Bill be referred to a special committee of the House, so that it can be considered in detail by people from both sides of the House with a knowledge of agriculture.

This legislation does not refer only to cattle but to all farm animals. We must remember the crucially important role of the cattle industry in our economy and this legislation must be simplified to ensure that the already over-burdened farming community will not be further burdened. I ask the Minister to consult with the farming organisations to ensure that the Bill is acceptable to all interests and, most importantly, to the members of the farming community.

Mr. Shatter

I should like to welcome this publication and congratulate the Minister and the Government on producing it. One always wonders why it takes so long to produce legislation in this House on any issue after we have become a signatory to a Council of Europe Convention. One could bring into this debate many other conventions to which we are signatories and with regard to which legislation has been awaited for many years and there is no sign of its emerging from the corridors of the parliamentary draftsmen. The Minister is to be congratulated on bringing forward this legislation to ratify the commitment given by this country to the Council of Europe in the context of animal rights and welfare and in the interests of good farming. The Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes was signed by us in June 1978, which is noteworthy. It has taken almost six years to produce the legislation required to change our signature into a ratification of the Convention.

I am surprised that Deputy Noonan appears somewhat confused as to whether or not he welcomes this legislation.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick-West): I do not think that the Deputy was listening to me.

Mr. Shatter

In his position I should have expressed some enthusiasm for its production, considering that the original signatories to the Convention — and they deserve praise for this — were the former Fianna Fáil Government, lead by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch. I am delighted that this Bill is now before the House. Deputy Noonan seems to suggest that we do not need it or that, if we do, we did not have to prepare in this way, that perhaps farmers lying in bed at night might have their knees knocking in anticipation of the local member of the Garda Síochána knocking at the front door at 3 o'clock in the morning to inspect the cattle. He conjures up wonderful images but nothing which would bear any relation to reality. Deputy Noonan then went on to criticise the Minister for not including animal welfare in another area. I hope that nothing I am saying will be taken as a personal comment on Deputy Noonan.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick-West): Not at all.

Mr. Shatter

His contribution on this legislation is symptomatic of the present confusion within the Fianna Fáil Party as to what their attitudes should be to any legislation. He kept his toe in the door by clearly indicating that perhaps something needs to be done somewhere with regard to animals, but he also kept his toe in another door just in case the farming community, or some lone farmer on a hill in Kerry might protest about this Bill which, let us face it, is not a matter of great controversy.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick-West): The farmers in Kerry are very important.

Mr. Shatter

He engaged in what I would describe as the usual legislative balancing act performed by Members opposite in which they seek to appear to be all things to all men while in the end of the day not making it quite clear what they wish to appear to anybody. There are a number of comments I would like to make about the Bill. This is not a criticism of the Government, because they produced this Bill very rapidly in relation to the length of time they are in office. The Bill is indicative of the slow response throughout the country to mechanisation and industrialisation in any area, but particularly in the agricultural area. Intensive farming with the type of units we have that are now common all over the country has been with us for many years. The Minister, quite properly, said that the main purpose of the Bill is to protect the animals kept in intensive units. One wonders why this was not done some years ago. I congratulate the Minister for now doing it.

This is a simple Bill to deal with a simple issue, which is provided for within the terms of the Convention to which we are signatories. I welcome the Bill in the context of protecting animal welfare and in the interests generally of the agricultural community. I have no doubt that the vast majority of farmers will not lose ten minutes sleep any night over the provisions of this Bill. The vast majority of farmers engaged in good farming practice are complying with the provisions of this Bill. It is as much in the interests of the farming community and agriculture generally that animals kept in intensive units throughout the country are properly cared for, properly fed and looked after, as it is in the interests of the animals themselves. A well fed and well looked after animal at the end of the day will produce a far greater return for a farmer than will an animal which has been badly treated, as I am sure the Deputies opposite will remind me very rapidly. I am surprised they have not done so yet.

Mr. H. Byrne

The Deputy has not said anything yet.

Mr. Shatter

I have said a good deal more in the four minutes I have been speaking than the Deputy's agricultural representative managed to say in half an hour, with due respect to him. I am still puzzling over what the exact substance of his contribution was.

Mr. H. Byrne

The Deputy should pay a little more attention to the contents of his own speech.

Mr. Shatter

I wait with bated breath to hear what the Deputy will say on this very important Bill. I have no doubt the Deputy has many interesting and original comments to make which, no doubt, will stimulate not merely the members of both parties in Government but will stimulate members of the press who await aghast to hear the riveting and original contributions which may come from Members opposite. They have been waiting aghast for the last 14 months in anticipation since the Coalition Government were formed but we have not yet heard anything original or riveting from them.

I would like to deal with the specifics of this Bill and, to say that in a sense it brings our animal welfare legislation partially up to date in an area which has been ignored and which the Minister quite properly stated cannot be dealt with under existing legislation. I believe the Bill deals with this matter in a sensible way and in a way which is in conformity with the convention to which we are signatories. The Bill ensures that animal welfare legislation can cope with modern farming techniques which certainly were not envisaged at the time the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 was passed or when some of the other legislation referred to by the Minister was passed. It is noteworthy that it is a Coalition Government who are introducing this animal welfare legislation because the last legislation we had in this area, which is not an area which the House has been over-concerned with, was the Wildlife Act, 1976, a monumental Bill, which laid the foundation for our modern panoply of legislation for the protection of animals. I have no doubt that all animal welfare organisations will be delighted to see this Bill enacted and that the vast majority of good farmers will also be delighted to see this Bill implemented.

It is worth drawing attention to one or two areas which the Bill does not deal with. I accept, in saying this, that these areas are not necessarily appropriate to this Bill, which has a single function, to enable us to ratify the Council of Europe Convention of 1978. These matters are worth drawing the Minister's attention to because they indicate the type of split level political thinking or legislative schizophrenia we engage in when dealing with many issues, not just the issue of animals, in which we often willingly and enthusiastically legislate to provide protection in particular circumstances in relation to a particular area or particular problems but in which we tend to have a legislative blank spot in another complementary area in which the same problems exist and which need to be tackled. I can see the Deputies opposite waiting in anticipation for me to reveal what I am referring to.

Mr. H. Byrne

Will the Deputy please do so?

Mr. Shatter

Before I do so and, no doubt, upset them profoundly, I wish to refer to the definition section of the Bill, which is an extremely good one and which defines a number of phrases used in the Bill, one of which is the concept of unnecessary suffering. The main objective of the Bill is to protect animals against unnecessary suffering. The Bill states with regard to unnecessary suffering:

"unnecessary suffering" means in relation to an animal, pain, distress or suffering that in its kind or degree, or in its object, or in the circumstances in which it occurs, is unreasonable or unnecessary;

As a general principle I imagine every Member of this House would be united in their view that in the context of animal legislation no animal should endure unnecessary suffering as defined in the Bill. It is a perfectly acceptable general principle we would all agree with. It is not a party political principle and it is not an ideological principle. I would describe it as a principle of agreed social policy that would cut across the party political divide that we would all agree that no animal anywhere should suffer unnecessarily. The problem is to highlight the need to provide animals with protection against unnecessary suffering in the context of intensive farm units. We still have not been willing to tackle other areas in the context of animal legislation and legislation which seeks to protect animal welfare and to tackle other areas in which unnecessary suffering is caused to animals and in which unnecessary suffering is very much part and parcel of the activity in which it occurs. I am referring to a matter I raised in this House some months ago: the whole area of hare coursing. There can be no doubt in the public mind that in the pursuit of live hare coursing as it operates at present——

Mr. H. Byrne

Will the Deputy buy a herd of hares and milk them?

Mr. Shatter

——the hares suffer a great deal and, in many instances, suffer a very horrible death. They are slaughtered in the presence of cheering crowds——

Mr. H. Byrne

This Bill deals with farm animals.

Mr. Shatter

——who are more anxious to recover their winnings on their bets than they are concerned about the carnage caused by this sport.

Mr. H. Byrne

Are they good milkers?

Mr. Shatter

In the context of this legislation it is fair to ask: if it is not permissible, as I believe it must not be, to permit unnecessary suffering on the part of farm animals in the area of agriculture and in the use of intensive units, is it permissible to promote unnecessary suffering for hares in live hare coursing? I am quite convinced that there is overwhelming public support for the abolition of hare coursing. I have no doubt, from a great deal of correspondence I have received, that there is a great deal of public support for its abolition. In fairness to the agricultural community and to farmers, in the context of this Bill probably a great deal more suffering is being caused by the activity of hare coursing than is caused ——

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to remind Deputy Shatter that we are dealing with animals kept for farming.

Mr. Shatter

I submit with respect that this matter comes within the Bill.

Mr. H. Byrne

That shows how much the Deputy knows about farming.

Mr. Shatter

A number of organisations and many individuals keep hares and, in a sense, farm hares ——

Mr. H. Byrne

Farm hares.

Mr. Shatter

——with the sole purpose of using them for hare coursing. They keep them in cages multiplying at a great rate, and the only opportunity many of these hares have to get out of those cages is when they find themselves pursued by two dogs with saliva dripping from their mouths who are hell bent on breaking their necks.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would be afraid that we might get into the realm of canaries if we allowed this to develop.

Mr. Shatter

I leave the flying of canaries to Members opposite who do not contribute much else to our legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

A passing reference might be all right, but I will not allow an in-depth discussion on hare coursing.

Mr. Shatter

I will conclude my passing reference to this matter. I am raising it in all seriousness. I am laughing because I find very amusing the anger this issue seems to create on the part of Members opposite who, I seem to recall, when I raised this by way of Dáil question verged on a state of hysteria and suggested in a sense that it was totally impudent for any Deputy to propose that our legislation in this area should be changed. There is overwhelming support for the abolition of hare coursing. I have no doubt hare coursing causes unnecessary suffering to animals as defined in the legislation.

Rather than treating this issue as something which justifies roars and shouts and abuse from Members opposite, I would hope that they would look at this issue seriously and be willing to sponsor and support a Bill across party lines which would be uncontentious and would abolish hare coursing in a way which would be an example to many people outside the House of the concern of Deputies for animal welfare and their anxiety to ensure that unnecessary suffering is not caused to animals.

We are the only country in the EEC to permit a sport of this nature to continue. We are now implementing this convention which we signed in the Council of Europe in 1978. This is an example of our social policy commitment, our commitment to animal welfare and our comitment to a humane approach to dealing with animals. Our continued failure to tackle the problem of hare coursing shows a very contradictory image.

I am most anxious not to stray outside the confines of the Bill. I want to come back to another issue which I raised in the House and which I was delighted to see taken up by other Deputies and by a Deputy opposite from my own constituency in a very articulate way. I am referring to drugs and animals, the use of hormones as growth stimulants in animals and the over use of antibiotics. I am not suggesting that, as a general issue, this is directly relevant to the Bill, but it is indirectly relevant. It is part of common farming practice to use automatically a form of hormone treatment as a stimulant to animal growth. I would be interested to know from the Minister what research has been done in this area on the effects hormone stimulants have on the animals. A great deal of concern has been expressed about the possibility of hormone residue in meat consumed by human beings.

Mr. H. Byrne

The Deputy is reading too many cartoons in the Farmers' Journal.

Mr. Shatter

This artificial growth stimulant must have some effect on the animals who are subjected to it.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

There is nothing about that in the Bill.

Mr. H. Byrne

More scaremongering.

Mr. Shatter

Has research been done in this area? Does it come within the ambit of this Bill? Is there any way in which this type of farming can be supervised?

An Ceann Comhairle

I know the point the Deputy is trying to develop.

Mr. H. Byrne

A Cheann Comhairle, you know more than we do.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure it is a very important point but I do not think it is related to the Bill. The Bill deals with the prevention of cruelty to animals kept for farming and, unless the Deputy can relate his remarks to the welfare of animals, he will not be in order.

Mr. H. Byrne

Next he will be looking for AI for hares.

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy sounds virile enough in this House, and he clearly does not need it for himself. What I am raising is in the area of cruelty. This issue has not been debated. One issue has been raised on many occasions during Question Time which I will not pursue because it is not appropriate to this Bill. I would be interested to learn from the Minister to what extent has the use of hormones as growth stimulants in living animals been researched and the effect on the animals themselves and on the well-being of the animals.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is of the opinion that the effect which eating animal meat may have on human beings is not relevant.

Mr. Shatter

I am talking about the effect on animals.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to relate it to that.

Mr. Shatter

That is the point I am making, the effect on the animals. I raise that as an issue and I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say about it. In the context of the use of hormone stimulants within extensive units, which is happening at the moment, where animals are, to use a layman's term, growing at a rate that is not usual or normal or does not happen naturally——

A Deputy

That is not true.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter, without interruption.

Mr. Shatter

I would be interested to hear the Minister on that.

I found Deputy Noonan's contribution both interesting and puzzling. He kept on saying that he was going to propose amendments and that he was worried about various things but he never really indicated clearly what he wanted amended or the specifics of them. It could be said that he was himself chasing hares and reserving his position.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): We will leave that to the Deputy.

Mr. Shatter

In case some members of the farming community would approach him he could say to himself that he saw nothing wrong with the Bill; nevertheless he has put on the record of the House that he is thinking about amendments and if anybody else proposes one he can say that that was the amendment he was thinking of. I wait with interest to see what amendments he will propose.

I conclude by appealing to Deputies opposite in a non-partisan, non-party political way in the context of animal welfare legislation and in the hope that this will be the first of a number of pieces of legislation to deal with anomalies in this area, to join with me and other Deputies on this side in promoting legislation to ban hare coursing.

Mr. Kitt

I welcome the main purpose of the Bill which is, as the Minister said, to ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the protection of animals kept for farm purposes. I want to raise a few questions to which I hope the Minister will reply. This Bill contains much comment concerning the provision of water and food for animals. The sections dealing with those matters state the obvious importance of food and water, but really we should be talking at this stage about the fact that the EEC may not continue to provide money for water schemes. That must concern all of us, particularly those in rural areas who depend on group water schemes. The Minister should be talking about getting the EEC to continue to provide money for this rather than talking about the obvious importance of water for farm animals.

Section 4 of the Bill states that animals should be inspected not less than once per day. Deputy Noonan mentioned that such comments should be taken as a slight on the farming community. What would other professions think if they were told, for instance in the case of gardeners to inspect their gardens once a day? Deputy Shatter is not here now. If he was told that he would have to ring one of his clients once a day what would he think? The section makes a very obvious statement. Anyone interested in farming obviously will inspect his animals more than once a day.

Section 6 deals with intensive units. In reference to adequate space for animals and freedom of movement I ask the Minister to tell us if this refers to an increased floor area per animal in these intensive units. I understood that when the Farm Modernisation Scheme, which was suspended in February of last year, was restored the Department were to put more emphasis on smaller buildings. It would be important for all farmers to know, particularly if they were applying for a grant for cattle housing to enable them to get their cattle off the land in winter, that they would not be obliged to put up elaborate structures. I ask the Minister to clarify exactly what floor area he is talking about for freedom of movement for the animals. I hope that he is talking about more economical units for any farm buildings that will be erected in future.

Section 8 deals with the powers of entry and inspection. Farmers have access to ACOT, to the farm development services and to their own surgeons. Why are the Garda mentioned in section 8 (2) (b) which refers to a member of the Garda Síochána having the powers of entry and inspection? I ask the Minister to clarify that. The relationship that a farmer has with the staff of the Department is very important and it would be unfortunate if the restrictions mentioned in that section were to obtain.

It is amazing that the Bill, which deals with the protection of animals, does not contain provision for the transport of animals. Surely we are talking about their safety under transport. We all should be concerned about various reports of disease occurring. The lorry which would bring a diseased animal to a factory might be used the next day to bring animals to a mart. I wonder why this matter is not included under this Bill. I take it that all other countries in the EEC except Italy and Greece have ratified the Convention. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how this matter is being dealt with in other countries.

Various sections of this Bill seem to state very obvious facts and of course in that regard we all agree with them. I would like the Minister to reply to the questions I have posed. Perhaps I am reading the Bill incorrectly. Section 6 seems to state that we are dealing with units which are becoming bigger and bigger in the farm building area. Now that the Farm Modernisation Scheme has been restored I would like to know how that section is to be implemented.

The main purpose of the Bill is to bring us into line with other countries which have ratified the Convention of the Council of Europe and we on this side of the House welcome that purpose.

Mr. H. Byrne

For fear there may be a doubt on the other side of the House I should like to reiterate the support of my party for the Bill. I should like to comment on some of its provisions and, in particular, the speech made by the Minister today. Having read the speech it is not hard to come to the conclusion that he did not compose it because it does not have the hallmark of a farmer on it. I know the Minister well and I am aware that he is an excellent farmer. For that reason I doubt if the speech he delivered contains his views. The Minister said:

I hardly have to say that animals which are well cared for thrive and give better production returns.

It was not necessary to make that statement because all farmers are aware of that. That is the only sentence that I, as a farmer, support. Later the Minister told the House that there has been over the years a lot of criticism and comment on intensive units but that nowadays they are a fact of life particularly as regards hen and pig rearing. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are intensive cattle units and it is possible that they are the ones he referred to in his speech. The trend now is for goodie goodies, such as the one who contributed here a short time ago, who know little about farming or the care farmers give to their animals, to get cheap publicity on matters like this. We have had a degree of scare mongering recently that did not help farmers to any degree. In fact, it has hurt farmers. I am referring to milk production and what Deputy Shatter said a short time ago.

The Minister expressed the view in his speech that animal lovers will welcome the terms of the Bill and so also would those farmers who think about animal welfare as well as the economics of raising animals. I come from a farming area and I am aware of the views of farmers. All farmers are aware that the well-cared-for animals will produce more. Farmers are not fools and they do not need reminding of such matters by the Minister. On reading the script one would get the impression that farmers were criminals. I reject that suggestion. Farmers have always behaved in a reasonable fashion and looked after their animals well.

The Minister, referring to the inspections, said he would be able to appoint veterinary surgeons to be inspectors for the purposes of the Bill. That is reasonable enough, but he went on to say that they will have powers to enter premises or land to inspect, examine or test animals, food or liquid and equipment as well as to take samples from animals, food or liquid and examine, test or analyse any samples taken. They will also have the power to inspect records. That brings us to a dangerous zone. I do not object to veterinary surgeons visiting farms to carry out inspections but there is an implication in that statement that farmers are blackguarding animals or keeping food that might harm such animals. Such an implication is bad for farming. I imagine that tomorrow's newspapers will give the impression that farmers are of a criminal nature.

The Minister told the House that officers of his Department who are not veterinary surgeons may also be given the same powers as the inspectors. That is dangerous. I should like to ask the Minister if that makes sense to him, a farmer. Is he giving inspection power to unqualified people? The Minister told us that there are safeguard clauses in the Bill to give farmers a defence in certain cases. The person who wrote that should have his or her head examined. That is a disgrace because it seems to indicate that farmers are criminals. The principle behind the Bill is correct but the Minister in his speech moved far away from that. I am disappointed with his contribution and I hope he makes up for that lapse when concluding. It is laughable to suggest that gardaí will have the power of inspection because we do not have sufficient members in the force to do the jobs they are supposed to do without getting them to harass farmers.

The Bill should have dealt with the problem of the slaughtering of sheep by marauding dogs. We are all aware that thousands of sheep are slaughtered annually by dogs from cities and towns. Some of those dogs come from areas of the city mentioned by Deputy Shatter. If he paid more attention to the suffering of such sheep he would be doing more for his country than by chasing hares. Will the Minister outline the suggestions put forward by the inter-departmental committee to deal with such marauding dogs? Is the Minister in a position to give the House details of the number of sheep slaughtered last year and the success, if any, his Department have had in curtailing the activities of marauding dogs?

I am interested in the quality of silage fed to animals. I agree that food fed to animals should be of the highest quality. We are all aware that the use of silage equipment has reduced since 1979 because of certain anomalies in our tax system. The result is that this year the silage harvest may not be finished on time. That will lead to a deterioration in the quality of silage. Those with a knowledge of farming are aware that bad silage is worse than bad hay, may cause death and can, certainly, cause suffering. What does the Minister intend to do in regard to that problem? If farmers are not given an incentive to buy new machinery the quality of our silage later this year will be the worst ever. Our farmers can be proud of the fact that they made great advances in providing quality silage but in order to continue to produce good quality silage they need good equipment and they do not have that now.

An Ceann Comhairle

This does not relate to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. H. Byrne

In my view it does.

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to refrain from using strong language although one would feel like using it on occasions. The Chair has some difficulty in relating to the Bill a discussion on farm machinery.

Mr. H. Byrne

I am sorry the Chair cannot get the point but I will be delighted to tell the Chair how this matters. The silage season lasts for 20 days and if one goes beyond that period the quality of silage lessens. I am saying that it will go beyond 20 days this year because the machinery being used now is not fit to accommodate the silage crop within 20 days. If the Minister is serious about this Bill, he will provide an incentive for the farmer to get the equipment which will accommodate the silage so that we will not be feeding cattle bad silage and causing suffering.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is stretching the argument.

Mr. H. Byrne

Maybe, but I am delighted you see my point.

An Ceann Comhairle

I see what the Deputy is trying to argue, but I do not see the relevance of what he is saying to the debate.

Mr. H. Byrne

Like other Deputies I am very concerned about animal welfare. The Minister seems to be suggesting that, apart from building a milking parlour, silage pit, slurry pit and so on, the farmer will almost have to have a science laboratory on his farm.

What has happened in the Farm Modernisation Scheme will not help farmers under this Bill. This point was mentioned by Deputy Kitt. Cow herds walking on bad roads or wet land are liable to get what was commonly known as foul-of-foot and to avoid this farmers would have laid down farm roadways. In the very recent past the Farm Modernisation Scheme was scrapped and re-introduced without taking farm roadways into account. Will the Minister include farm roadways in the reintroduced Farm Modernisation Scheme?

I support Deputy Kitt who called for an incentive by way of farm grants for the provision of water. Over the years a farmer with a river on his land was regarded as being very lucky, but unfortunately today our rivers and streams are being polluted, I have to admit on very rare occasions by the farmers themselves. Because these rivers are polluted every farmer should do his utmost to keep his animals away from them but the only way he can do this is to provide a clean water supply; but because of the high cost involved the farmer would need support from the Government. It was very disappointing that no provision was made for this in the re-introduced Farm Modernisation Scheme either. While this Bill will be welcomed by all and sundry, the Minister can hardly be regarded as being serious about it unless he makes provision for clean water and farm roadways under the Farm Modernisation Scheme.

I was pleased to learn that provision was made for wintering animals. This is the greatest area of suffering because animals are left out in the snow, wind and frost. When there are heavy snowfalls the farmer has no access to the animals and this results in grave hardship and suffering for the animals. The way to remedy this situation is to be able to winter all farm animals. Under the Farm Modernisation Scheme there is provision for the housing of animals, but the figure of £23 million for that scheme this year as opposed to double that figure three years ago, demonstrates the Government's interest in wintering farm animals.

To summarise, if the Minister is serious about this Bill, he will take the matters I have raised here very seriously. If he does not re-introduce the items I mentioned under the Farm Modernisation Scheme and make some improvement in regard to the slaughtering of sheep, then I have to say that the Bill before us is nothing but hypocrisy.

Mr. Kirk

I do not wish to delay the House but there are a number of points about which I am glad to have an opportunity to comment.

This Bill relates exclusively to farmyard enterprises which have become an integral part of agricultural production over the past number of years. We are talking about intensive pig breeding and rearing, poultry production and feeding and fattening cattle in farmyards and covered accommodation. The importance of these enterprises cannot be overstated because they are an economic lifeline to many holdings. Prior to this subsistence farming was the practice, but with our gradual development the importance of farmyard enterprise became more relevant. Without the intensive production in the farmyard many small holdings would have gone to the wall. Family units have become an integral part of rural life. Farmyard enterprise has provided the extra revenue needed to assist the benefits derived from small holdings.

This Bill endeavours to ensure that the law in relation to the protection of animals is updated and that there will be proper co-ordination of the relevant Bills. Most speakers have accepted that the need to protect animals is vitally important, particularly in the context of farmyard enterprise and intensive production. The majority of Deputies will accept that an intensive producer would realise that it would be economic madness not to have proper conditions for his animals. Not to care for animals properly would be unthinkable in the context of production costs, which are the reality of the day for farmers.

There are a number of areas in this Bill which need to be examined to a greater extent. I am referring to the vesting of powers in inspectors and gardaí to inspect these farm enterprises and to see that proper care is given to those animals. Care needs to be exercised in this instance because people should not be able to walk into a farm without the permission of the farmer. In an era when the rights of the individual are quite rightly protected, people will object when an effort is made to impinge on those rights. Any Bill that gives undue authority to any inspector or garda to inspect a farm without the permission of the farmer would be undesirable.

I hope the Minister will deal with this aspect when replying. I foresee a situation arising in which many farmholders will object vigorously to these inspections. I do not accept that they could object to efforts being made to protect the rights of the animals contained in the units on their holdings. If there are to be undue powers vested in veterinary inspectors or in the Garda they could constitute a very dangerous development. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate somewhat on this point so that people in general will know exactly what are his intentions.

Some speakers quite rightly referred to the importance of the farm modernisation scheme with regard to the protection of animals in these units. There was also the expansion of the farm buildings programme in recent years, a programme which ground to a halt within the last 12 months primarily because of the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme on 9 February 1983. This constituted a grevious error on the part of the Government, contending that there was economy involved ——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will permit a passing reference only to the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme.

Mr. Kirk

It is very relevant to the Bill we are debating.

An Ceann Comhairle

But a detailed discussion is not relevant.

Mr. Kirk

——because the building regulations that will apply to the farm modernisation scheme will ensure that the farmers in question will have proper buildings to accommodate the animals for which such buildings were intended. It would be sheer economic madness for any farmer or food producer not to think in terms of properly looking after the animals on such units particularly when one considers present production costs. Indeed the pig industry, which is going to the wall at an ever-quickening pace, is doing so because of the increased production costs applicable to that industry in general. The capacity of that industry to generate employment, whether at the servicing end or the processing end, is much underestimated. Accommodation for pig production purposes has been enormously expanded in recent times under the farm modernisation scheme. The standard of the buildings is geared at maximising the output on these units, where weight losses and so on are minimised and where the creation of the best possible environment is the goal of the various farm building plans for pig production available from the Department of Agriculture.

Some speakers have referred to the importance of water supply. It is, of course, vital to any animal. Without it animals will quickly become dehydrated and die and the economic loss to the herdowner will be enormous. With the development of the various group water schemes the vast majority of counties now have a fairly adequate water supply. I do not perceive any great fear that there would not be an adequate water supply available for these units. The great problem with regard to water supply is that of pollution which has become of increasing importance with industrialisation and the intensification of production methods on farms. Therefore the risk of pollution has become much greater than heretofore. Indeed this is an aspect primarily for the Minister for the Environment rather than the Minister for Agriculture. I foresee difficulties arising in this area in the not too distant future. If there is to be a polluted water supply to animals in these intensive units obviously its implications will be enormous. It must be remembered that the producers of barley and other cereal crops find a great outlet in these intensive units whether they be in poultry or pig production. Therefore the great interdependence between the various facets of our agricultural industry can be clearly seen. Any difficulties arising in intensive pig or poultry production immediately has implications for our cereal growers, as also for meal compounders.

This might be an opportune time to refer to the number of animals being wintered out. Given the severity of our winters there is a great economic loss to farmers simply because they are not in a position to provide the necessary buildings to house their animals during the winter, creating obvious problems for those animals wintered out. If we could ensure that all our animals were properly housed during the winter period this would be a very desirable target for, say, the next five years but, unfortunately, we are a long way from achieving that target. Such is the case in many parts of the country particularly where the traditional production of store cattle is practised, where the cattle still traverse the ground during the winter months. In some cases farmers do well in keeping them alive and, at best, having them maintain their weight, full feeding counteracting weather conditions at that time.

Since the Minister has pinpointed the many problems existing in this area I hope he will ensure the necessary financial input for the farm modernisation scheme at this juncture so that farmers will find the various grant schemes sufficiently attractive to provide the necessary accommodation for animals in order to keep them inside in the winter months.

These intensive farming enterprises constitute a source of tremendous employment. With our predominance of small farms these intensive farm enterprises have meant that such farms have been rendered viable. Without such aid many small farms would have gone to the wall long ago, along with the social implications involved. The services area, whether in the provision of feed, meal or anything else is also very important for our economy and our agricultural industry generally. It may not be sufficiently recognised that there is an enormous amount of money tied up in these enterprises, tens of thousands of pounds in some of the more humble ones is not uncommon. Therefore the larger pig producers could very easily go to the wall if disease were to strike because of the enormous amounts of money involved in feeding costs and so on.

Certainly I agree with the general principle that animals should be protected and the provisions of the Bill would seem to do that. However, I am very concerned about the rights and powers of inspectors. I hope the Minister will deal with this and will reassure farmers that they have nothing to fear as a result of inspectors going into their farms. It would be most undesirable if the inspectors could walk in at will and dictate to farmers as to how they should run their enterprises. The economic considerations of the day give sufficient guidance to farmers in this regard. I broadly agree with the Bill before the House.

Mr. J. Leonard

I agree with the provisions of the Bill which I consider to be non-contentious. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable Ireland to ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes. I expect that this matter will be debated extensively in the Council of Europe by our members. It is my opinion that we were often very slow to sign and ratify conventions and I felt that matter should have been brought to the notice of this House on many occasions.

In his speech the Minister of State referred to modern intensive farming systems which predominently employ technical installations that are operated principally by means of automatic processes. I do not think there should be any concern with regard to intensive units because they are sophisticated and do not present any technical difficulties or dangers with regard to feeding and cleaning. In fact, most of the units are air-conditioned and are much better than many rural dwellings. However, it is important that regulations be laid down to cover all aspects of feeding and the care of animals.

All of us accept that animals that are well cared for thrive and give better returns. A farmer cannot afford to keep an animal that is not thriving and it will not thrive unless it is in a comfortable environment. Any animals, whether it be pigs, broilers, duck or turkeys, must be well and comfortable if maximum production is to be obtained.

At the moment we have 50 per cent of our stock in the fields throughout the year. Some 50 years ago Paddy Kavanagh spoke about a farmer going up the hills with a bundle of hay for a few perishing calves but this applies even now in respect of many farmers. The withdrawal of the Farm Modernisation Scheme was a major hardship. We must try to reach the point where farmers can take their animals from the land and house them in suitable indoor accommodation from the month of November to April. Until we can have this we need not talk about modern farming techniques and farm development. Each year the weight animals gain during the summer is lost during the winter and they end up lighter in weight. Deputy Byrne spoke about development farmers in County Wexford but in my constituency only one out of every five farmers is in that category. After the expiry of six years farmers are reclassified and either they move into the development category for eight years or they move down. In the scheme that has been reintroduced the farmers who move down in the categories will be debarred from receiving grant-aid and this has created a serious situation. Admittedly in the western counties grant-aid is available but that is not applicable to people in milk production and they will not receive grant-aid for housing their stock.

Water is more important than food for the animals. A few years ago there were good water sources but because of pollution and other factors people now are dependent completely on piped water supplies from group water schemes or from local authority supplies. In the measures for the western counties there is provision for a subvention and people get £1,000 for farm and domestic connections and £600 for domestic connections only. However, in many cases additional supplementary payments will be sought and the Minister will be hearing about many of the schemes that are in difficulties at the moment.

If we want to develop agriculture to the full extent we will have to give more consideration to intensive units. I have no fear they will cause any problems so far as this Bill is concerned because they are well-developed and sophisticated.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I welcome the Bill before the House. The farming community do not have to fear because of this Bill. Generally we have been good livestock people and our farm husbandry has been excellent. We compare favourably with any European country in the care and feeding of livestock. The safety of animals may have caused some concern to urban dwellers. Many stories expressing such concern have been published in large cities in Europe.

I should particularly like to see a change in relation to the calf dehorners which are on sale on the Irish market. From the point of view of safety on the users and the animals we should take some precautions in this regard because at the moment the machines are not properly built and could be a danger to human and animal life. After only a short time in use there can be burning and exposure of the wires and I suggest that we should have looked at it in this legislation.

Our animal food is of good quality, consisting of good native barley, good grass silage and excellent grass. I can see no fear in this regard. We have been able to prove to the Europeans that we are not intensive farmers, and indeed that has been part of our case against the super-levy. We have not got intensive units with the large production of European countries. I would be mainly concerned about the right this Bill gives to somebody to come on a farmer's premises at any hour of day or night to carry out inspections. Such interference with livestock, disturbing and annoying the animals, could be harmful. That is very important. We could have some crank veterinary surgeon or garda who would have a chip on his shoulder in regard to animal production and who could make a bloody nuisance of himself and torment every farmer in three parishes. Because of the ability and the knowledge and farming experience of the Minister of State, I know he will cater for this and protect the farming community.

In regard to farm equipment, we have quite a few conmen importing equipment for use in intensive livestock production. There is no legislation to cater for this and many farmers have been financially embarrassed and have had their fingers badly burned because of buying inferior equipment. The Bill provides for equipment but it does not lay down guidelines. Irish farmers are very caring and would not be fooled, but they could be taken in by high-powered salesmen who could sell inferior equipment that would cause many problems for farmers.

Exposure of livestock on the land is one of our biggest problems. It was a retrograde step for the Government to have interfered with the Farm Modernisation Scheme. That scheme provided an incentive to house cattle properly but that grant incentive was withdrawn with the result that at the moment 50 per cent of our cattle are roaming the land in bad, wet, frosty cold weather. Recently we had a debate on the exposure of sheep on the Galtees with consequent major losses. If there had been proper grant aid many of our livestock, both sheep and cattle, would be housed and protected from our hard winters. It is in the farmers' interest that their livestock would be housed properly and that farms would not be over-stocked. Grant-aided farmers are allowed so much per foot per pig or per cow or per bullock. In catering for a situation like that the Bill has some merits because it will make for more profit at farm level, and that is what farming is all about.

Deputy Shatter referred to hare coursing which has been a rural sport in Ireland for a number of years. I could not let his remarks go without referring to them because it has been a form of Sunday sport in rural areas and a source of enjoyment. We have Deputy Shatter and many others with chips on their shoulders about traditional forms of sport here and other things here. He spoke about the use of hormones and drug abuse in Irish agriculture. That will do nothing but harm to our great food industry. Most statements of this kind are inflammatory and we cannot afford to tolerate them. Deputy Shatter would be better discussing these things in the Fine Gael Party rooms or in some other forum instead of discussing them openly in the House. At a time when we are trying to expand our food and livestock production we cannot afford to have statements of this nature and therefore I appeal to the Deputy to find some other forum. By an large we have not been abusive in the use of growth hormones or drugs. The Italians and the French generally have been instrumental in the production of growth hormones. I do not think we have anything to fear here in this respect. Our farmers and our veterinary people are careful and understanding, knowing the harm these things can create.

We have had too much talk about drugs. Who wants to do harm in that way? I am disappointed that this kind of talk has been raising its head continuously, been shouted from the rooftops. We have a very valuable dairying and beef industry and the less we say about those things the better for us. Basically we are an exporting country and if we continue to talk like this nobody will have anything to do with us. We have adequate legislation and we have always been able to control the situation.

The provision of adequate water supplies is a problem at farm level. Adequate water supplies are very important for good husbandry and many farmers have difficulties in this regard. In my constituency very few people have a public water supply and many people over Christmas had problems in this respect.

Mr. Leyden

I regard the Bill as being unnecessary and this is evident from the non-attendance of many Government TDs. There is no enthusiasm in Fine Gael or Labour for this Bill. We have massive unemployment and the Dáil should be engaged in discussing legislation to cater for job maintenance and job creation. I think this Bill is an infringement of farmers' individual rights. I suggest that certain provisions are against farmers' constitutional right to individual ownership and control. The farming organisations should be allowed to express their views on this Bill, but to date they have not done so because the Bill has been rushed into the House in a hasty, ill-considered manner. Last week on the Order of Business we on this side requested that the Bill would be deferred for examination by Members of the House at party level, but it was published on 20 February and it is before us today. I would say that is a record. The farming organisations should have been asked for their advice and guidance on this Bill which is likely to have far-reaching consequences. I regard the Bill as an insult to farmers because its provisions are a reflection on the integrity of the farming community and their ability to maintain livestock in a proper manner.

For instance, there are requirements in the Bill for daily inspections of herds. Farmers normally and wisely inspect their herds at least once a day and therefore this legislation is bringing more bureaucracy into their way of life. The Bill requires farmers to keep records and have them ready for inspection. At a time when farmers are under major stress in relation to the super-levy, this Bill imposes more bureaucracy on them. Of course, the super-levy has been extremely badly handled by the Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach — their whole approach to the super-levy has been one of the most disgraceful by any Government at any time. They have not conveyed total opposition to the super-levy. They should have been indicating again that they propose to veto any such proposal.

The Bill is particularly offensive to farmers because it comes soon after the deferment of the Farm Modernisation Scheme which had been supported by successive Governments, particularly Fianna Fáil. We brought forward a very attractive package for the improvement of farm holdings. The provisions of this Bill possibly would require a farmer to improve his or her farm buildings, yet in return the Government are not putting forward proposals to restore full farm modernisation grants. The Minister must make a clear statement regarding the farm modernisation scheme. He announced recently that he was restoring the farm modernisation grants, but the EEC in turn stated that they did not approve the return of the farm modernisation scheme. The Minister now has an opportunity to clarify the position. Will the scheme be available to the farming community in 1984 or is it being vetoed by the EEC? That is a very important question because there is concern at present among the farming community in relation to this.

There are many outstanding claims under the farm modernisation scheme for farm buildings which had been commenced without the written approval of the inspector for the Department of Agriculture or the ACOT adviser, but verbally approved by these officials at the time when the scheme was shelved by the Coalition Government. Many farmers had embarked on major contract work for the erection of farm buildings, haysheds, yards, silage pits and so forth. They have had major financial difficulties as a result of the overnight decision by this Government to defer the farm modernisation scheme. It is very important that the integrity of the ACOT advisers and agricultural advisers at all levels be guaranteed by a Government. These people had given oral approval to the commencement of projects under the scheme.

Our spokesman, Deputy Noonan, has outlined our exact position with regard to this Bill. We will be putting forward amendments to many sections. We on this side of the House feel that the Bill is suitable for consideration by a special select committee of this House who would consider each section in detail. This select committee would have representatives of the farming community from both sides of the House to give their advice to the Minister before Committee Stage of this Bill, which will be very detailed. Many of the provisions in the Bill are repugnant to our party and to the farming community.

I quote section 3 (c):

provisions with respect to the dimensions and layout of housing for such animals, the materials to be used in constructing any such housing and the facilities by way of lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, regulating the level of humidity, air circulation, drainage, water supply or otherwise to be provided in connection with any such housing.

These requirements far exceed those of the Department for the Environment in relation to housing for humans. Many people are living under far lower standards than are outlined in that section. These requirements are practically impossible to attain. Very few buildings constructed under the farm modernisation scheme and designed by Department of Agriculture advisers would comply with these regulations. On our farm I have recently constructed quite extensive buildings which, in relation to cooling, ventilation and the level of humidity could not be guaranteed. These buildings were erected by competent contractors under the supervision of Department of Agriculture advisers. The Minister will have to review every word and section of this Bill, otherwise he will have a job getting support for further modernisation of farm buildings. The Minister will have to announce a farm modernisation scheme which allows for the special provisions of this section, otherwise this legislation will be ineffective.

Also of particular concern is the section regarding records, which I have already mentioned. These requirements will be very hard to comply with. The Minister will also have to reconsider this section.

One section which concerns the farming community and myself is that in regard to entry for inspection, etc. The provisions of section 8 have far-reaching consequences for the farming community. I hope, through the powers of the media, that the message will be conveyed to the farming community that this Bill is now proceeding through this House. The provision under this section is that an inspector may call to a farm at all reasonable times. This could quite easily be abused. What would a reasonable time be? Would it be 7 o'clock in the morning or 12 o'clock at night? The Minister would have to specify exactly the hours of inspection before I would be satisfied. Inspection of that type should require production of a warrant signed by a senior member of the agricultural staff in the area, otherwise any official at any time could inspect anyone's farm. That is unacceptable to the farming community. I hope that the IFA and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association will convey their opposition to this provision in the Bill.

I am afraid that this will slip through the House, probably unnoticed, but at some stage will create great difficulties for many farmers. Section 8 is as follows:

(1) An inspector may at all reasonable times—

(a) for the purpose of exercising any of the other powers conferred on him by this section enter any premises or other land,

(b) inspect, examine or test—

(i) any animal which he reasonable believes to be an animal to which this Act applies and which is found by him in or on any premises or other land so entered,

(ii) any food or liquid so found and which he so believes is used or is to be used to feed animals to which this Act applies,

(iii) any equipment so found,

(c) take samples from any such animal or of any such food or liquid and examine, test or analyse, or cause to be examined, tested or analysed, any sample so taken,

(d) require the production of and inspect, and if he so wishes take extracts from, any record made pursuant to the requirements of section 7 of this Act,

(e) require any person who is either the owner or the person for the time being in charge of an animal or equipment referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection, or who is the owner or occupier of or employed on premises or other land so entered, to give to him such assistance or to carry out such instructions as may be reasonably necessary to enable such examination, inspection, test or analysis to be carried out or to give to him such information regarding such animal or equipment as is within his knowledge or under his control.

(2) (a) An authorised person shall have such of the powers given to an inspector by this section as may be specified in his authorisation by the Minister.

(b) A member of the Garda Síochána shall have all of the powers given to an inspector by this section other than the power to examine, test or take samples from animals.

(3) An inspector or authorised person who exercises a power conferred on him by or under this section shall, if required by the person affected by the exercise, produce to that person his appointment as an inspector or authorisation to be an authorised person, as may be appropriate.

We have always fought for the individual right of ownership. Farmers have always been proud to own their land. This is the first act by a Government which will give inspectors an opportunity to inspect farms without the permission of landowners. I believe a landowner must give permission before an inspector can inspect his or her land. If an inspector feels that there is something amiss I do not see why he should not go to the particular farmer and ask him for permission to inspect the farm. If the farmer is not prepared to give permission for the inspection the inspector can take the matter a step further. I believe the right being given in the Bill to inspect a person's holding is repugnant to the Constitution. No other Act of the Oireachtas has given that power to any Department to allow an inspector inspect an individual's holding.

Farmers are very proud of their holdings and they would be very concerned that an inspector would have the right to come any day or any night to inspect their holdings. They would also be concerned that this would add to the spread of brucellosis or tuberculosis in herds. They would have to get guarantees that such inspectors had not come from inspecting infected farms which had restricted herds. I would be very concerned about an inspector coming on to my holding if I was not aware of where the inspector came from or if he came from another holding infected with disease. I would be particularly concerned, having a disease free herd, that an inspector could cause the spread of TB and brucellosis, which have had devastating effects on the farming community. It would serve the Minister better if he brought in a Bill to improve the control of animal disease. This Bill is repugnant to our farmers as well as being repugnant to the Constitution.

Section 8 (2) (b) states:

A member of the Garda Síochána shall have all of the powers given to an inspector by this section other than the power to examine, test or take samples from animals.

Why should a member of the Garda Síochána be given power to come on to a person's holding and inspect the premises? Why would a Minister give that power to a member of the Garda Síochána? Surely it is an infringement of a person's rights. Before a member of the Garda Síochána enters a person's premises he must have a warrant. There is no mention in this section of a warrant being issued to a member of the Garda Síochána by the District Court. There is need to revise this section in relation to this matter. In rural Ireland we have great respect for the Garda Síochána. We fight for their rights at all times. We are engaged in a campaign at the moment to ensure that we will have our gardaí in rural areas at all times. They are a most responsible body and are welcome to visit farmers' homes at all times but giving a garda the right to inspect a person's holding is something I do not approve of. What justification could there be for requiring a member of the Garda Síochána to inspect a person's home?

The last time we had a member of the Garda Síochána on our holding was to examine ewes killed by dogs roaming the area. We invited the Garda Síochána on to our holding. We lost a number of ewes and a ram at that time. We wanted the gardaí to examine the carcasses of the dead animals so that they could try to ensure that the marauding dogs would be apprehended before they caused further damage in the locality. It is a most retrograde step to give the Garda Síochána power in section 8 to inspect a person's holding. The farming organisations must indicate their views in relation to this matter in the Bill.

With regard to penalties, section 9(3) states:

Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding £500, or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such term of imprisonment.

This particular matter will cause great concern to the farming community. The Minister has seen fit to bring in those very severe penalties in relation to the most law abiding citizens one could possibly have so that they will now be deemed to have committed an offence on their own land. I regard this as offensive. I ask the Minister to review this matter because the severe penalties could not fit any crime which could take place in relation to an animal on a person's holding. The Minister must be aware that it is to the farmer's advantage to maintain his or her livestock up to the best quality, to provide the best quality accommodation, feeding and water. That is the normal business criterion and there is no need to bring in a Bill to force farmers to do what they are doing at all times. I am aware of the high quality of the husbandry of the farmers in the constituencies of Roscommon and east Galway. There are outstanding farmers in those constitutencies who would never illtreat their animals. They buy the best quality food for their animals and provide them with the best quality shelter to ensure that their herds are the best turned out. It is quite evident that cattle from that area are the finest in the world. We have a very fine record in relation to sheep and lambs. Our lamb is sought in Europe, particularly in France.

We are very fortunate to have some of the finest production units. We have one of the finest lamb factories in Athleague and we have one of the finest factories in Europe at Rooskey, the Handy Meats, where pigs are processed. In Ballaghad-erreen we have the Halal operation. We have a fine record in regard to cattle, sheep and pig production. No farmer in that area would take a chance with his or her livestock. I do not believe any of the farmers in my constituency will be affected by the Bill unless the inspectors take a particular attitude.

I believe the Bill is unecessary because of the high standard of animal husbandry throughout the country. In County Roscommon we have some very fine marts. We have marts in Roscommon, Castlerea, Elphin and we have a very fine mart just started in Tulsk. Those marts are providing good employment and the finest stock anywhere in Ireland can be seen at any of those marts. I believe the farmers will generally find this Bill offensive. I appeal to the Minister of State and his officials to reassess seriously the need for the Bill at this stage. I am well aware that the Government are very anxious to get this Bill through the House. It is a rushed Bill which will be shown to be unnecessary.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Leyden

If the Deputy is so concerned about this Bill he will speak about it. I am sure he is not prepared to stand over this Bill. I am sure the Clare farmers as well as the farmers of other areas throughout the country will find it offensive that the Fine Gael-Labour Government decided it was appropriate to bring in a Bill to force our farmers to do what they are doing at the moment. Surely the Government have more on their plate with massive unemployment, rising crime rates and all the other matters. Even in his constituency, the Minister of State has problems.

Not one of the rural Fine Gael or Labour Deputies has felt it worthwhile to debate this Bill. Our party have contributed the majority of speakers because we are concerned about the content of the Bill. I hope that the farming organisations will come forward with their views at the earliest opportunity and express their concern in relation to many of the provisions. Our spokesman, Deputy Noonan, has more experience of farming than the Minister for Agriculture or the Ministers of State and we look forward to the day when our spokesperson will be the Minister. If this Government do not bring forward practical and rational amendments, I hope we will have an opportunity to do so.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Hegarty)

This Bill is necessary to enable Ireland to ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. The Government in 1978 agreed that the Convention should be signed and this was done on 29 June 1978. That should answer the previous speaker's argument because his party were in Government at that time.

I agree with Deputy Noonan that good husbandry would dictate that this type of inspection would not cause any hardship or inconvenience to good farmers. They would have absolutely nothing to fear from it. The Convention has been available since 1978 and there is nothing in the Bill which is not contained in the Convention. We must conform to the Convention and ensure that the terms are complied with. The Attorney General has advised that an Act is necessary. There may be the odd farmer who will not be able to live up to these terms but it will not be a problem for a person who practices good husbandry. We will be looking at a later stage at the various parts of the Bill and I hope to be able to convince Deputies that they are necessary. The daily inspection of animals and equipment is required by the Convention and must be enshrined in the Bill. Many speakers thought these matters were unnecessary but the Convention specifies these things and they must be contained in the Bill.

The records required by Article 7 are simple and should not be exaggerated. They will assist our inspectors in ensuring that the requirements are being complied with. The Garda will have very limited powers in order to assist our officers. I imagine that the only time the assistance of the Garda will be required is following a point blank refusal by a farmer to allow an inspector to inspect his animals.

Transport of animals was mentioned by Deputy Noonan. That matter came before the Council of Europe and I spoke on it myself in that forum. It is not part of this Bill. The welfare of animals at marts is already being examined and a Government order will be signed in the very near future.

Deputy Noonan also mentioned the possibility of this Bill being considered by a committee. I have no objections to having discussions with anybody, but we have not much time since Committee Stage will be taken next week. If there are any points which the Opposition spokesman would like to discuss prior to Committee Stage, I will be delighted to facilitate him.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): Is there a time limit within which the legislation must go through?

Mr. Hegarty

No.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): It is not necessary to take Committee Stage next week.

Mr. Hegarty

It would have to be by agreement with the Whips.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): The time would seem too short to enable the tabling of amendments.

Mr. Hegarty

Deputy Shatter underlined the point that the main purpose of the Bill is to enable us to ratify the Convention. Hare coursing does not fall within the ambit of the Bill, which is intended to cover animals kept for farm purposes. Hormones and antibiotics are not covered and are a separate question.

Deputy Kitt said that the Bill was stating the obvious, but sometimes the obvious has to be stated. Animals suffer unnecessarily in some instances and the Bill will help to overcome this problem.

The Bill has nothing to do with the Farm Modernisation Scheme but there will be powers under section 3 to regulate the amount of space required by animals in intensive production. Basically that is good husbandry anyway. Details are already well known to farmers through the ACOT advisers.

I was encouraged by Deputy Byrne's contribution. Farmers generally are committed to the welfare of animals and there is no intention in this Bill to malign farmers. Deputy Byrne was misinterpreting the situation, although there may be the odd farmer who will have to toe the line.

I, like other Members, am very concerned about the worrying of sheep and the question was asked as to what progress has been made. The inter-departmental committee recently furnished a report which is under consideration. When that report is available to me I will have no hesitation in making it similarly available to Members opposite. This matter has nothing to do with the Bill. The question of grants for farm machinery, roadways and the supply of water is not part of this Bill.

Deputy Kirk mentioned inspection powers. There is not much point in passing a Bill unless there is power to enforce its provisions. There is nothing oppressive about it. I do not know any inspectors who have the reputation of being oppressive. There will be no witch-hunting. The powers given to the Garda are limited and are intended only as a backup.

Deputy Leonard is concerned about conditions in intensive units and he also mentioned animals in fields. The latter question is covered by the Bill but it is not as problematic as the case of intensive poultry units.

Regarding Deputy O'Keeffe's question, calf de-horning is not appropriate to the Bill. We are not concerned with the type of equipment being used in various units. We are concerned with ensuring that it is in proper working order and that it achieves its objectives. Hormones, and so on, are not covered by the Bill.

The Bill is necessary. It has been agreed by the European Convention and it now has to be ratified by us. There is no intention to make difficulties for farmers. A good farmer will not be in the least concerned about the Bill. He will have his ACOT adviser calling on him, and he will be quite accustomed to getting good advice. It has nothing to do with the Farm Modernisation Scheme. I cannot understand the so-called misapprehensions. It is a simple, straightforward Bill. Most speakers expressed general agreement on it. I welcome the contributions made on the Bill. If there are any fears or genuine problems they will be treated reasonably by this side of the House on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 6 March 1984.