Amendment Nos. 44 and No. 45 are being discussed together.
Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage
Debate resumed on amendment No. 44:
In page 56, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(iv) feral cat populations,
(v) animals sold as pets,
(vi) canines used for breeding purposes.”.
- (Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan).
For the record, the idea behind amendment No. 44 came up on Committee Stage, at which time I pointed out that such a tracing system can already apply to any animal. Therefore, adding these specific examples is unnecessary and may serve to confuse matters rather than improve them. The amendments I am making on microchipping of dogs show my commitment to the issue of appropriate and beneficial animal tracing systems. As worded, this section allows any animal to be subject to a system of tracing and, accordingly, it does not need to be amended. If I accepted this amendment, it might be read as meaning that only dogs kept for breeding could be subject to a tracing system, whereas my intention is that microchipping for dogs will be extended to all.
With regard to amendment No. 45, a census requires all animal owners to provide details of the animals they own. As feral cats are those which, by definition, have no owner, this amendment is inappropriate. I am tabling an amendment to Part 11. As currently drafted, if a person does not comply with an animal census, he or she is guilty of a lower, class B, offence. The proposed amendment will make it clear that persons have a period of time within which to make a return. This eliminates the possibility they could be deemed to be in default as soon as the census goes out.
I wish to make a broader comment on these amendments and also on the microchipping of dogs, which has received quite a lot of coverage today. There has been some exaggeration in the media about the cost. This is unfortunate and was, I think, done in an effort to create a headline rather than to report factually what was said yesterday. What I am going to do in time is to introduce a regulation, after a full consultation process, which will require that by a certain date in the future all dogs in Ireland will be microchipped, regardless of their age, who owns them or whether they are working dogs, so that we have a clear picture of the dog population in this country, who owns them and where they are. I believe that is good practice from a management and welfare point of view in terms of rehoming, abandonment and so on. In my view it should have happened many years ago, but it is going to happen now. We will ensure, through that consultation process, that dog owners can do this in a way that is as affordable as possible. I would hope, although I cannot confirm it at this stage because the consultation has not begun, that we will get a very positive response from vets in agreeing to insert microchips as cheaply as possible, and we will certainly get a positive response from animal welfare groups. I hope the vets will do it for cost price, which would certainly mean people would be paying less than €10 to have their animals microchipped. The suggestion that it will be €50 or more per animal, at a time when people are already strapped for cash and in difficulty, is an exaggeration made to try to create a headline. I think it is wrong and that it will be proven to be wrong when we move through the consultation process.
This is a positive animal welfare measure. People should welcome it and I believe the vast majority of dog owners in Ireland will welcome it as a measure to ensure that animals are not being abused or abandoned easily. There is a responsibility that goes with owning an animal. That responsibility, in my view, is enforced and enhanced by having proper animal identification and a national database. We can now do that with modern technology, and dogs are the obvious place to start. We will also be doing something similar with horses, but that is perhaps for another debate. We will be talking about this in committee in the coming months, given that more than just microchipping will be required in the cases of horses as they enter the human food chain. In any case, we have been through that debate.
On the issue of feral cats, we need to be realistic in terms of what is possible. It is not appropriate to specifically name a certain category of animal in this section, so I do not propose to accept amendment No. 44 or 45, but I hope colleagues will accept my amendment, No. 46.
I encourage people who are interested in this area to read the code of practice that we have had in place for some time. As I said yesterday, we have increased funding to animal welfare organisations and we may need to continue to increase funding if the problem continues. I know there is a particular issue at present in regard to horse welfare, particularly with regard to the amount of space in the horse sanctuaries that are being provided by the ISPCA and others. This is a problem to which we need to figure out an answer. However, it is important that we have now linked the funding of welfare organisations and their set-up to their adherence to a code of practice that introduces international best practice based on the five freedoms and other items such as a track, neuter and return programme for feral cats, a neutering and spaying programme for dogs and cats and a rehoming programme for dogs. In other words, we are ensuring best practice and a common standard across all of these bodies. Most of these bodies are run by people who are absolutely well-meaning, and some of them have mortgaged their own homes to look after animals. We are trying to give some funding to support that activity, but we also want to ensure they do not take on more than they can handle in terms of welfare and also that they abide by what I would regard as international best practice in terms of ensuring the welfare of the animals they are looking after. Even though these bodies are rescue centres, there can sometimes be welfare issues linked to them. I hope that deals with some of the issues raised yesterday.
I agree with the Minister. I was slightly shocked this morning to listen to a radio interview on "Morning Ireland" in which the headline was about the cost of such services. There was then an interview with someone from an animal welfare organisation who welcomed what the Minister is doing in regard to microchipping.
The Minister's approach is right. Microchipping is a very good idea and I fully support him in this regard. It is important, as the Minister pointed out, to make sure this is done as cheaply as possible and that an arrangement can be arrived at with the veterinary services to do this. I am sure goodwill will be shown to the Minister. In the event that people cannot afford it, I am sure groups such as the Irish Blue Cross, with some assistance, could ensure the service is available for people who are genuinely less well-off.
If we compare the cost of keeping and feeding a dog with the one-off cost of microchipping it, the benefits far outweigh the cost.
Will there be a central register? If a dog is microchipped, one can say one knows who the owner is, but one only knows this if there is a record. In what way will that operate? Dog licences are, apparently, only purchased by 13% of the population. A law observed in the breach is not a good law. Is consideration being given to abolishing the dog licence when microchipping is introduced? According to the figures, only 13% of the population have a dog licence. I do not think a law that operates on that basis is a good one. If one was suddenly to make the figure 100% tomorrow and accompany it with microchipping, one might meet resistance. Perhaps the matter should be considered.
Is there such a thing as a feral cat in the context of the Bill? Can anybody presume a cat is feral? By not specifying feral cats, do we effectively treat all cats equally? I ask this question because there is a concern that animal and vermin extermination companies are putting down feral cats, but there is no clear way to identify whether a cat is feral. I am curious about the legal advice the Minister received on this issue. If one makes feral cats a specific subgroup, will one weaken the protection of feral cats in respect of extermination companies? Will one end up defining them and saying they can be treated differently from other cats? The only upside to having a definition is the introduction of a policy of trapping, neutering and releasing, an issue which is worthy of debate and needs further examination. I seek clarification of what would happen if we were to introduce a definition at this late stage. Would we create unintended consequences that would have the opposite effect to that which we desire? I know people are concerned that extermination companies are being hired and seem to have a free hand. I do not know how they determine one cat is different from another in a scientific way.
I also agree with the Minister's and Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's argument regarding how following a three hour debate yesterday, the media chose to focus on one item and got it so wrong. I was here yesterday and heard what the Minister said about microchipping and his efforts to ensure this would be done at minimal cost. Like Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, I was shocked this morning to find that this was the one item that had come up, which was very disappointing. I also acknowledge what the Minister said about the tremendous work done by welfare organisations, of which there are many, and the funding they received. I am glad to hear this funding will continue. Many individuals have done Trojan work in looking after animals that have been abandoned and neglected.
There is no doubt that there is a problem with feral cats which must be addressed in some way. Many of these so-called feral cats are linked with the domestic cat population because of overbreeding and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between them because if a domestic cat has been out roaming for a short while, it can have the look of a feral cat. People have told me that domestic cats were taken and exterminated by pest control companies before their owners had had a chance to get them back. The point I was making yesterday about pest control companies was that they were not animal welfare organisations and should not have any role in dealing with cats. The simple way to deal with feral cats and the overbreeding of cats is to use the trap, neuter and return approach. We are talking about greater regulation which I would like to see included, perhaps not legally, but there is a need to look at this issue more thoroughly.
Again, it is important to support the points being made about the media coverage of the debate yesterday and the misrepresentation of what we are trying to deal with. It is yet another example of the very poor quality of media we have in this country. We had a debate on very substantial legislation dealing with animal health and welfare. While we might be among the Minister's biggest critics, it does not take away from the fact that many of the measures included in the Bill will improve animal welfare beyond anything we have seen before. The media singled out one very important issue in respect of a very important part of the animal population because citizens love their dogs. Many people already microchip their dogs and pay big money for them. As Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív noted, they pay a considerable amount of money to keep them. It is incredible that a protection measure for their benefit would be misrepresented in that way. It is also incredible that the media did not bother to address the significant omissions from the Bill, including - the key source of disappointment for most Irish people - measures to deal with fox hunting and hare coursing.
The Minister is providing for the microchipping of all dogs, which is great. I note the point he has made that this will be a gradual move, not happen overnight and be done in a way that will minimise the cost to home owners. The problem is that cats are not treated in that way. It is not that the amendment is making a distinction between domestic and feral cats, as the legislation does this. That is the problem because it classes cats that are not owned as vermin. In that sense, they do not have protection under the Bill and pest control companies can legally trap and kill them. The legislation protects owned cats, but, as Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan noted, one cannot distinguish between the two as they wander. While there is a code of practice in place, the problem is having that code implemented. I know the Minister increased the funding, but there is a significant number of groups that do much work through voluntarism and which need much more than what has been provided, particularly against a backdrop of austerity where animal welfare issues are more to the fore.
The issue of feral cats is not straightforward because there are many cats that are effectively wild animals. They do not have owners and live and breed in the wild. However, that does not mean we do not have a responsibility towards them. They are not classified as protected animals in the Bill, but section 12 which prohibits animal cruelty applies to wild animals, as well as to protected animals. Of course, there are extra legal obligations on the owners of protected animals, many of which we have discussed. However, there are also strong protections in the Bill for wild animals in terms of prohibiting cruelty and people's responsibility towards wild animals. That applies to feral cats in terms of how they can be trapped. Let us be clear that they are not considered to be vermin. They are considered to be wild animals in terms of the legal classifications outlined in the Bill. That poses problems because anyone who knows rural Ireland as well as most Deputies knows that there are many farmyards on which essentially there are semi-wild cats breeding in an uncontrolled fashion in a barn or sheds. As a result, there are far more kittens than one would otherwise want and semi-domestic and semi-wild cats roaming around the place. When one has suburban populations at the edges of the countryside, these cats find their way into an urban environment and there is then an issue around reporting feral cats and problems linked with them.
I am not sure how we can deal with that issue by legislative means. Obviously we cannot call for the microchipping of all wild cats in the country as well as domesticated cats as this would be impossible. We need to be practical. However, we may need to be more proactive such as involving local authorities and community organisations in the catch-neuter-release programmes. The Department already provides funding support for that activity but we may need to do more. If I were to attempt to legislate on the subject of feral cats, I would create more problems than I would solve. We need to adopt a pragmatic response such as supporting welfare organisations and local authorities. I would like to be informed if it is the case that companies are being hired to undertake pest control and are putting down large numbers of cats inappropriately. The Department would follow up on any such reports.
Without labouring the point, I refer to an issue raised in Galway and in other places. A pest control company was hired to exterminate cats. It was alleged this was to do with the hospital in Galway. The Minister has put it very well. There are three classes of cat. A fully domesticated cat lives in the house; the second class of cat is attached to a premises but fends for itself quite a bit; the third class is the completely wild cat. The challenge is that if the legislative route is chosen it will be a case of how to define the three classes of cat and then how will the cats be identified in practice. There are two options. Pest control is not the way to deal with feral cats. Legislation is not always the answer to a problem; a non-legislative programme to deal with the issue by means of welfare bodies may be preferable. Ensuring that the codes of practice stipulate that feral cats cannot be treated as vermin and that this rule is implemented, would give better results. Once the Bill is passed - I know the Department has a large work programme - I ask that in the second half of this year the Minister would come to the committee with proposals on how a programme might be put in place to deal with the feral cat issue in a positive way. In my view, schemes and programmes and working with animal welfare organisations and ensuring that it is not viewed as vermin control would produce the same result in a slightly different way, one that avoids impossible legal definitions and the impossible interpretation - which is the big problem - of the legal definition. It is very difficult to be absolutely certain of the status of a captured cat. Is a record maintained other than on the micro-chip?
I will answer that question. There is a touch of Animal Farm about this discussion, in that some cats are more equal than others. I take the Deputy's point. I do not wish to make too many promises in this regard but I will come back to the committee in the autumn with some proposed initiatives.
I will clarify what I propose to do with regard to the micro-chipping of dogs. We want every dog in the country micro-chipped and those micro-chips to contribute to a national register, just as we will need for horses. This will allow me to answer the question of the number of dogs in the country, their owners and their locations.
Will this obviate the need for a dog licence?
It may. The current situation is unsatisfactory. The dog licensing system is only taken seriously in part by dog-owners. People who wish to be fully compliant with the law will pay for a dog licence but others do not regard a dog licence as a serious matter. We need a much clearer system which obliges compliance by all dog-owners and which uses modern scanning technology to provide full information on the dog. The technology is available. Other countries are pressing ahead with this system and we should get on with it. However, it should be affordable. Some of the welfare organisations have already offered to provide micro-chipping for those owners who may have a difficulty with the cost. There will be options for those owners and these can be worked out during the consultation process.
Does the proposer of the amendment wish to respond?
As the Minister said, feral cats are not vermin so there is no role for pest control companies in dealing with feral cats. Like Deputy Ó Cuív I am getting calls from people about the activities of these pest control companies. There are good indications that where the trap-neuter-release system is put into practice, it has a very positive effect on the number of feral cats in an area. ISPCA and Done Deal are helping communities - I mentioned Cape Clear yesterday - to cope with this problem by using the trap-neuter-release system.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 57, line 25, after “description” to insert “including feral animals”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 57, to delete line 40 and substitute the following:
“within such period, being not less than 14 days, specified in the notice from the service of the notice and in such manner as specified in the notice.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 47 to 49, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 63, line 5, after “7,” to insert “9,”.
Most of the remaining amendments are technical amendments. Unless Deputies wish to ask questions I will deal with them quickly. These amendments are minor and technical in nature to clarify that organisations with which the Minister enters into a service agreement are not permitted to make regulations but that they may operate or enforce regulations made by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 63, line 5, after “26(2),” to insert “36(1) regarding the making of regulations,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 63, line 6, to delete “, 7”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 50 to 52, inclusive, have been discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 64, after line 29, to insert the following:
77.—The Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 is amended, in section 17(b), by the insertion after “Act of 1986” of “or regulations made under section 36 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 64, after line 29, to insert the following:
78.—The Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 is amended—
(a) in section 12(7)(b), by substituting for subparagraph (iii) the following:
“(iii) Part 2 or 3 or regulations made under section 36 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013,”,
and
(b) in section 15(8)—
(i) in paragraph (a), by substituting for subparagraph (iii) the following:
“(iii) an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 relating to a contravention of Part 2 or 3 or regulations made under section 36 of that Act,”,
and
(ii) in paragraph (b), by substituting for subparagraph (iii) the following:
“(iii) an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 relating to a contravention of Part 2 or 3 or
regulations made under section 36 of that Act,”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 66, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"
|
No. 32 of 1986 |
Control of Dogs Act 1986 |
Sections 20, 24 and 29 |
"
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 74, to delete lines 11 to 14, and substitute the following:
“37. The provision of controls either generally or in relation to a particular area in respect of animal populations for the purposes of promoting, maintaining or improving animal health and welfare, including—”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 54 arises out of committee proceedings.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 74, lines 38 and 39, to delete “paragraph 39” and substitute “paragraph 40”.
This is a technical amendment to correct a cross-reference after an earlier amendment. I do not know why it was not grouped with that earlier amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 55 to 57, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 77, to delete lines 12 to 14.
These are technical amendments to update the list of legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 77, between lines 28 and 29 to insert the following:
“
|
40. |
Brucellosis in Cattle (General Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2007 (S.I. No. 666 of 2007) |
"
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 77, after line 57, to insert the following:
"
|
54. Brucellosis in Cattle (General Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2012 (S.I. No.554 of 2012) |
|
55. Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2012 (S.I. No. 555 of 2012) |
"
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister for the very patient way he has dealt with the Bill and his willingness to accept amendments from the Opposition. I hope the Bill is a better Bill because we have gone through the full legislative programme. I compliment him on not succumbing to the temptation that must have been there yesterday, as we come to the end of the term, to guillotine the Bill and push it through. I compliment him on allowing every Deputy a full opportunity to make what, in my view, were important contributions on issues of public debate.
By extending the debate, which is not to say that it took a huge length of time, the Minister added greatly to the sense of public buy-in to the legislation. I hope we see the regulations coming forward soon. I look forward to the various issues the Minister has mentioned coming before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the full implementation of very important provisions to protect animal health and welfare in a way they have not been protected up to now. We will deal through regulations with what some Deputies feel are outstanding animal welfare issues to ensure that cruel practices are not allowed.
I associate myself with Deputy Ó Cuív's remarks on the Minister's handling of the debate. He took several amendments on board. It is a good Bill, not least because the debate was conducted in the proper way. I thank the Minister.
Thank you.
I am disappointed on the big issues of blood sports, in particular hare coursing, the cruel practice of digging out foxes, the use of traps in badger culling and fur farms. However, I acknowledge the Minister's patience and the way in which he has co-operated and, with his staff, been available to discuss the issues with Deputy Clare Daly and I. It was a very good exercise and was conducted in a dignified way that did justice to the animals we are all very concerned about.
I lay down the marker that we will discuss blood sports again. We are not giving up on that one. I thank the Minister for what he has done for animal welfare. The legislation goes further than any previous provisions.
I record my compliments to the Minister also. Animal protection and welfare are more important than ever against the backdrop of evidence of a rise in cruelty and abandonment on foot of economic issues and general austerity. Protection is required to a greater extent than ever. Undoubtedly, there are significant gaps in the existing provisions. Given that we are catching up through many welcome provisions in the Bill, the lack of certain protections and the continuation of blood sports, including hare coursing, and the digging out of foxes are even more abhorrent. Those are issues we will focus on very shortly.
The way the Minister has handled the passage of the Bill has been excellent. Hours of debate have gone into the legislation over months. Substantial changes have been introduced and all of us have developed our understanding of the issues through the dialogue that has been engaged in. I agree with many of the points made by the Minister who said that legislation is not the vehicle for many issues to be addressed. The proof of the pudding will be in the implementation of codes of practice, the resources provided and the engagement with citizens to raise consciousness on these issues to advance matters for animals. While some of us have, as we showed yesterday, very little experience of moving legislation, the passage of the Bill has been the most participative legislative process I have seen in my time in the House, which is great. It is a testament to the efforts of the Minister.
I thank the Deputies for participating. There has been genuine engagement. I decided to initiate the Bill in the Seanad, where there was also a really good debate. The Bill has taken a great deal of time to process, but that has been a good thing. The approach has not been party political, which is how legislation which is not really about ideology, with the exception, I accept, of what for some are blood sports and for others rural pursuits, should be progressed. While we have not gone as far as some would like on that issue, we have gone some distance in the right direction to address the concerns of Deputies Clare Daly and Maureen O'Sullivan through regulations and provisions on legal action to require that standards are met in the digging out of foxes or fur farming.
I did not get a chance to address issues relating to badgers yesterday. I hope to move to a vaccination programme for badgers when I see that we can make that move without undermining our work on TB. Sometimes one has to make decisions that have animal welfare consequences in both directions. We do not want to see the incidence of TB increasing in Ireland again and must take the appropriate action to ensure that does not happen while limiting any impact on animal welfare. For that reason, we addressed in detail on Committee Stage the manner in which badgers are caught and put down in the targeted programme.
I thank my officials who have put a great deal of work into the Bill. The process began under the last Government, which it is important to recognise. It was a Bill I wanted to prioritise when I was given the opportunity to be a Minister. I feel very strongly about the issue. Deputy Clare Daly or Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan mentioned yesterday that a country could be judged by how it treats its animals because they do not necessarily bite back. That is true. The legislation is long overdue. It is ridiculous that we have had to respond to extreme cruelty and welfare issues with legislation that dates back almost 100 years. I was shocked, but not surprised, only last week when someone came to my office to report extreme issues related to the welfare of horses in Cork City. I sent veterinarians from my Department to investigate immediately and they attended with gardaí where they found a field in which there were the carcasses of three horses that had recently died. A further nine horses in the field were dying and there was a newly born foal. All of the animals had to be put down due to their condition. That is totally unacceptable. The Bill will deal with this type of issue.
In time, the regulations we introduce will see the introduction of microchips for horses and dogs which will allow us to ensure that severe instances of animal abuse or welfare issues can be dealt with through the rigours of the law. That is what we should be doing as we should with dog fighting or where people are unable or unwilling to accept their responsibility for looking after animals. A series of benchmarking regulations are provided for in the legislation as is the creation of a set of tools for gardaí, authorised officers and animal welfare organisations which will allow them to act in a fair, balanced and practical way to address welfare and cruelty issues in rural and urban environments. Everybody who has contributed to the debate has, therefore, done a good day's work. They have put in many hours over a prolonged period. I hope we can make the Bill law and that I can get on to bring the debate to committee to set the parameters and agree the specifics of the series of regulations and codes of conduct we intend to introduce.
I thank Deputies for their co-operation and seriousness and look forward to their support in making the legislation work.
We all thank the Minister's staff. They have been magnificent and very helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
The Bill, which is deemed by virtue of Article 20.2.2° of the Constitution to be a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann, will now be sent to the Seanad.
End of Take