JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2006

Animal Welfare Issues: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Mark Beazley, general manager of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Ms Mary-Anne Bartlett, director of Compassion in World Farming Ireland, to discuss animal welfare issues. I understand Mr. Beazley will make his presentation followed by Ms Bartlett.

Before we commence, I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to them. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such as way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on Mr. Beazley to make his presentation.

Mr. Mark Beazley

On behalf of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, I thank the members of the joint committee for this opportunity to bring to their attention the society's view on animal welfare issues in the State. For the past 50 years, the ISPCA has worked locally and nationally rescuing, rehabilitating and rehoming cruelly treated animals.

The society is the umbrella organisation for 22 affiliated local animal welfare organisations and as such provides training and support to a dedicated and committed core of volunteers. The society is also represented internationally through our active membership of both Eurogroup for Animal Welfare and the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

Up to Friday of last week, the dedicated ISPCA animal helpline had received a total of 1,350 calls relating to incidents of cruelty or neglect of animals in 2006. These calls required follow-up visits and in many cases they resulted in our inspectors uncovering acts of severe cruelty and neglect.

Of serious concern to the ISPCA is the perception of the general public that the society is a State or semi-State organisation. In fact, the ISPCA is a charity and relies overwhelmingly on fundraising and donations to fund its core activities. This misconception can often lead to frustration as the public's expectations of our resources and capabilities are often far higher than the reality. The ISPCA received a grant of €50,000 for 2006 from the Department of Agriculture and Food for which we are extremely grateful.

The ISPCA has four full-time animal welfare inspectors. These inspectors respond to allegations of cruelty and reports of sick and injured animals in a total of 13 counties. The remaining counties are covered by volunteers from organisations affiliated to the ISPCA. Clearly, the number of officers we have available is not sufficient to adequately cover such large areas but we are unable to expand our inspectorate due to a lack of resources. To provide a minimum level of service across 26 counties we anticipate we would need to employ a further three inspectors.

The ISPCA inspectorate also provides advice, support and training for our network of affiliated member societies which operate in areas where we are unable to provide personnel. To ensure reports and queries from members of the public are disseminated appropriately, the ISPCA established a national animal helpline at our head office in Keenagh, County Longford.

The presentation document distributed to members contains a breakdown of complaints received and logged by our call centre from January 2006 to date. It shows the number of calls received per county and the type of animals to which they related. These figures refer to calls to the helpline deemed to require action and therefore were logged. They do not include the many general inquiries received by the helpline and at the National Animal Centre reception each day.

These figures illustrate the variety of complaints passed to ISPCA personnel. Although more calls are received regarding dogs than any other group of animals, complaints about dogs represent less than 50% of reports actioned. Of the 1,350 calls logged, 1,110 were passed to the four members of the ISPCA inspectorate while the remaining 240 were referred to other agencies and organisations. The helpline operates during office hours and deals with myriad inquiries. The details of calls regarding injured, neglected or cruelly treated animals are recorded, logged and passed to relevant people, agencies and organisations throughout the country. Our inspectors respond to calls concerning all sorts of animals, from dogs and cats to circus animals such as elephants and monkeys; and from horses, cattle and sheep to wildlife, stray snakes and exotic animals in pet shops.

The inspectorate is involved in several initiatives with other agencies in order to ensure that animal welfare problems are tackled promptly and effectively. All of our officers have been involved in some way with the Department of Agriculture and Food, the IFA and ISPCA collaborative early warning farm animal welfare cases. The main aim of this scheme is to ensure that when a welfare case arises on a farm, the animals involved get whatever care is needed to alleviate their suffering as quickly as possible. ISPCA representatives are involved in the system in five counties and have liaised closely with the other agencies involved. The scheme has been viewed as a positive development by our inspectors.

A formal system of co-operation between the Garda Síochána, the ISPCA, the parks and wildlife service, the dog warden service and other interested parties has been operating in County Donegal for some time. This initiative was instigated by the ISPCA inspector in that area and has been very successful. One element of this approach is the appointment of a designated Garda animal welfare liaison officer within each Garda district. This Garda is the point of contact, when possible, for any animal-related incidents within the district.

The ISPCA animal welfare inspectorate provides an extremely valuable service around the country. Our operations assist animals, members of the public and statutory bodies. ISPCA inspectors often filter and dilute the work of the Garda and other enforcement agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture and Food, by initially investigating allegations of breaches of legislation and determining whether the involvement of other agencies is required. On most occasions our officers find solutions to problems by working with the owners of the animals involved.

The ISPCA National Animal Centre was established to rehabilitate and re-home animals that were cruelly treated, neglected or abused. The centre, which opened in 2002, is situated on 88 acres in an area of rural Longford. Nine full-time and four part-time members of staff, directly involved in animal welfare work, are employed at the centre making it an important employer in such an area. The centre is designed to provide veterinary care and rehabilitation for animals that have been subjected to cruelty or neglect, and to return them to a state that enables them to be responsibly re-homed in a suitable environment. We also run a weekly veterinary clinic, which provides a neutering and spaying service for members of the public and other animal welfare organisations.

The National Animal Centre is truly a centre for all animals and is capable of holding up to 50 canines, 50 felines and 15 equines. As with all animal welfare groups there is a constant demand for spaces but as the ISPCA, in conjunction with the Garda, deals with a larger amount of cruelty prosecution cases than other organisations, many animals have to be kept for long periods as a result of court proceedings. This places an increased financial burden on the society, which can be exacerbated by the fact that on conviction many offenders are not required by the courts to pay the costs sustained by the ISPCA.

The staff at the National Animal Centre are called upon to deal with animals that have been subjected to horrendous cruelty and neglect but through their dedication and commitment to animal welfare many of these unfortunate creatures are fully rehabilitated and re-homed in safe environments.

My colleague from Compassion in World Farming will address specific issues surrounding agricultural animals and therefore I will concentrate on other species. Animals such as equines and canines that are not strictly deemed agricultural are nevertheless to be found on farms the length and breadth of the country.

The ISPCA first became actively involved in inspecting large scale dog-breeding establishments approximately five years ago. Since that time the numbers of these establishments, and the numbers of dogs housed within them, have increased significantly. The ISPCA regularly receives calls from concerned members of the public regarding premises where dogs are being bred on a large scale, often referred to as "puppy farms". Upon receiving such a complaint the ISPCA is obliged to investigate any such allegations by inspecting the premises involved.

Although the conditions in some of these locations are found to be reasonable, we have also encountered establishments in which the conditions of the dogs, or their housing, have been found to be wholly inadequate. Many of the premises reported to us fall into a third category whereby, although the ISPCA may not consider the facilities to be suitable, it is powerless to act under the existing legislation.

It has become clear in recent years that many people have become involved in the breeding of large numbers of dogs without considering what is likely to be involved and assessing the facilities they have to offer. This problem is sometimes compounded by these people acquiring more dogs without first putting in place appropriate facilities. As a result we often encounter dogs being kept in completely unsuitable receptacles, such as cars.

Some of the problems commonly seen in intensive dog breeding establishments include poor housing, parasites and disease, dogs in poor physical condition and problems caused by over-breeding. It is unrealistic to expect the ISPCA, as a charity, to be responsible for the monitoring of what is a growing industry. We do not have the resources to continue that work. The cost to our society in dealing with one breeding establishment alone amounted to €25,000.

In May this year the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government announced his intention to implement the recommendations in the report of the working group which was set up to review the management of dog-breeding establishments. Since then the ISPCA has received no further notice of developments. As one of the organisations represented on the working group we regularly receive inquiries as to when statutorily enforceable standards for the dog-breeding industry in Ireland will be introduced.

Animal welfare charities such as the ISPCA continue to monitor conditions in dog-breeding establishments armed only with archaic and inadequate cruelty legislation dating back to 1911. While Ireland is widely regarded as the "puppy farming" capital of Europe we continue to destroy many stray and unwanted dogs in our pounds every year. In 2005 approximately 16,500 dogs were put down in Irish pounds, which is a shameful figure when compared with that of our near neighbours in Scotland who destroyed fewer than 800 dogs during the same period.

The ISPCA inspectorate responds to many complaints regarding equines. As a snapshot, between January and July this year 233 cruelty calls on equines came through our call centre. Our affiliated member societies and other animal welfare groups would have taken many more complaints during this time.

Most of the equines about which we receive complaints are pet ponies, Travellers' horses or a few horses kept on farms. Of particular concern to the ISPCA is the increasing trend for many old, barren and "broken-down" racehorses to end their days in the hands of unsuitable persons or unscrupulous horse dealers. This is because their owners fail to act responsibly by taking such animals for slaughter or disposing of them humanely at home. The ISPCA and many of its affiliates end up taking on the responsibility for the care or destruction of these equines, often at great financial and emotional cost. Tracing the owners of such horses is made even more difficult by the fact that change of ownership details are seldom furnished, thus undermining the microchip ID system. This is no way for the equine industry to neglect its responsibilities. Many of these problems are replicated within the greyhound industry.

Of the 233 equine cruelty calls received, 197 concerned a few equines or individual animals. A further 23 pertained to multiple animals, held by dealers or breeders and 13 related to equestrian centres, stud farms and other such industries. Most of the complaints to which our inspectors respond are dealt with by means of advice but we occasionally come across situations where equines have been caused severe pain and suffering.

The ISPCA has been involved in several recent successful prosecutions concerning equines. The animals involved were caused unnecessary suffering through malnutrition or lack of farrier or veterinary treatment. The document I have circulated provides a breakdown of the complaints received by our call centre in the January to July period showing the numbers received per county and the number of animals or type of business to which they relate.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Beazley for his presentation. I now invite Ms Bartlett to make her presentation.

Ms Mary-Anne Bartlett

I thank the committee for inviting Compassion in World Farming to address it. I am delighted to be here. Our organisation welcomes the recent improvements at EU level, for example sow stalls are due to be banned after 2013, battery cages will go in 2012 and in January the cruel veal crate system of rearing young calves will end. A new animal transport regulation will also come into force next year. We are aware producers argue that if the EU improves animal welfare standards they will have even more difficulty competing with cheap imports. In third countries, the cost of land is cheaper, labour is cheaper and so are animal feed costs. Even if their animal welfare standards were exactly the same as in the EU, their product would still be cheaper.

The way to address this issue, is for EU farmers to move to high quality production, of which good animal welfare would comprise an integral part. Commissioner Kyprianou stated high animal welfare standards can be seen as a marketing advantage rather than a burden. Ireland is in an ideal position to move in this direction in that we are an island so we can control what comes in and out, including disease control to some extent. We also have a relatively clean environment with good grass and plenty of water. We are ideally set up for moving to high quality production. That is our way forward. We will not be able to compete with imports on a cost basis only. That situation will not change in the foreseeable future.

We cannot afford to have serious problems if we are to promote ourselves as an animal welfare-friendly country. The biggest problem we have identified is fur farming. It is a very small industry in Ireland. There are six farms, with about 166,000 mink and 600 foxes. It is very inhumane. These animals are reared intensively. Though bred on farms, they are not like other farm animals. These mink and foxes are not domesticated animals. Essentially, they are wild. They fare particularly badly living in small barren cages and are unsuited to intensive farm conditions. Unlike cattle, sheep and poultry, which are herd and flock animals, mink and foxes in the wild have complex social behaviours but are basically solitary. It is very stressful for them to be forced to live in close proximity to so many other animals.

A report by the European Commission's scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare stated: "The typical mink cage impairs mink welfare because it does not provide for important needs", and "the typical fox cage does not provide for important needs of foxes". There are serious problems with the slaughter of these animals. Because they are essentially wild animals, it is difficult to get them out of their cages. They are very frightened of people and can be vicious in those circumstances. Handling of the animals prior to slaughter is difficult. A video produced by Respect for Animals, showed mink being gassed on an Irish farm. The animals were literally grabbed from their cages and stuffed into a box to be gassed. Such handling of animals is totally unacceptable.

I have researched possible humane methods for the large-scale killing of mink while we still have fur farming. No humane method has been identified. Gassing mink is particularly difficult because they are diving animals and they can detect lack of oxygen which they find aversive. Their brains alert them to come up to the surface when they are in a box of gas. Gassing batches of 50 to 70 animals at a time in a box does not bear thinking about. Some mink are gassed in the exhaust fumes from adapted petrol engines; others are gassed in carbon dioxide which is known to be highly aversive to mink. Foxes are killed by electrocution. One electrode is inserted into their anus and another is put in their mouth. The public is disgusted by this procedure.

The only way to humanely farm mink and foxes would be to have zoo conditions. These are essentially wild animals and that would be the minimum standard required. However, it would not be commercially viable and would not resolve the problems associated with slaughtering the animals. Expensive research would be required to overcome these problems. The only solution is for fur farming to be banned. This would bring us in line with policy in Northern Ireland. Given the small number of farms, it would be feasible to pay compensation to the farmers who are engaged in a legitimate business. This would send a clear message to the rest of the world that Ireland takes animal welfare seriously.

We welcome the removal of subsidies for cattle exports to the Middle East. We are proactive in urging countries to adopt the OIE standards. We also welcome the new animal transport regulation that is due to come into effect next year. This will result in stricter enforcement measures. Drivers will have to be trained and certified. Companies will require authorisation and vehicles going on journeys of more than eight hours will also require certification.

We are most disappointed with the ongoing problems in regard to the resting of animals being transported from Ireland to continental Europe. It is quite shocking that the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office has cited Ireland for failure in this regard for the past eight years. The requirement is that 12 hours rest should be provided for animals when they get off the ferry but that is not happening.

A sister organisation of the CIWF and a German animal welfare group, Animals' Angels, trailed an Irish livestock vehicle which did not stop to rest the animals. The gendarmes were called and the Irish driver was fined. Recently, two other Irish vehicles were trailed and neither of them stopped for a rest period either. This is the subject of a complaint to the European Commission. The situation is totally unsatisfactory. All vehicles should be checked for bookings made with a suitably located lairage and a sample number of vehicles should be checked subsequently to ensure drivers stopped at the lairages in question.

We are also concerned about the thousands of young calves that are exported from Ireland. Some animals are as young as a few weeks old. Scientific research has shown that young calves are not good travellers. They are prone to suffer stress and become ill in the weeks following transport. Many young Irish calves are destined for veal farms in the Netherlands. While at least the veal crate is being taken out of service, production there can still be intensive. It is common for calves to be housed in barren metal-barred pens which do not offer a good standard of welfare to Irish calves. An alternative is for us to rear these calves in Ireland in a humane veal system. This would involve housing calves in groups with straw in a well ventilated shed with natural light. I am delighted Bord Bia is looking at the possibility of starting veal production in Ireland. Some farm trials are being undertaken. If we produce veal in Ireland, it must be humane pink veal.

CIWF welcomes the EU ban on battery cages for laying hens scheduled for 2012. We are concerned at the attempt by egg producers to defer the ban for up to ten years. We urge the Government to ensure the ban comes into place here, as agreed, in 2012. By that time, farmers will have had 12 years to prepare for the change. A free-range system of egg production is the ideal but there are good indoor systems for producing barn eggs. Provided the systems are well designed and managed, a good standard of welfare can be offered. Egg production does not have to take place outdoors but a high standard is required. Hens should not be in cages. It is not a humane system of egg production.

Currently, about one third of Irish eggs are free-range and about 2% are barn eggs. We would like to see these sectors expanded. We would also like to see an increase in the use of non-cage eggs in processed food. This is not unrealistic and has been done in other countries. For example, we understand supermarkets in the Netherlands and Austria generally only stock non-cage eggs. In the UK, some food processors, including Marks & Spencer and Waitrose, have moved to using non-caged eggs. Even McDonalds in the UK only uses free-range eggs.

Based on figures from a European Commission socio-economic report, a barn egg costs 1.3 cent more to produce than a battery egg. For the average consumer who buys 220 eggs per person per year, the cost of barn eggs would be 5.5 cent more per person per week. The extra cost of free-range eggs would be 11 cent per person per week, which is very small. We want Ireland to encourage people to buy non-cage eggs, and encourage food processors to use non-cage eggs. In the meantime the CIWF will continue to promote the use of non-cage eggs.

Broiler chickens are produced for meat. We were in the process of negotiating the first EU directive on broiler chickens. Members may be aware these talks recently collapsed. Nobody knows what will happen next but it could be the case that member states will have to set their own standards. Nearly all the broiler chickens in the Republic of Ireland are reared intensively, stocked at about 19 birds per square metre and killed at around 40 days old. The main problems are due to overcrowding and the use of super fast-growing birds that have leg and heart problems as a result of this fast growth. This is not just happening in Ireland; the broilers are produced very similarly all over the European Union. Only 3% of Irish broilers are free-range. These are the birds with access to the outdoors who grow at a slower rate and are killed at about 50 days. Compassion in World Farming Ireland would like to see this sector expanded.

A worthwhile and attainable difference in the care of indoor intensively reared birds can be achieved by having a slightly lower stocking density and a slightly slower-growing bird. In England, the Lloyd Maunder company produce intensively with a stocking density of 30 kg per square metre which is 15 birds and they are killed at 49 days instead of at 40 days. CWFI recommends that this is manageable and would be a means of improving our animal welfare standards without going all the way to free-range while simultaneously encouraging free-range.

Most pigs are kept intensively here. CWFI has made a submission on the future of the Irish pig industry and recommend moving towards more animal welfare-friendly systems. As the use of sow stalls will be banned by the EU in 2013, many of the breeding sows are being moved into group housing. This is a definite welfare improvement. Even though they are indoors it is still a very good system. The housing must be well managed and well designed with enough space for the pigs. There must be good bedding and ventilation and most important for pigs, environmental enrichment. They are very intelligent animals who are active and need to be able to do their instinctive manipulation behaviours. They are also very inquisitive and need something to do. While free-range would be the best option, we are aware that soil conditions in Ireland can be problematic but we would encourage it where possible. It is definitely possible to have high welfare standards in the care of pigs that are kept indoors. Many studies have shown that if pigs have space and straw there is a decrease in the mortality rates and in veterinary expenses and improvement in feed conversion and growth is faster. This is an economic benefit from high animal welfare standards.

In the case of indoor systems, straw is very important and all fattening pigs must be provided with straw. The EU directive states that by 2013 all pigs must be provided with straw or another material that may be manipulated. The EU Food and Veterinary Office has examined the situation in various countries but not including Ireland. They found that many pigs were not provided with straw. I presume there are pigs in Ireland that have not been provided with straw. It is a worrying trend that some countries have provided pigs with chains, balls or so-called toys instead of straw or another natural material. This is not good enough for pigs. We want all Irish farms to provide straw or another suitable natural material so that the pigs can carry out these instinctive behaviours to manipulate and to investigate. One possible practical way that has been quite successful in other countries, is to provide a hay rack with straw in each pen so that the pigs can spend time pulling it out of the hay rack. This is a more manageable method than throwing the hay all over the floor.

The EU directive prohibits the tail docking of piglets unless other measures have been taken first to try and resolve the problem of tail biting. However, tail docking continues to be a routine practice in Ireland. Producers argue there is no other way of solving the tail biting problem but there is both scientific and practical evidence to show that tail biting problems can be resolved in other ways than cutting off the pigs' tails. The European Food Safety Authority stresses that, "the occurrence of tail biting can be reduced dramatically by the provision of straw as well as by other measures". This is an animal welfare improvement law which should be abided by but this does not seem to be the case.

Compassion in World Farming Ireland wants the use of farrowing crates for sows and their piglets to be discontinued in the medium term. It is argued that there is no alternative as piglets will otherwise be squashed or will die but alternative methods are used in Sweden and Ireland should consider these. Farrowing crates are very restrictive for the sows and are not of a high animal welfare standard.

Ireland is ideal for high quality and high animal welfare production and this is the best way forward. It is the only way Ireland can compete with cheap imports. We would like to see the use of non-caged systems for laying hens encouraged and we want Ireland to press for a ban on the use of battery cages. We would like food processors to use more non-cage eggs.

As regards meat chickens, we would like to see the encouragement of the free-range system and intensive indoor systems improved as much as possible. We stress that small improvements leading to more space and slower growth rate mean worthwhile benefits in animal welfare terms. A free-range system for pigs would be the ideal. I reiterate that pigs need a suitable material, preferably straw or another natural material. Tail docking should cease and other methods to control tail biting that do not involve cutting off pigs' tails should be considered. Alternative methods to farrowing crates should be considered in the medium term. It should be ensured that all drivers comply fully with EU law when transporting Irish animals with particular emphasis on the 12-hour rest period at the port of arrival in France. Young calves are bad travellers and the alternative method could be a humane veal production here in Ireland.

There is no humane alternative to fur farming. It is really horrible for the animals and is unpopular with the public. I suggest the farmers should be compensated and these farms should be closed down as a matter of urgency.

Chairman

I thank Ms Bartlett for her presentation and I invite members to ask questions.

Deputy Naughten

I thank Mr. Beazley and Ms Bartlett for their presentations, both of which are very interesting.

I have some questions for Mr. Beazley. I refer to the startling statistic in his presentation that the ISPCA only has four full-time animal welfare officers in the country. If animal welfare is to be maintained it is critically important that the Department of Agriculture and Food provides funding to the ISPCA to facilitate the employment of additional inspectors. These are needed not only to ensure the welfare of farm animals but of domestic animals and to deal with the issue of puppy farming. Mr. Beazley stated that it cost the ISPCA €25,000 to bring a case against a puppy farm. This is an astronomical cost for a voluntary organisation to bear. There is an onus on the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to provide proper funding. It should be noted that the total budget provided by the Department of Agriculture and Food to the ISPCA in 2006 was €50,000, just twice the cost of the case. Half the budget was therefore expended on one case.

I wish to make a point from a parochial point of view. I note the statistics about the ISPCA's helpline relating to counties Offaly and Roscommon. The figures seem extremely high compared with other similar sized counties. Why is this so? Is it because the national centre is just across the border in County Longford that it might be higher in the public consciousness? The National Animal Centre had considerable financial problems this year. This information was in the public domain locally and many constituents expressed great concern that the centre was to be closed due to lack of funding. It provides a very valuable service to the community and also to other agents of the State. We need to give serious consideration to its funding.

Puppy farming seems to have gone from the public consciousness. However, in recent years the issue was raised on a number of occasions. Mr. Beazley said the recommendations of the working group had been presented to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and he said that he planned to implement them. Has the Minister made any further progress on those recommendations? Everyone is disgusted at the lack of regulation of that industry and as Mr. Beazley said, Ireland is now the puppy farming capital of Europe.

Farmers need to go to great pains to tag cattle and sheep. While the tagging of sheep is virtually impossible, we need to struggle on with it. However, there seems to be no such control on the traceability of equines. If the Department was half as vigorous in enforcement of the rules on equines as it is on cattle and sheep, we might have a much better traceability system in place. The technology exists and departmental officials have knowledge of it. It is only a matter of prioritising it to ensure it happens.

The point Ms Bartlett made about mink and foxes is correct. The small number of farmers involved should be compensated and bought out. I know that when mink have been released they cause considerable problems for domestic and farm animals, and wildlife generally. On a number of occasions in the UK, so-called animal rights individuals allegedly released mink into the wild, causing significant problems. I do not know how they could term themselves as being in favour of animal rights and release mink into the wild. The only way to resolve the issue is to buy out the remaining operators.

This committee focuses more on animal transport issues than any other animal welfare issue and considerable debate has taken place. If we are to maintain our transport rules and access to continental markets, the existing rules and regulations must be complied with. We would be concerned if the rules were being flouted. Under the Treaty of Rome, we are entitled to have access to continental markets for live animals and it is important that is maintained. Some years ago when the issue was debated a proposal was made to reduce the stocking density of animals being transported to such an extent that it would have a considerably adverse impact on the animals themselves. By leaving too much space in vehicles animals would get thrown around. The objective at the time was probably to make it uneconomic rather than any concern for the animals.

The transport of calves is a very valuable business. However, we are right to consider new ways to open markets. We have been abroad and looked at veal production and pink beef production in a number of different countries. I am sure much of that production could take place here and benefit the Irish farmer. It is critical that the farmer does not lose out. The farmer would lose out if we did not have live exports because it would give overall control to the factories, which cannot be allowed to happen.

Ms Bartlett stated that 3% of broilers are kept free-range. I cannot understand that because the market is much bigger than 3%. Even at this time of year it is virtually impossible to get free-range geese or turkeys for Christmas. It is virtually impossible to purchase free-range poultry at any time of year. One would almost need to rob a bank to pay for organic poultry given the prices being charged. A considerable opening remains to be developed and the food development agencies should give it consideration.

Deputy Upton

I welcome Mr. Beazley and Ms Bartlett. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to hear their presentation. I have tried to raise many of the issues mentioned on many occasions. The difficulty with animal welfare is that responsibility is spread across a number of Departments — the Departments of Agriculture and Food; the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the case of exotic animals; Arts, Sport and Tourism for horses; and Health and Children for laboratory animals. The Department of Agriculture and Food is concerned about farmed animals. Responsibility for the welfare of pet or companion animals falls through the cracks.

When I recently tabled a parliamentary question about feral cats, which is an issue of considerable concern in my constituency, nobody seemed to want to know. Without being political about the matter, the answer I got was that it really was not that important. For me and for many others it is very important. There are issues of nuisance and animal welfare. Invariably the advice is that the animals should be neutered, which many people living in the city of Dublin cannot afford. These issues need to be highlighted and addressed.

Based on what Mr. Beazley told us, the ISPCA needs to raise approximately €500,000 in donations. That is a vast amount of money from voluntary sources. It gets €50,000 from the Department of Agriculture and Food, which no doubt is very welcome. However, it leaves a considerable shortfall and the organisation is very dependent on good will. It is not the way to manage animal welfare. It is about much more than good will and there should be a commitment to ensure funding is available. The same point applies to the inspectorate. In effect, it is a voluntary inspectorate, in that the ISPCA manages and looks after it. Apart from that, there is no inspectorate except in the case of farmed animals. That issue needs to be considered and addressed.

The ISPCA looks after the spaying or neutering of animals. What is the cost of those services? I share Deputy Naughten's concerns over puppy farming. We have talked about the matter and seen the reports. We now need action. It is only through several television reports, consisting of horrible footage which was mostly secured covertly, and the work of organisations such as the ISPCA and Compassion in World Farming that these issues have been highlighted. They are hyped from time to time before interest invariably wanes and we hear no more about them. We should push for the implementation of the working party report in legislation without further delay.

I am shocked to learn of the 13 reports published by the ISPCA detailing concerns in respect of various stud farms and equine centres. Although the facilities in question may not be among the more commercially active and high profile, one tends, in general, to consider stud farms as serious commercial enterprises. It is shocking to discover that facilities such as these, which are highly valuable economically, may be neglecting their duties in regard to animal welfare.

I support Compassion in World Farming's stance on fur farming. I see little benefit for the State from such activity given the low employment associated with the business. It is negative in all respects and we should take a decision to end all activity in this area.

The cost of free range poultry may be prohibitive for some consumers. There is, however, scope for expansion in this area. The committee has examined the various investigative programmes relating to poultry farming and we are aware of the abuses that take place in the industry internationally. Entirely inhumane conditions sometimes pertain as a consequence of crowding large numbers of poultry into a limited space. In some instances, all that matters is productivity and quality is not necessarily a priority. It requires only a little imagination and effort, however, to provide a better environment for poultry. A better quality of product can be achieved in this way without damaging operations economically.

We must acknowledge that the export of live animals is an important industry for the State. It is unacceptable, however, if the law in this area is being flouted. Ultimately, this will only damage us economically because it will threaten our reputation as a country that produces quality food and animals. If we are found guilty of not managing those animals properly in terms of adhering to correct practice as set out in the legislation, we will do significant damage to trade.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl

I thank the delegates for their presentation and acknowledge the valuable work done by both organisations. We may not always agree with their initiatives but they have undoubtedly made a major contribution to improving animal welfare standards.

The ISPCA does much good work, both nationally and through its local branches at county level. Mr. Beazley said the ISPCA is in receipt of €50,000 in grant aid at a national level. I assume there is also a stream of funding to local county committees and other groups. I am aware of the invaluable work done in County Kildare through various voluntary organisations, including PAWS in Sallins and Kildare Animal Foundation, which does great work in south County Kildare. I have argued in the past that we may need a much more effective and co-ordinated approach to animal welfare at county level. This might be achieved by means of co-operation between the local authorities in bringing together the dog warden service, veterinary service and so on to co-ordinate with the activities of the ISPCA and others in the voluntary sector.

As Oireachtas Members, we should send a message to the public that the heinous incidents of cruelty to animals that have come to our attention recently are unacceptable. The Hallowe'en period is an especially awful time during which there are sometimes dreadful examples of cruelty. We must all commit ourselves to stamping out such abuse and taking firm and effective action against the perpetrators.

The delegates referred to puppy farming and dog breeding. At a meeting of this committee two years ago, a group of reputable and professional dog breeders put forward their proposals for how the business should be regulated. The production of animals of good pedigree represents a legitimate form of rural enterprise. I have ongoing contact with the Dog Breeders Association of Ireland and am aware it is working hard to self-regulate and raise standards to ensure that those who breed dogs do so to the highest possible standards and in acceptable conditions. It is a minority of dog breeders who are involved in large-scale enterprises in which inhumane conditions pertain. It is possible to breed dogs on a reasonably large scale but to a high standard and in a humane environment. As well as focusing on the negatives, we must recognise the positives in terms of encouraging the establishment of high standards.

It is fascinating to hear what Ms Bartlett had to say. We have undoubtedly made major progress in several areas. The conditions endured by battery hens always struck me as horrific. I do not understand how a farmer could participate in a scenario where sows in pig units are tethered to the floor. Most of us who are farmers have a genuine concern for animal welfare and it is great to see progress being made in this area.

I take strong issue, however, with what is clearly a campaign by Compassion in World Farming to oppose, prevent and eventually stop live animal exports. I take serious exception to its endeavours in this regard. The standards that are in place must be applied consistently to ensure animals are transported in a humane manner. Ultimately, it is not productive or cost effective to allow animals to be transported in conditions where they may contract pneumonia, for example, or even die. The live cattle export trade is vital and will continue to be so in the future. While imposing standards, we must continue to ensure farmers can engage in the transport of animals. We must resist any campaign by Compassion in World Farming or others to put an end to this important element of the agricultural sector.

Senator Scanlon

I thank Mr. Beazley and Ms Bartlett for their presentations. Reference was made to puppy farms. I know of one individual who has 27 dogs, which I believe is a psychological problem. The individuals concerned do not seem to be selling dogs. There is no financial gain and they certainly cannot afford to feed that number. Considering the condition of some puppy farms and their puppies, one wonders if there is any financial gain for these breeders.

I agree with Deputy Ó Fearghaíl on live exports. Approximately 250,000 young cattle have been exported, most of which came from the north west. I understand Compassion in World Farming would like to see cattle slaughtered where they are reared. Unfortunately, that is not possible because we cannot leave farmers at the mercy of meat factories. Last week I spoke to a farmer who had hoped to sell 40 cattle before Christmas but could not get a meat factory to take them. Christmas is a time when one would imagine the demand for cattle would be high. The meat factories buy to suit themselves.

Committee members visited a farm in Barcelona with 8,000 weaning cattle in good condition, some 2,000 of which had come from Ireland, while the others had come from across Europe. The farmer was happy with the thrive of Irish cattle and their condition when they arrived in Spain. It is the business of exporters to ensure cattle arrive at their destination in pristine condition; otherwise, they may not even be paid for them. It is important that the best possible transport system is in place. However, it is a trade that must continue for the benefit of farmers. I agree with many of the arguments made by Compassion in World Farming but that is one I will fight.

Chairman

I compliment the delegates on the great work they are doing. This is the time of year when children get pets for Christmas. Unfortunately, soon after they get fed up and the pets are dumped on the side of the road. I do not understand how parents can do this.

We want the regulations in place for the export of live animals to be properly managed. I agree with my colleagues that the export of live cattle is important to the country. It is one practice I will always defend. Almost 500,000 cattle will be exported this year. If this market was not in place, farmers would be marching on the streets of Dublin. From what committee members witnessed in Spain, I am confident that the animals are treated well. As Senator Scanlon said, if they are not treated properly and do not arrive in good condition, the exporter will not be paid. No exporter can afford to maltreat animals because he or she will not be in business for long. The committee will defend the export of live cattle.

Mr. Beazley

I thank Deputy Naughten for his comments on the ISPCA. I agree that four full-time inspectors is not sufficient to meet our needs. This relates directly to the question as to why there is a high number of calls to the ISPCA in counties Offaly and Roscommon, in which counties we have full-time inspectors. The public sees a uniformed inspector in a marked vehicle carrying out animal welfare work. This encourages people to report instances of animal cruelty or neglect. The number of calls is high in the counties in which we have full-time inspectors. In County Kilkenny only two calls were listed, although the county has an active voluntary inspector. Naturally, because there is no full-time ISPCA inspector, many of the calls are diverted to the voluntary inspector. The feedback we receive from voluntary inspectors is that if they had the support of a full-time ISPCA inspector, their work for animal welfare would be enhanced.

The national animal centre in County Longford is our flagship and we pride it as being a centre of excellence for animal welfare. In 2005 it cost €549,000 to run the centre, which does not include the work of our inspectorate and head office. It is a high cost base but we are very much committed to the centre, to which it is encouraging to bring our colleagues from Europe. As it is developed, it can only but improve. We need to constantly work at our fundraising to ensure it runs as a centre of excellence.

With regard to dog breeding and puppy farming, I acknowledge we have good contact with the dog breeders' association and conscientious breeders. Responsible dog breeding is not illegal. Some breeders have a strong welfare ethos. Unfortunately, a significant number have no such ethos. Information was given to us on one site in the midlands which has between 600 and 800 breeding bitches.

Deputy Naughten

It has up to 600 to 800.

Mr. Beazley

I am going on the lower range. Even the dog breeders' association is concerned about these sites. On this scale, there cannot be a welfare background. The ISPCA has neither the logistical support nor the resources to deal with that many dogs, even if we had to remove a small percentage of that number. If the owner of these dogs fails to surrender them to the ISPCA, they must be seized by the Garda. The animals cannot be placed in new homes until a case comes to fruition. From our experience, a court case could take from eight months to one year to complete. These are the problems facing the ISPCA when we receive reports on such establishments. There are conscientious breeders who are just as concerned as the ISPCA about some of these operations. They want to market their product well bred and, therefore, develop their industry, but they cannot do this if there are rogue operators constantly undermining their efforts.

Deputy Naughten

Mr. Beazley is saying that, in the event of an animal welfare problem, such an individual is exempt from prosecution if he or she does not release the animals. No one would have the resources to physically maintain the animals while a court case was pending.

Mr. Beazley

I agree. The case we dealt with at a cost of €25,000 involved approximately 100 small breeds of dog. We had to rely on our colleagues in Ulster to house some of them prior to the case being finalised because we simply did not have the resources to deal with that many dogs here in the Republic. Our laws are archaic. The law dealing with animal welfare prosecutions dates back to 1911, with a weak 1965 amendment. For a dog to be seized, in accordance with the Act, a veterinary surgeon must declare that the animal is suffering. In addition, a member of the Garda Síochána must seize the dog. In a large-scale breeding establishment that means a vet would have to see each dog and certify it was suffering. It is unfair to expect the ISPCA to deal with these issues, which concern various Departments and local authorities. A multi-agency approach or even a different angle must be examined to deal with rogue operators. I acknowledge that many conscientious breeders are working actively with the ISPCA to try to improve and self-regulate the dog breeding industry. I applaud their efforts and co-operation.

Deputy Upton

Obviously, the people to whom dogs are being sold are complicit. They must recognise that animals are being bred and held under unsatisfactory conditions. Is there traceability in terms of if the people concerned are in any way accountable?

Mr. Beazley

Unfortunately, the vast majority of dogs bred in the Republic are for sale in the United Kingdom. A large number are brought via the ports of Rosslare and Dublin and advertised for purchase and sale in the UK market. Unfortunately, the majority of pups change hands in the car-parks of motorway service stations. We find that puppies bought by Irish buyers are normally bought from conscientious breeders in Ireland. There are conscientious breeders in the Republic who also export pups to the United Kingdom, but this is done under proper conditions using micro-chips in accordance with Kennel Club regulations. As such, they are completely traceable. In many cases, dogs bred by rogue operators do not have a micro-chip and false papers are provided with them.

Feral cats were referred to and present the ISPCA with a real problem. It is a hot potato which is passed from one agency or Department to another. A number of months ago we had a bizarre situation, where the HSE in County Mayo contacted the ISPCA to seek financial assistance in dealing with a feral cat problem. All I can say is that it was an interesting telephone call. The problem needs to be addressed because there is a health issue involved, particularly in certain estates. I fully acknowledge the cost impact of spaying female cats or neutering male cats. The ideal is to have the animals captured, neutered or spayed, and returned. If one removes a feral cat colony from an area, normally another colony will set up house in the same place. Therefore, the capture, spay or neuter, and return method is the best, but there is a cost implication.

The ISPCA provides assistance in neutering and spaying dogs and cats for those in receipt of means-tested benefits. We also do it free for other welfare organisations. There is a going rate which we think is fair to members of the public who visit our centres to have their dogs or cats neutered or spayed. When we set up a totally free neutering or spaying service, we found that people pulled up in their Mercedes 4x4s with three golden labradors, which was slightly defeating the object. However, we do provide financial assistance for those whom we deem worthy of it. It is something the ISPCA and other animal welfare agencies encourage. The Dogs Trust, a UK-based charity, has recently moved into the Republic. It provides a means-tested service which is to be welcomed. Our own welfare organisations should be taking the lead in this operation.

Ms Bartlett

I am heartened to hear Deputy Naughten's and Deputy Upton's comments on fur farming. I am pleased there is a move to have it stopped, as that is the only solution. Escaped mink were mentioned. I wish to make it clear that Compassion in World Farming is totally opposed to anybody letting mink out, as it neither benefits the mink nor anyone else. However, there will always be escapes from mink farms. I stress, however, that this is a small industry, involving only six farms. While it is economically insignificant, it is damaging our image abroad as an animal welfare friendly country.

Deputy Upton said conditions for broiler chickens could be poor, which is true, but Ireland is no different from anywhere else because 20,000 such birds can literally be kept in a single shed. It is like a carpet of birds. Even though they are very young when killed — only six weeks old — the fact that they have leg and heart problems indicates that something needs to be improved. There is definitely a market for greater free-range broiler meat production. In France, for example, the high quality free-range brand, La Belle Rouge, accounts for 17% of all broiler chickens produced in that country, which is incredible. There is a market for somebody to get into with good marketing.

Obviously, people feel strongly about the animal transport issue. Compassion in World Farming has always stated the ideal is to kill animals as near as possible to the farm on which they were reared and export them as meat. However, the practical reality is that there are live exports and that we need to ensure we are complying with the letter of the law. This is important for our image.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl said our standards had improved, as they have, but mainly because of Compassion in World Farming's work. In Ireland it is the only group dealing with the issue. We had to highlight the problems by showing video footage of Irish animals; otherwise matters would not have improved. I would like to have it acknowledged that, although one may not agree with our ideal position, we have helped to improve matters considerably.

Feed lots on the Continent were also mentioned. Our beef production is so much better, but we do not make the most of this. Our animals are fed on grass. We could have lovely images on the Continent of our wonderful cattle feeding on grass, but we do not seem to be doing this. It is a shame that we are sending animals to continental feed lots instead. We are exporting the raw material when we could benefit by sending it in a more added-value form.

A point was raised about providing more space for animals on trucks. Compassion in World Farming is totally opposed to this because it is a way of arguing that animals will not need to be unloaded for rest periods. With the introduction of transport regulations, animals are unloaded for a rest period, provided the driver actually stops to do so. As long as live exports continue, it is important that animals are unloaded for rest periods before continuing their journey.

Animals are now recognised in EU law as sentient beings, which means they can suffer and feel pain. It also means they enjoy a sense of well-being. In future we should be able to view Irish farming methods in this way. In east Cork, from where I come, there are some brilliant farms with high animal welfare standards. They have already sold all of their turkeys because they are so popular. I would like to see the day when all farm animals in Ireland enjoy a good standard of life. They deserve that from the people responsible for looking after them.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Beazley and Ms Bartlett for attending this meeting and for responding to members' questions.

The joint committee went into private session at 1.50 p.m. and adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 January 2007.