Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Mar 1984

Vol. 348 No. 11

Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Bill, 1984: Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): Could the Minister define an authorised person? In other sections the authorised person could also be a member of the Garda. We are concerned about this. Would an authorised person under this section be a member of the Garda?

An authorised person under section 1 is an officer of the Minister. This does not relate to the Garda. In a later section there is a special clause covering a member of the Garda. As section 1 stands, an authorised person is an officer of the Minister.

(Limerick West): Are intensive units confined to units which encourage broiler type production of poultry or livestock? Will it apply only to animals that are kept in intensive units and in confined conditions?

Automatic equipment would be used in intensive units for the care of the animals concerned. That would take care of all eventualities in so far as intensive units are concerned.

(Limerick West): Will the Minister indicate the type of equipment he has in mind?

Any type of equipment. For instance, it will include equipment bringing drinking water to animals and the conveyor belt methods of feeding. I think the House is well aware of what is involved.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): Subsection (2) states:

The Minister may by regulations declare that any animal which is of a species specified in the declaration shall be an animal to which this Act applies.

Does the Minister of State envisage in the future the inclusion of further species or is this envisaged under the convention?

I understand that in the convention the animals designated there are the ones that are defined. This was required mainly to remove doubts that might arise in the future. It refers to the animals normally seen in a farming enterprise.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): We have certain reservations with regard to this section. Certain subsections are far-reaching. I refer to subsection (1) (a), (b) and (c). The provisions laid down in this subsection are part and parcel of good farming operations. Subsection (1) (c) refers to the dimensions and layout of housing for animals, the materials to be used in the construction of such housing and facilities by way of lighting, heating and cooling. All of this is enshrined in other legislation dealing with cruelty to animals. I wish to know if it is necessary to include it here?

Yes. Subsection (1) (c) refers to housing, heating, air space and so on for animals. All of us hope that farmers make such provision for animals and I am sure that is so in 99 per cent of cases. However, in very intensive projects if something went wrong, if beasts and birds did not have enough air space, it was felt when the convention was being drawn up that it was important to have legislation to cover such a situation. It is a normal clause in legislation. I know what Deputy Noonan is concerned about. One might argue that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals could organise themselves on the basis of the powers they have but that is not strictly correct because there are many restrictions with regard to their access to various properties. The Deputy need not worry about this point. In my view it is a common-sense proposal and will not inhibit the progress of an owner of livestock.

(Limerick West): I accept the Minister's commitment. I presume the dimensions and the layout of housing will be made by regulation in due course?

Yes, by ministerial regulation.

(Limerick West): Are these regulations laid down under the convention we signed in 1978?

I understand the dimensions are not laid down for obvious reasons but once the convention applies throughout the Community states we will have our legislation ready.

(Limerick West): Is the Minister saying the regulations, specifications and dimensions will be uniform throughout the member states who have signed the convention?

I understand that is the overall ambition but it may not come for some time. As the Deputy knows, it is difficult to regularise such items between one country and another.

(Limerick West): I am concerned that the regulations adopted in other countries who have signed the convention may not be suitable here. What voice will we have with regard to the overall regulations?

Because of our law it is possible for the Minister to make regulations and I assume they will suit the needs of our country at that time.

(Limerick West): If we are to have uniform regulations they may not be suitable to our needs of this country.

One could argue that but as the Minister of the day may make regulations here that will give us the safeguard they will be tailor-made to our requirements.

(Limerick West): May I take it that if there are uniform regulations laid down for all countries parties to the convention, we will have some say in their implementation?

Yes, I can assure the Deputy of that.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): This is far-reaching because it deals not only with the inspection of animals but also with the inspection of equipment. The subsection provides:

(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,

I hope that if there is a breakdown of equipment, which can happen, as the Minister knows well, the person in charge would not be deemed to be committing an offence, in other words, that a lenient approach would be adopted. The statement on top of page four also seems to be fairly vague. I take it the animals referred to are those that would be kept in intensive units. The section is vague because paragraph (a) of subsection (4), states that animals must be inspected at least once per day. Does that mean that there would have to be daily inspections of such animals as sheep kept in open areas?

The overall idea behind the section will be understood by the four farmers now in the Chamber. As we understand, every farmer, from the point of view of good husbandry, will look after his stock.

After Brussels we will all give up farming. If we had sent the Minister of State there we might have had a chance.

This is to provide against the farmer or owner, for some strange, unknown reason, blackguarding his stock. Deputy Noonan is right that there would not be need to provide for daily inspection of animals not housed. Of course all farmers who are owners of cattle and sheep would look after them. The law would be lenient in this respect and the provision here is not a slight on farmers but to ensure that a small minority will not inflict suffering on livestock. It is required by convention.

How will we look after our hares every day? Where is Deputy Shatter today?

(Limerick West): Will these periodic inspections by officers of the Department mean increased staff?

Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): The intensive units, the type of units, the amount of space and area will all be laid down in regulations in due course.

Who will draft the regulations?

For obvious reasons, it is the domain of the Minister of the day. The veterinary and other sections in the Department have a very good idea of the environment in which animals do well.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): This relates to the keeping of records, and I am concerned because farmers have had to keep many records without keeping unnecessary ones and I believe the records provided for here are unnecessary. Surely if equipment breaks down it is the farmer's obligation to ensure that the defect will be remedied. The Bill provides that records must be kept for two months during which they must be available for inspection by an authorised person.

There is some basis for the Deputy's argument about keeping accounts. Some farmers are notoriously bad at that kind of thing — they want to get on with their farming. The spirit of the section is to provide against cases of animal hardship. If records were not kept an authorised person would have great difficulty in ascertaining what had happened before he got there. We could have cases in intensive units, such as the pig industry, where simple charts are kept in the animals' pens giving details of rations and so forth. I assume that what is involved here is, for example, a diagram, just a matter of ticking off a date indicating that the animals were looked at on that date. We are looking for no more than that.

Would a simple seven-day diary be sufficient to keep the record?

Would that be written in to the legislation?

No, because the records could be kept in many other ways. It is along the general line that the owner or manager of the animals when questioned would be able to say that he had already carried out the inspection on a date and he would show records that would prove it.

In an intensive pig unit I take it that a yearly diary would be kept and particulars filled into it every day relating to the pigs.

Would that be sufficient?

Yes, in the sense that it would be obvious to anyone who came to inspect that those animals were looked at not alone once a day but maybe twice a day.

Would the Minister agree that at this stage we are beginning to over-play into the hands of the do-gooders? Farmers are very good at husbandry. The Minister would agree on that and I would like to hear him admit it now. Farmers were never great people for keeping accounts but they had a fair idea at the end of the day which project was paying and which was not paying. We do not want to get farmers bogged down in paper work and if we make this provision that is precisely what will happen. The place for the farmer is out in the field doing the job he is supposed to do. We are going a bit too far. We are going to the extreme.

It is hard enough to argue with what Deputy Byrne says.

The Minister agrees with me because he is a farmer and he knows that I am right. I tell him not to let these bookkeepers bog him down.

(Interruptions.)

The problem with this is that we are legislating for only the very small minority of people who will do wrong.

But this will apply to everybody.

It will, but——

The Minister is going to kill the good farmers.

No, it is a simple record which will cause no trouble at all.

We have heard that before.

It will not be relevant in that the farmers will be doing the thing anyway. I cannot see any problems in this. I must agree with what Deputy Byrne says in the sense that we would not want to tie people down to things that would take a great deal of time which they would not have, but I have studied this and I think there is nothing in it but goodwill and a desire to cut out the small amount of hardship that some animals must endure. It is small, but it is important that we make this provision, and the way we are doing it would appear to be very sensible.

I hope that I will not have to quote from the Official Report to the Minister. I hope that what he is saying now will show in action.

(Limerick West): Surely section 7 is going a little bit too far when it states:

... shall make or cause to be made in relation to the inspection a record in writing and such record shall contain the following particulars, namely, the date of the inspection, the name of the person carrying out the inspection, the condition of the animals inspected, particulars of any defect in such unit which was discovered as a result of the inspection, particulars of any steps taken to remedy such defect and such other particulars as may be prescribed.

Surely that is ridiculous. It is going to the extreme in regard to particulars of how the defect was remedied. Surely it is sufficient for the authorised person to know that the defect was remedied. How it was done is none of his business.

My understanding of this section is that the five aspects and items would have to be referred to on the occasion of the visit by the officer in charge. The date of the visit, for instance, would not apply if he did not visit the place. Most of those things would be only an account of what the authorised officer sees on the premises.

(Limerick West): No, the person inspecting the animals must keep this record and he must retain the record for two months.

If you take a very small calendar or any other type of record it is easy to mark off the date on which those animals were inspected. The Deputy is aware that the number of breakdowns on any farm with all the modern machinery would be very small. I cannot see any problem on that.

(Limerick West): This would be done daily, a daily record must be kept.

As I mentioned, all that we hoped for and all that is envisaged is that the farmer in question looks after the pigs or other animals under his control. That is all it amounts to. I can see no problem with this. The only time there would be a problem would be if it was brought to the notice of the authorised officer that a certain owner of animals was misusing those animals to any degree. Then, for obvious reasons, at least we would have the law to find out what was happening. I am sure no officer will walk on to the farms of the vast majority of Irish farmers.

(Limerick West): But an officer could do so.

You will have to eliminate this by putting a pub in the pighouse or something like that.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): Section 8 deals with the inspection. It states:

(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,

to examine or test the animals. I would like to know from the Minister under what circumstances it would be necessary for the inspector to take a sample of any fluid or liquid which he believes to be used to feed animals to which this Bill applies.

That is for greyhounds.

The reason that comes immediately to my mind why a member of the Garda Síochána would want to take a sample is, for instance any danger of a poison being put into animal feedstuff for any reason. That is my understanding of the section. He would be empowered to go to the farmer's out- offices and take samples in that way.

(Limerick West): With regard to the authorised person, the Bill states at 8 (2) (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.

Are those powers no greater than under any other relevant Act?

No. I am informed that they are not any greater than, for instance, under the disease eradication Acts. They would be parallel powers.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): Would the Minister please outline in detail subsections 2, 3 and 4 under section 9?

Firstly, if for any reason hardship has been created for animals and if, in the opinion of the garda or the authorised officer of the Department, the person has not a reasonable excuse for not having available the proper record already mentioned, he would be liable to prosecution. The fines envisaged here do not exceed £500. As we are all aware, that is the maximum fine and the judge would have discretion to impose a much less fine.

(Limerick West): Of course, he could also impose the maximum penalty.

Of course, he could.

When we start talking about courts, it goes to show how farcical this whole business is. The Minister, being a farmer, would have to agree with me on this. I ask him to repeat his assurance to me that a diary will not have to be kept of the activities of every animal every hour of every day. That would be the height of nonsense. With mention being made of farmers going to court and of gardaí coming on to the land, that appears to be what is necessary. Exactly what level of information must be provided by a farmer to such an officer coming on to the land?

The Deputy is over-dramatising the whole thing.

The Minister talked about the farmer going to court and facing a fine of £500. If that is not dramatic, I do not know what is.

The Deputy is speaking as if there would be a back-up from the Army.

We did not talk about bringing in the guards, the Minister did.

That is not envisaged at all. The date of inspection would be given and all the other requisite information mentioned in a previous section. That is all that is involved. We are not talking about individual animals; we are talking about the control of a unit. One could not enforce anything like that — it would be farcical. We are talking here about the overall control and management at which everybody, it is hoped, is quite good. This legislation is aimed at the minority who, for one reason or another, cause distress and suffering to animals. That is what we are trying to stamp out.

Is it the intention of the Minister for Agriculture to increase the number of gardaí to deal specifically with this type of case?

The Deputy is becoming frivolous now. That is not envisaged.

So they are going to be dealt with by the numbers already existing?

Is it envisaged that this Act would cover the areas of meat and pig factories and cattle marts?

No, it is not. There are separate regulations for these.

The poor old farmer is getting the works again.

The Deputy will be glad to know that there is a very sensible arrangement there.

That will be something new from Government side.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): Under this section has the farmer any independent source for inspection or analysis of a sample? Will he have to depend on the State analysis and accept the outcome there?

Yes, of course. In the normal course of events, and certainly under this section he would have access to whatever professional advice he wanted vis-à-vis chemical tests or analysis. There would be no problem from the farmer's point of view. There could not be, because that would be his individual right.

(Limerick West): Would it be a question, then, of his case going for independent arbitration?

No, it would have to go to court, to be fought out on the floor of the court.

Who will be dealing with the samples and taking the decision as to the condition of the samples?

It would be the State Chemist. A parallel case would be a difference of opinion with regard to pollution. Such cases are fought in the courts on several occasions every year. There would not be any difference between the two cases.

Would the farmer have the right to independent tests, say through the IIRS?

If he could so organise it, he would.

Who will be authorised to take such a sample from an animal?

The inspector who calls.

And, where it is necessary, to take a blood sample?

The guards.

It would be the veterinary inspector, In section 8, I understand, he could be given this authority as well.

In what circumstances does the Minister envisage these samples being taken? What dangers is he trying to avoid?

I am not a veterinary surgeon, but there are many blood or other diseases which can be defined by a blood sample. Because of that all eventualities would have to be considered.

Why are these samples being taken?

It is hard enough to get one but ——

You cannot build a house on fiction.

There is no fiction.

It is all fiction and the Minister knows it.

As Deputies are aware, certain animal diseases can be traced back to a blood problem and to prove a particular animal was suffering from a certain disease it would be necessary to take a blood sample. Therefore, this would have to be included in the Bill.

The Minister seems to be confused because earlier he said it might be necessary to take blood samples because of poisonous substances in food.

That is true.

I would like to have that point clarified.

It is not possible to legislate for all eventualities. All we can do in a Bill like this is to encompass in an umbrella fashion all the things that are likely to happen. After that we deal with each matter by way of regulation.

(Limerick West): Section 10 (2) (a) reads:

The Minister may by an instrument in writing appoint a person to issue certificates for the purposes of this Act.

In what eventuality can the Minister see this happening? The phrase the Minister "may appoint" puzzles me.

If it was felt necessary that the State Chemist or others under his jurisdication should take a sample, they would get authorisation from the Minister.

(Limerick West): They already have the power to do it. Why is it necessary that the Minister may by an instrument in writing appoint a person?

We might be talking about an expert from outside the State.

(Limerick West): This eventuality could occur if there was a serious problem?

Yes, that is true.

The State Chemist would need to be an Olympic runner to take a sample from Deputy Shatter's hare.

I hope they do not end up in Wexford.

(Limerick West): Section 10 (2) (b) says:

An appointment under this section shall remain in force until it is withdrawn by the Minister by an instrument in writing.

Is this the same appointment?

(Limerick West): This appointment would be made in exceptional circumstances?

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): Under this section every regulation made by the Minister will be laid before either House of the Oireachtas for 21 days before it is passed and Members of both Houses will have an opportunity to discuss it.

That is correct.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

(Limerick West): I am glad the expenses incurred will be met by the Department of Finance rather than the farmers.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.
Top
Share