Amendments Nos. 1, 3, and 5 will be taken together.
Private Business. - Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, 1963—Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete subsection (2) and to substitute the following subsection:
"(2) This Act shall be construed as one with the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the Protection of Animals Acts, 1911 and 1964."
Amendments Nos. 1, 3, and 5 are for the purpose of consolidation. We want to get rid of or supersede the Acts of 1912 and 1921 as given in the rubric to amendment No. 3. These three amendments do not introduce any new principles but are purely consolidating amendments. I would ask the House to accept them on the basis that they are simply consolidation, to make it simpler for those working it to have all the information in this single Bill.
No. 5 also?
It is equal to the 1921 Act. It incorporates a section which is already law in the 1921 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 2:
Between lines 20 and 21 to insert:
"‘Castration' means an operation for the complete surgical removal of the gonads or a process designed to cause their complete atrophy."
Section 2 is the definition section. This amendment to introduce a new definition and the other amendments in my name have the sanction of the veterinary profession through the Veterinary Association, and they have apparently the sanction of the Government, but a lot of other things indicate that it is a pity the profession were not consulted before the Bill was introduced. I think the definition of "castration" is comprehensive enough. It covers the operation of castration of the male or the female. I think it should be accepted by the members of the Seanad.
This amendment is acceptable to those for whom I am speaking and I should be grateful if the House would accept it. It comes from experts on whose opinion we can rely.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I would point out that the definition of "greyhound" will in some areas include about half the dogs in the country. A great many dogs in the country are half-bred greyhounds. It is quite a difficult matter to prove or disprove their parentage at all, and there are a great many people who actually like that type of dog. Children, poachers and people in the country keep these dogs because they are a bit faster than pure bred dogs to hunt rabbits. It is far too wide a definition: "any strain or cross of greyhound or whippet". Why whippet should be in the Bill I also do not know, and I should be glad if Senator Stanford could tell me. It is a miniature type of greyhound and I do not think it would be a danger to any other animal or to any person. I do not know very much about their temper but they look very timid and insignificant dogs, and to include them in all these regulations about greyhounds is going a bit too far.
I entirely agree with Senator Cole. If you accept that definition of greyhound, section 20 will mean that all those dogs when they are led on the public road will have to be muzzled and under control, that more than one person must lead more than four of those dogs, and that a person under 16 cannot bring one of them on the public road. I have a lot of knowledge of greyhounds — perhaps too much at times—but they are timid, quiet animals compared with Alsatians, bulldogs, Kerry blues and other dogs. I agree with Senator Cole. I think the term "greyhound" should not include "any whippet and any strain or cross of greyhound or whippet".
I am informed that greyhounds can be particularly savage dogs. I have two cases particularly in mind. In one case a lady was exercising her pet dog in the Phoenix Park, when suddenly two greyhounds came racing along and would have torn the small dog to pieces if the lady had not got into her car and managed to close the windows and keep the greyhounds outside. In another case children had their pet dog more or less torn to pieces before their eyes. I am open to further information on this, but I understand whippets have the same savage tendencies and are dangerous to smaller dogs. Greyhounds are trained to chase small animals and that might include pet dogs. That is the reason both are included here.
In reply to Senator Cole, the law will be administered reasonably. If a dog has 1/64th of the heraldic quarterings of a greyhound it will not be deemed to be a greyhound or a whippet for the purposes of the law unless it is recognisably a greyhound or a whippet. I do not think that will arise, but I am open to further information on it.
I think it is relevant to point out at this stage that I shall be moving an amendment which will delete the requirement that greyhounds be kept muzzled when in public places. I hope section 20 will be amended by the House to provide that while greyhounds must be kept under control they need not be muzzled. I shall also be opposing section 22, so the provisions in this regard will not be as draconian as they look at present.
It is unlikely that more than four dogs will be taken out by one person at a time, and in that case the definition of "whippet" or "greyhound" will not cause any hardship.
I think this very wide definition of "greyhound" is unnecessary, and that it will probably give rise to trouble in the administration of the Act. Greyhounds are usually confined to kennels, and when they are brought out for exercise they are on leads. The fact that they are housed and allowed out only occasionally means that they are usually in very high spirits, and are likely to pursue other dogs of the type Senator Stanford has in mind.
As Senator Cole has said, there is a considerable number of half-breed greyhounds around the country and those animals are never confined. They lie around the farmhouses like any other type of domestic dog, and they are not possessed of the high spirits of a thoroughbred. They have no tendency to pursue other animals. Therefore, I think the definition is much too fine and the regulations will apply to a type of dog which the framers of the Bill never intended—the type of dog which it is unnecessary to control in the manner in which it is sought to control them in the Bill.
I do not know what peculiar breeds of dogs there are in Cavan, but I think Senators have exaggerated the numbers of crosses of greyhounds. I think it is no harm to include the word "whippet". I maintain the definition of the Bill is the best that could be arrived at.
My only objection is to the vagueness of the provision, and whether it could be pursued at all. I cannot imagine the courts being satisfied with such a definition. It is all right for Senator Stanford to talk about heraldic quarterings, but he does not know what view the court will take. It might be that someone who could not stand dogs might be prepared to accept less than 1/64th quarterings. I do not like anything as vague as this. I know the Minister has said he proposes to ask the Seanad to remove the provision about muzzling but even still it looks very untidy to see such a hazy definition in an Act of Parliament.
Greyhounds should not be classed as dangerous dogs. I know there are some types of dogs which are referred to as dangerous, but I have never heard of greyhounds in that category. Greyhounds are in a class by themselves and they are not generally regarded as being dangerous, and I think they should not be put in that class.
Greyhounds are trained to chase small animals by sight, and not by scent. That is very important. As soon as they see small animals moving they go for them. Scent is more discriminatory. It is a fact that greyhounds will run after small animals and tear them to pieces, in a way which no other dog will. I understand whippets will do the same.
Senator Stanford has quoted two instances of damage done by greyhounds. I could quote other instances where sows have done just as much damage. With regard to muzzling——
We propose to delete the provision about muzzling.
I agree that muzzling should be left out of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, before section 3, but in Part I, to insert the following new section:
"The Protection of Animals Act (1911) Amendment Act, 1912, and the Protection of Animals Act (1911) Amendment Act, 1921, are hereby repealed."
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 4:
In paragraph (a), page 4, line 4, before "abandoned" to insert "so".
This is purely a drafting amendment. It happens that in the Act on which this section is modelled the word "so" appears, and it seems to me to make better sense. I ask the House to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, before paragragh (c), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) the addition to paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of ‘and a captive animal shall not be deemed to be coursed or hunted within the meaning of this subsection if it is coursed or hunted in an enclosed space from which it has no reasonable chance of escape';"
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In paragraph (c), page 4, line 26, to delete "unnecessary".
Before I deal with this amendment, perhaps I should say a little about the meaning of this paragraph. Paragraph (c) adds to section 1 of the principal Act which, among other things, provides a partial exemption from the ordinary regulations for coursing. If I read section 1 of the principal Act aright, only coursing is exempted there but not hunting because it refers to captive animals. In this paragraph which we are proposing to insert—paragraph (c)—for the first time, I think I am right in saying, we are providing a similar partial exemption for hunting. It seems rather odd that in a Bill entitled Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, 1963, there should be an exemption of this kind to encourage or allow fox hunting which, whatever else one may say about it, is not an activity directly related to the protection of animals. However, this paragraph now proposes that acts committed in the course of hunting or coursing will not be illegal unless unnecessary suffering is inflicted during the course of these activities.
My amendment proposes to delete the word "unnecessary". Perhaps I should make it quite clear that I am not one of those sentimental cranks who believe animals are more important than human beings. There are such people but I do not accept any such proposition. I think it will be accepted by reasonable people that there are cases of, say, vivisection, when, in the interests of medical science and in order to progress further, it may be necessary to inflict suffering on animals.
We would all agree, as provided in legislation relating to cruelty to animals, that no unnecessary suffering should take place. In the same way, we are all agreed that while the slaughter of animals for food for humans may iinvolve some suffering to animals, even with the humane killer, these things are necessary and all we can say is that there should be no unnecessary suffering. The paragraph we are considering now is, I think, quite different. Here is a case where necessary suffering, a certain amount of suffering, is specifically legalised in coursing and in hunting— activities which are in no way necessary and whch are a form of amusement.
I do not know whether it will be suggested that hunting is a necessary activity in order to rid the country of vermin but I think, really, that no more inefficient or expensive system of ridding the country of foxes could be devised. If the only desire were to kill the foxes, there are a large number of much more practical ways of doing it. I think we may accept, therefore, that both hunting and coursing are forms of amusement for people who enjoy that kind of thing.
I cannot see why, in a Protection of Animals Bill, or in any other Bill, it should be ncessary to provide specifically for the infliction of suffering on animals. To be fair to those who support these activities, I think it is true to say that hunting people and coursing people will always deny indignantly that these activities involve suffering. One hears stories from time to time about dogs attacking foxes and tearing them from limb to limb but in any well-regulated hunt such things will not be permitted. In the same way, in coursing, I think it would be fair to say that those running a meeting will take all reasonable steps to see that suffering is not inflicted on the hare. Nor is suffering, I am sure, normally inflicted on a hare while it is in captivity. Therefore, those who support hunting and coursing should have no objection to this amendment because if the word "unnecessary" is deleted it merely leaves the position that in the course of hunting and during coursing meetings no suffering shall be inflicted on any animal, which I think is a reasonable proposition. It should not be objected to even by the most avid supporters of these sports.
I cannot see why there should be such a thing as necessary suffering in this case. There may be suffering in vivisection or slaughter but in an activity entirely for people's amusement I cannot see any reason why we should tolerate the legislative suggestion that necessary suffering may be inflicted. Therefore, there should be little objection to deleting the word "unnecessary".
I do not support either hunting or coursing but I must disagree with Senator Yeats. If we leave out the word "unnecessary" we are prohibiting coursing, hunting, and so on, because it is impossible to shoot a rabbit and to prove we did not cause suffering. It is also true that people say they suffer from loss of breath. If we chase a hare, it is bound to suffer in that respect. Therefore, I think it would be unenforceable.
I can see what Senator Yeats is getting at but I think he is reading it in a rather peculiar way by suggesting that this paragraph as it stands at the moment legalises suffering. I think it merely looks the fact in the face that people cannot do any of these things without causing some suffering. We are being asked to ensure that people are not unnecessarily cruel. I am sure that in court it would be bound to be held that you just could not course, hunt, pursue or capture or attempt to destroy any wild animal whatsoever without causing some suffering.
I entirely agree with Senator Sheldon. If this word "unnecessary" is omitted the Act will, in effect, prohibit the pursuit, capture or destruction or the attempted destruction of any wild animal. It is impossible to attempt any of these without inflicting some degree of suffering. If a rabbit, hare or any other wild animal is frightened, I presume that that is a form of suffering if it is impossible to catch it or to attempt to catch it without frightening it.
I suppose one of the most humane ways of catching a hare would be to net it. If a hare becomes enmeshed in a net no physical torture is inflicted on it nor is it physically injured or hurt but I would say it suffers. So, too, if an animal is shot and not killed instantly then certainly suffering is inflicted on it. I do not know whether or not Senator Yeats's intention is absolutely to prohibit all these activities but certainly he must admit and the House should realise and must agree that that is the effect his amendment will have if it is accepted. Therefore, I should be against the amendment.
I think Senator Yeats is misinterpreting this rather involved paragraph. It is really consequent on the wording of the principal Act which allows coursing and this is prohibiting any unnecessary cruelty in coursing or hunting. Nobody can argue that coursing is not cruel. We just have to put up with it. I should say at this stage that I have had discussion on the question of coursing dogs with muzzles on them, as we run muzzled dogs on the tracks. We discussed that in a technical way and it seems that one of the dangers would be that a greyhound will trip himself with a muzzle. I am told that on one occasion that occurred. It is relevant at this stage because I am dealing with the question of cruelty in coursing. If the dogs would course hares in the parks or in the open field with muzzles, I believe that it will gradually come, there will be no objection to it. People who breed dogs at present would laugh but I think there are others, too, who will not laugh at it.
I have seen coursing and I am not a namby-pamby person, and it is appalling to see two greyhounds coming up and tearing the hare to pieces. This is cruelty and this section is designed to deal with the prevention of unnecessary cruelty. We cannot get over the fact that coursing is cruel.
Unnecessary suffering is adding to the cruelty and we are trying to prevent unnecessary suffering. We must remember that coursing permits suffering and, therefore, we are allowing cruelty. The question is where the cure lies. I cannot see any cure unless the dogs are run with muzzles on them. I believe it is possible that when people get used to it and try it out they will find it is acceptable. I know arguments are put up that a dog must be blooded, and so forth, because a dog is cruel and chases the animal to kill it, and the fact that he gets a kill makes the dog run all the faster.
This is a sort of imaginary interpretation. We have coursing with a mechanical hare on the tracks with muzzled dogs. Some greyhound owners will say that the sensible dog will not course the hare on the track. He knows it is not genuine and he knows he cannot kill it, but that does not operate to any great extent. As we have coursing with mechanical hares on the track, I think the day will come, no matter what we have in this Bill, when we will have open coursing with muzzled dogs. The principal argument that may be put up is that of the dog tripping at the turn. Three points are allowed for the turn, a point at each turn after that and one point is allowed for the kill. If the kill were eliminated altogether coursing would be a pastime which we could all appreciate. I think the Senator is misinterpreting the thing. The word "unnecessary" is essential in this subsection.
I agree that the word "unnecessary" is definitely necessary in this subsection. I believe if we take the word "unnecessary" out of this Bill it will mean ultimately the end of coursing, hunting, fishing and shooting in this country. In every one of these sports there is a certain amount of suffering. We know there is a movement afoot already to put an end to coursing and hunting because people claim there is so much cruelty in those sports. As I see it, if the word "unnecessary" is taken out of this Bill it will put an end to all of these sports. I do not want to legalise suffering and cruelty. We want to have as little suffering as possible in any of these sports. I believe we should leave the word "unnecessary" in and I am against the amendment.
One other point which strikes me is that the idea here is to cut out unnecessary suffering. I wonder could the Minister give us any idea of what in coursing would be considered unnecessary suffering. One particular type of coursing occurs to me as being undesirable. I know it is not encouraged. Indeed, it is frowned upon or, perhaps, it is made illegal by the controlling body. That is, using an insufficient number of hares at a coursing meeting and coursing the same unfortunate hare three or four times a day. I think if somebody put down an amendment on the next Stage, perhaps, that it shall be illegal to course a hare at any coursing meeting more than once on the same day and to impose a substantial penalty for such a practice, he would be doing something by way of eliminating that one type of cruelty which is certainly not unknown and which is not approved of.
Tá ceist agamsa a bhaineann le h-úsáid spoir nó fuip ar chapall. An gá é sin? Tá a lán neithe i gceist maidir leis an bhfocal "cruelty". Ba mhaith liom go smaoineoidh an tAire ar na neithe sin.
Mí-úsáid d'aon tsaghas?
Is dóigh liom nach bhfuil gá le spoir d'imirt ar chapall.
Ní dóigh liom go mbristear an dlí má úsáidtear spoir.
An iomarca úsáide atá i gceist agam.
Like Miss Cossie.
I just want to make a point and I may be anticipating Senator Stanford here. I want to remind the House that this Bill is actually extending the protection of animals. Up to now the prohibition of cruelty to animals has only been in relation to animals in captivity and this Bill is extending the prohibition of cruelty to animals, whether they are in captivity or not. The Bill is making that very important humane extension and it is that extension that makes this provision necessary. Unless the House decides that these sports shall be no more, we have to have this provision. The point I want to emphasise is that the provision is only made necessary because of the extension we are incorporating in the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for making this point. I would refer the House to the equivalent section in the British Act and point out that we are now extending the law to all animals, including wild animals. If Senator Yeats is brave enough to challenge hunting and coursing, I think he should bring in a separate Bill.
On the question of cruelty, we would need more authoritative information than we probably have as to whether we would regard open coursing at any rate as cruel. Is it when the hounds get up to the hare or is there any cruelty long before they get up to the hare? If it is a long course is it only when they reach the hare, and when the dogs have a hold of the hare, that there is cruelty?
The term is suffering.
When it is suffering to the hare it may be suffering after one run but I do not think we need worry to that extent. Is there all that suffering for animals, when the greyhound reaches the hare? It is very doubtful. Of course, we have to keep in mind, in so far as open coursing is concerned, that it is a very important industry in this country. We have well organised sections dealing with coursing. I do not think we need worry too much in regard to cruelty. I agree it is necessary to have something along the lines the Minister states but I do not think it is that serious.
I think the difficulty with this section is that there is too much in it. It deals with the person going out with a gun to get a rabbit for his supper and it deals with foxhounds and coursing. They are two completely different things. Nobody will object to people hunting for food and nobody will object to killing an animal unless it causes unnecessary suffering.
It might be deadly to the animal.
Hunting is not intended to be deadly to the animal.
A rabbit does not care why he is shot.
The killing of the hare is not the point in the case of coursing. Coursing and foxhunting are primarily amusements. Therefore, they are on quite a different basis to ordinary hunting, fishing, and so on. It is difficult to deal with one without dealing with the other. I expect some element of suffering must exist in the case of shooting birds and rabbits or in the case of fishing and a provision that no unnecessary suffering should be caused is quite reasonable. It is really a pity that this is done in such a way that we will also legalise suffering of animals purely as an amusement. I think it is entirely wrong. Senator Ó Donnabháin made it quite clear that the whole essence of coursing is that it is bound up with suffering to animals. I am not at all impressed by the Senator who said that coursing is a good thing because it is an industry—so is bull-fighting in Spain. I cannot see that that is any justification for it at all. I agree with Senator Stanford that it is a brave man who sets himself out to abolish coursing and hunting. The only thing I regret is that in future years the legislation we are now passing may well prove a guide to courts dealing with cruelty in coursing and on the hunting field. It may be taken as a defence for advocating these activities. I think that is something which we would very much regret.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 49, to delete "one hour" and to insert "three hours".
I recommend this amendment to the House. Its purpose is very simple. As the Bill stands at present, it provides that where an animal is impounded for more than one hour a sufficient quantity of wholesome water must be supplied for its use. I think that is a bit unreasonable and the amendment proposes to substitute three hours.
It is much more reasonable.
I want to ask if "pound" is defined in the original Act. I did not get a chance of looking up the point. Does "pound" refer to any confined place? In country towns where a fair is being held a small field is used to keep animals.
The word "pound" in the main Act is defined as including any receptacle of like nature.
Then there would be a slight difficulty in enforcing that on the day of a fair. I am quite satisfied with the amendment.
Day-old chicks which have to be carried in a bus from a hatchery quite a long distance to the local town are very often left at the railway station. They might not be taken away by the purchaser until some time after the bus reaches the depot. Would this particular section cover that?
I think it would be in the person's own interest to supply them with water if he were keeping them quite a time.
My point is that the man orders them from the hatchery and they are sent by special transport to the nearest depot. He has to take delivery from there but he may not be able to take immediate delivery. He may not be notified of their arrival.
The carrying company would have responsibility. Somebody would be legally responsible. If the carrying company keep animals of any sort in a railway station or depot they are probably responsible.
Would the railway wagon, in which cattle travel, be regarded as a pound?
I should not think so.
Then three hours is not sufficient. I think four or five hours would be better. Cattle coming from the west of Ireland take four or five hours to arrive at their destination.
It might take all night.
Does it mean, if they have to get water after three hours, that they have to be turned out at different stations in order to get it?
This is for drinking water, not for food.
I know it is drinking water but the cattle wagon travelling from the west of Ireland might take six or seven hours. If we could substitute four for three it would be better.
I agree with the Minister's amendment to change the time from one hour to three hours. It might not be easy to get drinking water in certain places within an hour but it would be wrong to leave an animal longer than three hours without drinking water. The wording of this whole section is terribly woolly to me. From my understanding of what impounding is in Dublin city this matter is under the control of the Gardaí.
Normally it is a field.
It is not an ordinary field. If cattle coming from the country are transferred to a lairage overnight that is not a pound. It is where stray animals are detained. Anywhere from Cork to Donegal a pound is a certain yard or field or other place —but it is not a field in the city. It is a place where animals are detained by the guards because they have broken loose or have gone astray or for another purpose. It is under official control.
Not necessarily.
I cannot understand how you call it a pound unless it is a place of detention under official control, under the control of the guards, because the guards have put the animals in. I have inspected pounds in Dublin city and others have been established since then. If an animal strays from the markets or breaks away while it is being transferred to the North Wall it is taken to a certain place which is the official detention pound. The phraseology in the section then is a bit woolly. It is under official control, and it is the responsibility of the veterinary officers of the corporation as well as the guards, to see that animals are supplied with drinking water and with food if they are kept overnight. The section does not appeal to me. It says in a pound an animal should get drinking water if it is left three hours. It should not refer to slaughter houses under the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935. The whole phraseology is too woolly and is unacceptable.
We would be very much obliged if the Minister could give us an official definition of "pound". In Westmeath, in Mullingar, it is under official control, an area of an acre or two surrounded by a wall in which cattle, sheep and other animals are kept. Can a lair, a yard, a salesyard, a wagon, a fair green, be called a pound under this definition?
My view is that by a pound we mean what an ordinary sensible man means by a pound: a field or yard in which seized animals are kept. There is no suggestion here in this section or in the 1911 Act that we are speaking only of official pounds. That is not so. That would be nonsense. People could impound animals in unofficial pounds and they could be just as cruel—indeed are more likely to be cruel—than people dealing with official pounds. The provision is meant to apply only to animals in the type of place described by Senator L'Estrange, a field, a yard or lairage used as a pound. In my opinion it might in certain circumstances include a wagon. I am a bit unsure of the meaning of the word "receptacle" and it is a word which we will have to look at again in the context. In the 1911 Act it is used in a very narrow way to mean a place where animals are received but it might not be the right word in this context. Perhaps Senator Stanford will look at it again.
Yes, do look at it again because if it means railway wagon it will lead to great hardship in future in the transportation of livestock.
In the original Act the expression "pound" was used in relation to impounding or confining animals and it includes any receptacle of a like nature. Since I was a young fellow a pound in the country or in Dublin city was a place officially designated for keeping animals under official control and it did not apply where there was no official control. Now it seems that the definition of pound is much wider than my interpretation of it which was that it applied in a country town or Dublin city to an officially designated pound.
It also had a certain monetary connotation.
Any place in the vicinity of Dublin where animals are detained overnight waiting for the market is not a pound but under this it would be taken to be a pound. The interpretation of the word is different from any I ever heard and from what I should like it to be.
There is a Pounds (Provision and Maintenance) Act, 1935. I am not quite certain if it is an Act of ours or of another Parliament, but I think it is one of ours. This is something that should be looked into and reconsidered on the Report Stage. If the House would pass the section provisionally it will come before them on Report.
The section also includes an animal in a box. A receptacle may be a box.
I take it that it is a receptacle of a like nature to a pound. A box is going a bit far.
A horse box or a shoe box?
This discussion would be more orderly on the section itself.
On the amendment, this is a matter of opinion and it may well be that the Minister and members of the House are right in this. There may be something to be said for one hour rather than three as the provision for giving water. If it is an hour the person in charge of the animal or the pound would provide it right away. But if the provision gives three hours' grace he may say that the animal may be out of it in that time: he may be more likely to neglect the provision if there is a longer period than one hour. But if the House thinks three hours is the right time there is no reason why we should not have it.
All this discussion on pounds is irrelevant because pounds have gone out of date.
That is the new approach.
In one town the key of the pound which is an enclosed yard has been lost for 20 years and the caretaker is many years dead. In another area the only reason there has been a move to reintroduce pounds is that the sheriff's office wants some place to facilitate hire purchase firms. Pounds are past history.
I am always on the heels of Dublin Corporation in an effort to provide more pounds in Dublin. It is the duty of the local authority to provide pounds for straying animals and straying animals are quite a problem in the suburbs of Dublin. Far from doing away with pounds I am continually pressing for more.
The intention here is definitely a place where stray animals are kept and nothing more. It may be that the drafting is not satisfactory. If so I undertake to get a better draft so that it will not apply to railway carriages and chicken boxes as they were not in the minds of the people behind this.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, after subsection (9), to insert the following subsection:
"( ) The Minister may by order revoke or amend an order under this section, including an order under this subsection."
This is simply to grant the Minister what I understand are usual powers of administration. I understand that in order to administer this Act satisfactorily he needs these powers.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 6, subsection (10), line 29, to delete "1965" and to insert "1968".
The Minister for Agriculture estimates that it will take about four years for him to carry out the necessary tests so that he will be in a position to make an order under this section. Therefore, the amendment proposes to substitute 1st June, 1968, for the original date proposed, 1st June, 1965. We should all like to get rid of gin traps as soon as the Bill proposes, but I am afraid we are forced by the practicalities of the situation to wait another little while. I reluctantly propose this amendment to the House.
This means that the mills of the Department of Agriculture will be grinding rather slowly on this matter. I must say at once the Department have been very helpful in general on this Bill, but they have known more or less for six years that it was intended to introduce legislation on this point. Therefore, we had hoped that perhaps something might have been organised to meet the date in 1965. The year 1968 is a long way off. I prefer not to yield on this amendment, and I hope the House will support the view that one year's time ought to be sufficient in the circumstances.
Question put: "That the number proposed to be deleted stand part of the section."
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Carton, Victor.
- Crowley, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Desmond, Cornelius.
- Fitzgerald, John.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
- Jessop, W.J.E.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
- Ross, J.N.
- Stanford, William B.
Níl
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brosnahan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Cole, John C.
- Costelloe, John.
- Donegan, Bartholomew.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Mooney, Joseph M.
- Nash, John Joseph.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Conalláin, Dónall.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Ó Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Yeats, Michael.
Tellers:— Tá: Senators Jessop and Stanford; Níl: Senators Farrell and Ó Donnabháin.
Question declared lost.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 6, lines 39 to 43, to delete subsection (3) and to insert the following subsection:
"( ) Subsection (1) of this section shall not render unlawful the use of a spring trap under and in accordance with a permit given by the Minister or the use of a spring trap of a kind approved, for the purposes of this section, by regulations made by the Minister under this subsection."
I recommend this amendment to the House.
Perhaps Government amendment No. 11 might be taken with it?
Very well. The Minister for Agriculture considers it would not be possible to frame regulations that would permit the use of spring traps for the open trapping of rabbits in certain circumstances but not generally. If the regulations allowed spring traps to be placed in the open, that is, with no cover over them, it would nullify the whole point of the section. I think it is impossible to envisage conditions or limitations, indeed, that would alter that situation. The Minister for Agriculture does not object to a provision whereby he would be empowered to issue permits to individuals permitting them to trap rabbits in the open provided it is made clear, as it is in Government amendment No. 11, that he is given the power to attach conditions to such permits. The idea is that a permit might be justified if a farmer were infested with rabbits and trapping were the only remedy available.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 6, after subsection (4), to insert the following subsection:
"( ) A permit given under subsection (3) of this section may contain such conditions as the Minister considers appropriate."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has pointed out that in certain circumstances a person may be permitted to trap rabbits in the open. I cannot see what is wrong with the present system. Rabbits are trapped in the open as well as at the tunnels or rabbit holes as described in the Bill. It will now be the position that the matter will be regulated by the Minister who will issue instructions. Then there will have to be examination as to whether or not a person is entitled to get a permit and under particular circumstances he may not.
The system is there. It is well known that traps are laid in various ways to trap rabbits according as the people doing the trapping would decide. The question of cruelty does not come into it. They may trap them in the open or at the tunnel going up to where the rabbit has the burrow. There should be no difficulty at all in allowing the system that exists at the moment to continue.
The point of this section is that a spring trap made in the open is appallingly dangerous to birds, animals and children, whereas if it is put in a tunnel the chances of a child, bird or animal getting caught are minimised.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 11, to delete "the Principal Act" and to insert "this Act or the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1964".
Again, this is a drafting amendment. It does not introduce any new principle. Section 14 of the Principal Act will now disappear.
I do not understand the wording of this amendment. The title is Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, 1964. To what does "this Act" refer?
The point is that the section in the Principal Act will now cease to be law. Therefore, if we make a law it must be under this Bill which takes the place of the Principal Act. Because we are repealing a section in a previous Act, we must put the power into this Bill which was originally in the Principal Act.
Section 14 of the Principal Act now disappears and we are substituting a new section for it.
I am afraid this is not much clearer to me. I take it this is in substitution of the Act of 1911. I take it that in the Act of 1911 the words "Principal Act" had not the same meaning as "Principal Act" in this case.
I do not know whether I can help or not but I shall try. There is a section 14 in the Principal Act which will be replaced by this new section. It will become section 14 of the old Act.
The 1911 Act?
Section 14 of the 1911 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I am opposed to this section, again at the request of my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture. I know he is very dear to Senator L'Estrange.
He is dearer to the Minister than other colleagues in his own Party.
The whole Government are very dear to the Minister.
I cherish all my colleagues equally.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This discussion on the Government is not relevant on a section which has to do with poisoning.
I am asking the House to reject this section entirely, first of all, because in my opinion it goes too far and, secondly, because the appropriate way to deal with this problem is by an order under the Poisons Act, 1961. The Poisons Act, 1961, established the Poisons Council and I understand that they are considering recommending the strict control of strychnine. That control would be given effect to by ministerial order under the 1961 Act. I think the House might agree that this is obviously the right way to deal with this problem. The Poisons Council are the competent authority and they would examine all aspects of the matter. On the one hand, they would have to have regard to the dangers and suffering caused by strychnine and the availability of suitable alternatives and, on the other hand, they would have to have regard to the fact that strychnine is a cheap protection for sheep owners and farmers against the ravages of dogs.
There is also this to it. Conditions will change from time to time and new drugs will come on the market which might render the use of strychnine, even in rat poisons, completely obsolete. The section envisages the use of strychnine in rat poisons. It is inappropriate to deal with a matter of this sort in a Bill of this kind, and it is better to leave consideration of the whole matter to the Poisons Council.
If we could be sure that action would be taken speedily on this matter in another way, this would be satisfactory enough, but it is the bird in the hand rather than the bird in the bush that we are looking for now. There is a clash of interests here. We must face it. The farmers want protection for their sheep to the utmost degree. On the other hand, we know that valuable dogs, game and other wild life in the country are endangered and sometimes destroyed by the use of strychnine. The present law on the matter is laid down in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, section 8 of which states:
that the poison was placed by the accused for the purpose of destroying rats, mice, or other small vermin, and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic animals. But in Ireland these provisions do not apply.
In England strychnine is known as the Irish poison.
I do not know whether that is a compliment to us or not. This special exemption was given to us in 1911. Now we feel in 1964, when most other countries prohibit it, that we should do so. It is prohibited in Britain: under the Animals Poisons' Regulations, 1963 it is prohibited except for the destruction of moles. We found a situation in Tralee last year when many dogs were poisoned, the bait having been laid in the town in black sausage meat. I must say that this is outrageous, and it should be prohibited, to put a bait—and I call it a bait—in a town to kill dogs as a kind of revenge for worrying sheep. Again, in Dún Laoghaire, a man was fined recently who admitted that he put strychnine in raw sausages in his front garden. Under the present law that can happen, and we feel here and now we should try to bring in a provision to control it, and a section of this kind is necessary. Perhaps it should be amended in some way, but to leave no protection at all for children, dogs, valuable pets, and so on is unreasonable.
The Minister for Lands in August, 1953, gave details of grants for the preservation of game reserves and he condemned the exposure of impregnated carcases and other poison media. This is the kind of thing we want to avoid and the kind of thing the Minister for Lands condemned. I can urge a strong case here. I can assure the House there is strong weight of opinion behind this section. I should like to get protection for human beings, as well as for animals, who are in grave danger under the existing laws.
I should like to say a word about strychnine as a poison. I think very few people would object to the sale of strychnine being prohibited altogether. It is a dreadfully dangerous poison that has deadly effects for many years. It has been known that strychnine has caused the death of a human being many years after it has been purchased, for, perhaps, a harmless reason. I think the number of people who lay strychnine are few and far between. There is general public opinion in the country against the laying of strychnine for poisoning animals. I am in favour of this section as it stands. It will reduce the possibility of strychnine being used to take human life. As I say, most country people have a holy horror of strychnine, and, to use their own expression, it is unlucky to have it about the house. I have heard that since I was knee high. Therefore, I am in favour of the section for that reason. If the Minister gives an assurance that it will be dealt with in another Act, or by statutory regulations, it might go a long way to allay the fears that Senators have.
I have had some discussion in connection with this section and everybody I spoke to agreed that strychnine was a repulsive type of poison to use on any animal. Obviously it is a poison that has to be applied to prevent sheep being worried by dogs. I said, on the Second Stage, that the most repulsive thing was to see the results of sheep being worried, harried and bitten by dogs. Apparently, the remedy is to lay poison and warn everybody that the poison is laid. Certainly, some of the poisons which are laid at present are dangerous to humans, whether the dog it is intended to prevent worrying the sheep, is killed or not. It is very difficult to suggest an alternative poison that would not be immediately dangerous. Sodium or potassium cyanide are quicker in action and less cruel to the animal but unfortunately they are volatile and dangerous to the person coming near them. They are also dangerous to the person applying them.
Then we come to the poisons which public authorities, including the Dublin Corporation, use for rats. I wonder if such poisons could be used for the destruction of badgers and other vermin and for animals, such as dogs, worrying sheep. I agree strychnine should not be used but, unfortunately, up to the present, nobody seems to have suggested an alternative that would be operative. I agree with Senator Stanford that we cannot support this section until we have a proper alternative. Let us hope that the Poisons Bill, which is under administration by the Minister for Health, will produce something that can be effective and that will not be so repulsive as strychnine is.
I am afraid that I totally disagree with what Senator Stanford said on this section. I personally know a farmer on the KildareLeix border who, less than 12 months ago, lost 70 sheep in one night because they were frightened by a pack of dogs which chased them into a quarry. I believe the farmer must have some way of protecting his flock of sheep from being worried by dogs. I cannot see that there is any justification for this House, or, indeed the Oireachtas, enacting legislation to protect mongrels and stray dogs. If these dogs were of any value whatsoever, or their owners had any regard for them, they would not allow them to wander around hungrily at night to the detriment of the public. The dogs, which wander around in any town, are a danger not only to the passing traffic but also to cyclists and other people. They chase anything that comes near them. Naturally enough, sheep, being timid creatures, are frightened of stray dogs which happen to be in the same field as they are.
I am also opposed to the section which stipulates that poison should not be laid within 100 yards of a public road or public place. That is a rather severe burden on farmers because there are lots of farms in which the fields are less than 100 yards across and less than 100 yards from the road. If this section is allowed to go through it will mean that there will be farms on which it would not be possible to lay poison, especially in small fields. Surely the small farmer is as much entitled to protect his animals as the larger farmer.
I see both sides of this argument. As I said on the Second Stage, I wonder, as I suggested then, is there a compromise possible which might allow a farmer, who has had his sheep worried, perhaps more than once, to make a case to the local sergeant of the Garda for permission to lay strychnine? In that particular case he would be supplied with the poison by the chemist on presentation of the authorisation from the sergeant. He would get a reasonable amount which would be satisfactory for the job and that would be the end of it.
We are all agreed that strychnine is an extremely undesirable poison but, equally, there does seem to be a strong case for some sort of satisfactory poison to deal with dogs which worry sheep. I wonder is it necessary to throw out this whole section just because the use of strychnine is allowed. Would it not be possible to insert a provision, on Report Stage, that the use of strychnine would be prohibited except by regulations made by the Minister? The section, as it stands, provides for personal application to the Minister for permits in cases where strychnine is to be used. I do not think that is really practicable. There might be hundreds of applications coming in from farmers and each one would have to be investigated. It would be a cumbersome procedure. If the Minister will make regulations under which strychnine could be used, then that would be more practicable. One obvious regulation which could be made would be the prohibition of the use of strychnine in towns. I wonder would the Minister accept the section on the basis that the use of strychnine would be allowed where the regulations permitted it.
We should all like very much to see the use of strychnine prohibited. In the case of mountain sheep farmers their trouble is that foxes worry their sheep in the lambing season. The trouble is to give poisoned bait to the foxes. Foxes will not take poisoned meat because they like to do their own killing and very often a live bait has to be used. I know something about that and I have discussed it many times with farmers. They get a fowl and put the strychnine under the outer layer of the skin of the fowl. It would take a considerable time before the poison would kill the fowl in that way but the fox comes along for the kill and is killed by the poison from the carcase of the fowl. I asked was that not persecution to the fowl but I was told not. There is a need for strychnine until something else can be got to replace it. We would really like something to put dogs asleep until such time as we caught them doing the mischief.
This proposes to prohibit the use of strychnine for killing any animal and I must oppose that. We all know the deadly effects of strychnine and that it is very dangerous but it would be difficult to suggest an alternative and I have never heard of human beings being hurt due to strychnine laid by farmers to kill animals.
Ireland is an agricultural country and according to the last statistics almost 60 per cent of our exports come from the land, so farmers and their property must be protected. We can not expect them to build fences around all their land or to stay up day and night with shotguns to keep dogs from worrying their sheep. We are dealing with cruelty and unnecessary suffering but the greatest cruelty inflicted each year on animals is the cruelty inflicted by stray dogs on harmless sheep and lambs. You may get half-a-dozen lambs with their legs broken and find the ewes with their throats torn out of them. If people had any regard for their dogs it is hard to understand why they would not keep them at home or under control, but, unfortunately, until we can make the owners of dogs keep them under proper control farmers must have authority to use whatever method they think best and at the present time I do not know of any alternative for strychnine so I am opposing the section.
To some extent I should like to support the compromise put forward by Senators Jessop and Yeats. The killing of cattle by stray dogs is an appalling problem for farmers all over the country yet I cannot believe that this can be a simpler problem for farmers in Scotland, and in Scotland, I think, this portion of the English Act of 1911 runs while the section was kept out for us here and I cannot say why we did not have the section of the original 1911 Act.
I do not say it is an appalling problem, but anyone who has a dog killed by strychnine knows the terrible agonies that animal goes through. It is not true, as Senator McDonald tells us, that it is the stray mongrels that nobody cares about. It frequently happens that dogs which may be mongrels, but which people do care about, and valuable dogs are killed in this most disgusting way with the greatest cruelty just as a result of picking up a piece of meat unknown to their master or mistress on an ordinary country walk or near the city of Dublin or any city.
It seems to me that a possible compromise lies in something which would restrict the use of strychnine. It may be absolutely necessary to go on using strychnine in certain circumstances. I should like subsection (4) of section 14 amended. The Minister is given power to issue permits on application for the use of strychnine for the destruction of rats and it should also provide that he could give a permit for its use for the destruction of dogs where sheep were worried. In those circumstances I would expect that the permit would require the strychnine to be laid a certain distance—not necessarily 100 yards but a reasonable distance, 50 yards possibly—from public roads and possibly only in the hours of darkness.
I think we must face the fact that the use of strychnine is cruel, horribly cruel, and that it kills many animals, many dogs, which it was never meant to kill. In these circumstances if it is necessary some bounds should be put on its use and I suggest the amendment of subsection (4) of section 14.
We have in the ultimate the question of the greater hardship. That is the rule regarding a landlord and the tenant of a house. I am one of those who were against the use of strychnine on the Second Reading. I fully realise the cruelty of death by strychnine but with all the advance of science and of chemistry it appears that no substitute has evolved. I should like to hope that that would happen and that some satisfactory substitute would be found, so that people would not have to use strychnine in any circumstances, but until that is achieved I am afraid I must take the view that an examination of the greater hardship must be made.
It is easy for any person with an ordinary regard for animals and who is not cruel by nature to make a case to prevent cruelty, but if that is carried too far you can have packs of dogs, some well bred and some mongrels. Whether a dog has a pedigree or not affection can develop between owner and dog and nobody wants to see his own dog poisoned while he may regard other dogs as mongrels. The tragedy is that people do not keep the dogs properly under control and the result is that dogs are inclined to hunt in packs. In this I disagree with Senator McDonald. A dog that may be a domestic pet will, when joined by a number of others, hunt with the pack and it appears to me that a mass psychology, a mass mind, develops and they all hunt to kill. Though a dog may be well fed and well cared for, when he is joined by others you get a pack that is dangerous and owners do not take sufficient steps to ensure that that does not happen. There is an attempt to distinguish between one breed and another and there are certain controls for one breed of dog, but domestic pets should be regarded the same as others if they hunt in packs.
Although I am against the use of strychnine because cruelty is involved until some substitute can be found, I would be against saying that it cannot be used at all. It would be quite impracticable for the Minister to attempt to deal with 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 individual cases. I am satisfied it is not as cruel as the hardship inflicted when flocks are attacked. I have seen such things happen. While I should like to see cruelty prevented, we must choose the lesser of two evils. I hope some other poison will be found, but until that day arrives we must choose the lesser of two evils.
Some time ago we dealt with another Bill for the protection of sheep and animals. I proposed then that when any stray dogs had done damage to animals, the sergeant of the Garda should be allowed to declare a certain number of townlands in that area special areas for a special period, and that any dog found on land in that area would not be protected, let me put it that way, and might be shot. That proposal was not accepted by the Minister for Agriculture, and the chief ground for its rejection was that the dogs of neighbours might be shot.
Some farmers keep greyhounds as a small commercial line. They are known as the small man's racehorse, or something like that. Now they are to be kept strictly on leads, and more than four of them may not be taken out together, just because it seems that one or two greyhounds have killed or chased small dogs. Protection is to be taken from them simply because some people want to let their dogs roam around the farms at the lambing season. I am strongly opposed to this section because farmers who may depend to a great extent on lambs do not seem to be getting consideration. Only two mornings ago six lambs belonging to a neighbour of mine who owns about seven or eight sheep were killed by dogs. I do not know what damage they may have done to the ewes that had not lambed. Unless there is adequate protection I strongly oppose this section.
I fail to see why we are giving so much time to this section since there is another provision. There is the Control of Dogs Order, under which dogs are supposed to be under control from sunset to sunrise. If dogs are hunting in packs, or individually, and causing damage, there should be no scruple about using strychnine, or taking any steps necessary for the protection of animals I do not think this section should be allowed to stand.
I want to urge very strongly on the House that we omit this section from the Bill altogether. I do not think it is necessary to argue on the merits of strychnine and the necessity for compromise between farmers on the one hand and dog owners on the other. That problem will be dealt with. In 1961, the Oireachtas established the Poisons Council, and I am assured that the problem of strychnine is under active consideration at the moment. I cannot give any hard and fast undertakings to the Seanad that recommendations will be produced by the council by any particular date, but I can inform the Seanad that this matter is being actively considered by the council at the moment.
What we are asked to do in this House today might in six months' time prove completely unworkable or unsuitable because of some development. As I already mentioned, the section specifically envisages the use of strychnine for poisoning rats. It is quite possible that within six or 12 months' time some new product will come on the market which will make it completely unnecessary. The Poisons Council are in a position to keep an eye on developments and consider the situation from time to time as they see it. They are the proper body to leave in charge of the affair. In view of that situation, we would be duplicating our efforts if having set up a Council to control and regulate these matters we in this Bill attempt to impose controls in this field.
The debate has disclosed that this is a difficult area and that Senators have different views which they hold very strongly. I think the proper body to deal with this particular matter is the Poisons Council. They will have regard to all the considerations mentioned here by Senators. They will have regard on the one hand to the farmer's interests and the necessity for him to protect his flocks of sheep and, as against that, they will have regard to the various other points put up by those who abhor strychnine as a cruel poison. In view of the fact that the matter is now under active consideration by the Poisons Council and that we can expect appropriate regulations in due course, I think the thing to do is to drop section 14.
I still think it would be better to have the bird in the hand. It may be a good while before the Poisons Council frame their suggestions. However, it is quite clear that the section will not stand if it goes to a vote, but those Senators in favour of retaining the section should have an opportunity of recording their dissent.
In view of the Minister's statement on the latest position in regard to matters affecting this section with regard to strychnine, and so on, I think there should be general agreement that it would not stand part of the Bill. He explained to the House that the Poisons Council are attending to the matter and the view was expressed that people might be prepared to wait to see their final views.
Question put and declared lost.
Section 14 deleted, Senator Stanford dissenting.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Is there any significance in the words "unbroken horse or untrained bull," in subparagraph (a) and (b) of subsection (1)?
Rodeos.
This is to prevent a rodeo type of entertainment. If it were possible to train a bull to behave in a reasonable and gentlemanly way, perhaps the society would not object.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to oppose this section. I can quite see the desire of Senator Stanford and the people who are with him in the matter of proposing this Bill being anxious that proceedings shall in all cases be taken where possible but I think this section goes much too far. It is completely contrary to a very basic legal maxim that people in all cases would be considered innocent until proved guilty. This section means in effect that the persons referred to in the section are guilty until they prove themselves innocent and with that I cannot agree at all and I certainly oppose the section in every possible way. I indicated on Second Reading that I was opposed to this section. I was hoping that the proposers of the Bill might have found some other way. I take it that when someone registers opposition the onus then falls on the proposers to find some other way of getting around the difficulty. Nothing has turned up and I remain where I stood on Second Stage. This is the most objectionable section in the Bill. This type of section is objectionable in any Bill. It has turned up in legislation already I know. I objected to it then and I still object to it. The really operative legislation of this type relates to customs offences. Anybody found with goods in his or her possession is deemed to have smuggled unless he or she can prove otherwise. Once the Department of Finance come into it you are up against a very strong brick wall. In this case, the Department of Finance do come into it. I hope the Seanad will join with me in opposing this section. It is on the principle involved and I certainly hope to see the section deleted.
The position here is simply that if we are going to take action at all we must have someone to take action against and some presumption of this kind. Unless we have a presumption of this kind a great deal of the efforts to prevent unnecessary cruelty will fall to the ground. The Senator has a point here. Again, it is a clash between two interests. If we want to have a workable Bill, I think a section of this kind is necessary.
I really think that Senator Sheldon has not any case here. If somebody on the road sees a dog with a broken leg in my field the first person presumed to be the owner would be the occupier of the land. There is no penalty attached to this clause at all. From whom else could a garda inquire except from the person in the house near where the dog was found? Obviously, it would seem that the person who lives in that house owns the dog. If the garda comes to me I can say that I do not own the dog and that it must have got on to my property in some way. The section is innocuous.
If someone allows an untrained bull on your land you will soon know whether the section is innocuous. There is nothing in connection with the Department of Finance here at all. An inquiry must be made as to who owned the land. There will be an assumption as to the person who owned the land, the dog or the injured sheep. I cannot see any breach of constitutional provisions here at all.
I object to this section. Time and time again we find in legislation that the farmer is victimised and made the scapegoat. I can visualise calves being driven along a road and one dies and is dumped over the hedge. The farmer is prosecuted for not burying the dead animal. That can also happen in cases of abortion where not only has he the job of burying the animal, but his land is affected by that contagious disease. The farmer is supposed to own his land. He is supposed to have fixity of tenure but the general public, and especially the urban population, think that the farmer's land is a commonage where they can roam at will. Townspeople have quite a different view. If the farmer comes in and even parks his car outside a town where there are houses there may be an objection. I know of instances where people objected to persons leaving their bicycles against a wall while attending Mass on Sundays. One experiences that attitude in every town, but when those people come out to the country they assume that they own the terrain. I believe this is an unreasonable section and I, therefore, oppose it. There are many instances in which the farmer is at a decided disadvantage and put to considerable expense by some sections of the public.
It is surprising to me how people's attitude changes when responsibility is thrown on them. I have noticed that, when it was a question of the individual as against a big body or the State, Senator Stanford has always come down on the side of the individual as the defender of the liberty of the person or the property of the individual. Now that he has charge of promoting this particular measure and because responsibility has been thrown upon him he certainly, and with ability, has been able to display that he can act as an advocate for authority as well as for the individual.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not think Senator Stanford comes within the category of an animal found on any land.
It suggests to me that a Government in power and a Party in opposition are two different things.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Section 16.
I do not think Senator Stanford will convince many people that it will be a good thing to go the distance he suggests.
I wish to oppose this section, too, because it puts the onus of proof on the occupier, even if he proves his point to meet the case. That is altogether unfair and unnecessary and a very bad precedent.
I am convinced by Senator Stanford's answer on this section. I agree that it is quite simple. If a farmer's sheep are being worried by dogs and one of them is recognised as being that of an acquaintance or neighbouring farmer, it is unreasonable to assume that he will go into court and prove that that particular farmer owns the dog. How do you prove that anyone owns a dog? Because a dog is normally around a farm it would be assumed that the farmer owns it. Then all that is required is that the farmer, if he does own a dog, will come and say so. Everybody knows that a great number of farmers have three or four dogs which are not, strictly speaking, family pets and which are normally around the place. Whether or not they are owned by the farmer might be difficult to prove. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that in a case of that kind a farmer should come to court and say he does not own the dog.
I am also against the section. Let us suppose a bull strayed into the farmer's land and did a lot of damage and killed somebody. The farmer would have to assume the responsibility
He would have the bull, too.
He would have a big responsibility on him.
May I say a word? I think I am as mindful of the liberty of the individual as any man in this House, but we are straining at an unreal difficulty in this case. As somebody has already pointed out, we are not dealing with guilt or proof of guilt. We are dealing with the ownership of a particular animal, and I think this is a section which is absolutely necessary if the Bill is to be a practical working proposition. As Senator Yeats wisely pointed out, this is a presumption which is the easiest possible presumption to rebut. The presumption is that if the dog or the animal is on your land you own it. If you do not, there is no great difficulty in rebutting the inference. It is not your dog and never has been your dog and that would end the matter. If we want to make the Bill work we must keep this section in it. If Senator Stanford came here and said that a man is guilty until proved innocent it would be different. He is not doing that. He is making a presumption of ownership.
If it is as easy as all that, there is no necessity for the section, that is, if ownership is simple to establish.
That is a non sequitur, if I may use my Latin.
In the case of the dog, it would be difficult to prove ownership. A simple statement is not the same as proof.
I think the Senator is making a simple matter complicated. If a garda comes to me and says: "A dog has been found on your land, are you the owner?" and I say "I am not," the garda must accept my word. Somebody else says: "The dog has always been there." Obviously it is his dog. A simple statement must be proof until some evidence to the contrary is found. If the person did not own the dog that would be the end unless somebody else said he did own it.
I always accept simple answers but I am afraid Senator Yeats has made this matter too simple. Let us suppose a dog strayed from a house, say, half a mile away, where it was presumed to be owned and came to another house and was adopted by the children of the latter house and stayed there. After some time the people in the house to which the dog had come decided it might not be wise to have a licence. There was no question of ownership. The dog remained for some years. That is a matter I can speak of from personal experience. There are also people who do not feed their dogs. The dog, being a pretty cute animal, will scent out where he will have a good home. If food is left available in a kennel or a house, other dogs will come in at night and they will adapt themselves to that house. I know of a case where a dog came from another place half a mile away and it was six months before it was discovered where the dog came from. At that time, the new owner, being a law-abiding citizen, in order to keep himself within the law, had taken out a licence for the dog and had put a name on him. I should like to know from Senator Yeats, or anybody else in this House, when that dog becomes the property of the farmer to whom he came.
I am against this section on principle for the same reason as Senator Sheldon opposes it. I think we have got a little confused here and we have entered into a discussion exclusively on dogs. This section will not help to identify the dogs which are worrying sheep. It has nothing to do with that, good, bad or indifferent. This section will only help to identify the ownership of animals who have been cruelly treated. I can see an animal can be cruelly treated if it is abandoned in a dying state. If a person is to abandon an animal like that, he will likely abandon it on someone else's land.
Under this section the owner of that land may have to come into court and swear that the animal does not belong to him. It is not sufficient for him to say to the garda that he is not the owner, because the garda will not accept it. As a Senator said to me, a tinker may leave his dying animal behind on someone else's land. The animal may be suffering unduly. The owner of the land may be dragged into court to say on oath that he does not own it. The important thing about it is that under the section as it stands, until he goes into court and says on oath that he does not own the animal, he is presumed to own it. There is no guarantee, if the circumstances are suspicious enough, or if the garda is perhaps erroneously convinced that he does own the animal, that even his oath will be accepted. I am against this type of legislation in principle. The Minister says he is a great believer in the freedom of the individual. The Minister says he is a great believer in the authority of the Executive and I think the trend in a lot of his presumptuous enactments here go to show that the Minister is also a great believer in the old rule that the Crown can do no wrong.
I abolished that principle.
The Minister may have abolished it in that form, but in his mind I believe the Minister believes he can do no wrong.
The Senator is getting tied up here. He is not mind reading.
The Minister has not abolished it in his mind. This principle is wrong and this section imposes an altogether too onerous onus on the owner of the land. As I said at the beginning, I am against it in principle.
Senator Stanford said that this only involves mere ownership. Surely in the case concerned, where cruelty has been inflicted on an animal, the ownership is the vital factor in obtaining conviction. It is certainly far more serious than mere ownership of an animal.
The practical difficulty is this. When some animal has been cruelly treated, he is often abandoned. It is hard to establish ownership at all. This would give some lever to the Civic Guards to go about establishing ownership and to say: "Look, it is on your land. This, under the Act, gives a presumption, which you can rebut." They can eliminate certain possibilities and probably arrive at the truth by this weapon. If you do not give them a weapon for arriving at the truth a good deal of the prosecutions that ought to be brought simply cannot be brought.
Listening to this debate, I do agree there is a certain tendency towards presuming guilt before it is proved, but it is perfectly clear from what the Minister has said, that no one will suffer under this. It will not be difficult, I think, to establish the negative point that you do not own the animal and you can swear on oath. If two witnesses swear on oath, it is sufficient. I appeal to the House to grant this small lever for those who want to check cruelty to animals, who are against the very practical difficulty that an animal cruelly treated, in an astonishing way, seems to lose ownership automatically.
I have great sympathy with Senator Stanford in this matter, but to say, as the Minister says, that this is an administratively simple way to do it is no argument. Senator Stanford's argument is that this is the way you find out who owns it. That is all right here when we are talking in the air. As Senator Fitzpatrick said, it is not necessarily quite so simple when it comes down to brasstacks in any particular case. I think Senator Stanford is allowing his sympathy towards animals to cloud his vision in respect of what I think is a very important principle of law. I have a great deal of sympathy with his point of view and his anxiety but I think he is allowing it to go too far. I do not think that an important principle like this should be upset for any reason.
Those who feel deeply about a Bill before the Oireachtas on any particular subject would, I am sorry to say, be prepared to say: "Ah, now; to do a great right, do this little wrong". It worked all right one time but it was only on the stage and it was against the law anyway. I will not accept the argument that to do this great right, you should do this little wrong, because Ministers—I am not talking about this particular Minister; I know he is a very charming fellow and he would not dream of doing what I am about to suggest—by virtue of their position and their desire to see done whatever they consider good for the country are only too willing to seize these little threads and twist them into a rope which could be very dangerous for a lot of us.
I will just point out one thing in regard to owners of land and occupation of land. If animals of any sort come on to my land, there is a well established principle of the common law that if I drive them off, I am liable for any damage they cause. I am under very strict obligation to drive them to a pound or on to commonage, or on to the land of the man who owns them, if I can find it, I may not just drive them out and set them at large. So the occupier of land, by virtue of his occupation of the land, has an obligation put on him. He may not just drive them out. The occupier or owner of land by virtue of his ownership or occupancy has this old common law obligation to have care for animals on his land. We all know that farmers are the backbone of the country and so on, but down through the ages it has been recognised that ownership or occupation of land brings with it certain obligations.
It seems to me that the debate on this section has shown that there is a lot of disquiet about the proposal. There is a tendency nowadays to over-legislate, to try to dot the i's and cross the t's to the last degree. The Minister has said that a certain amount of legislation covers the position and it seems to me highly unnecessary to add an amount of legislation to what we have already in the statutes. We have got on very well so far in dealing with animals and land and I do not see any necessity to bring in the section at all.
In 99 per cent of cases the occupier of any land upon which animals are is the owner of the animals. If there is a prosecution for any cruelty to the animals because they appear to be ill-treated the person bringing the prosecution must prove ownership. Suppose animals are found on my land, say a horse is found in a dying condition with a number of sores, He should have been destroyed; he is emaciated, obviously ill-fed, and should have been destroyed. The guards, assuming they bring a prosecution, must prove before they can succeed that I own the animal. That is a matter which is practically impossible to prove. The onus is on the State to prove every prosecution to the last iota. The only persons who can prove it in all probability are myself and the members of my family. The section presupposes the animal is mine unless the contrary is proved. The animal is presupposed to be mine and the guards come and investigate. I am a man of truth, a man of honour, and am known to be a man of honour. I tell them the animal is not mine and that they may if they wish ask my wife, my family, my neighbours and my workers. The guards investigate and find that it is not mine, that it is an animal tinkers have driven on to my place, emaciated and ill-treated, so they do not prosecute me.
If justice is to be done at all it is impossible unless you have a section such as this and it is a thing not unknown in statute law. A similar principle appears in the Road Transport Act. If I am carrying goods in a lorry with no trade plate I am presumed to be carrying them for hire and reward and they are presumed not to be my goods. The principle is very well known and unless it is applied here you are bound to have an amount of unnecessary cruelty to animals which will avoid punishment.
I respectfully disagree with Senator Nash. I think the best argument against the retention of this section was made by Senator Stanford when he said that most animals which are cruelly treated are abandoned. That is the point I want to make. They are abandoned, left on somebody else's land, yet under the Bill the owner of the land on which the animals happened to be left is to be presumed to be the owner of the animals.
I do not agree with Senator Nash when he says it is not even necessary for a man to go into court and prove on oath that he does not own the animals which he is presumed to own. It says he is presumed to own the animal until he proves in court he does not.
It does not say on oath.
How else is he to prove it?
By giving his word.
Is Senator Fitzpatrick being sensible in assuming that the majority of animals on land have been abandoned? In 99.9 cases the animals would be owned by the man who owns the land.
He does not usually treat them cruelly or neglect them, but neglected animals are abandoned, left on somebody's land. It very often happens and furthermore— the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the Principal Act has been in force since 1911 and there is no such presumptive provision in that Act. Prosecutions have been brought all down the years and presumably convictions have been secured.
I am told that quite a number of prosecutions have failed on this very point.
At any rate the Principal Act has been there since 1911 and only now in 1964 is it thought necessary to bring in this section. I have heard the argument in this House on the Official Secrets Bill that it was not any great harm to make it an offence for a man to refuse to make a statement convicting himself. I think it was Senator Nash who said— and I was very amazed to hear the proposition from him of all people— that an innocent man could not convict himself by telling the truth and that it was no harm to make it an offence for a person to refuse to make a statement which might convict himself. I am against this sort of thing in principle and I will continue to be against it.
Senator Fitzpatrick has painted a picture of anybody on whose land an animal is found having necessarily to go into court to prove that it is not his animal, but that is not realistic because what is obviously going to happen or what will happen certainly in most cases is that if the guards suggest to the owner that there is a presumption that it is his animal and if the owner says: "It is not my animal and if you press the matter I am prepared to go into court and swear it is not", unless the guards have some other evidence to back up their belief that it is his animal, they are certainly not going to press the matter. If they have nothing to support their contention and the owner indicates that he will go to court and swear that it is not his animal they will not press the matter.
They could bring the prosecution and unless the accused came into court and proved on oath that it was not his he could be convicted.
Practically they would not.
Question put.
The Committee divided:— Tá, 28; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brennan, John J.
- Browne, Seán.
- Donegan, Bartholomew.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- Mooney, Joseph M.
- Nash, John Joseph.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Ciosáin, Éamon.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Ó Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ross, J.N.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Stanford, William B.
- Yeats, Michael.
Níl
- Brosnahan, Seán.
- Carton, Victor.
- Cole, John C.
- Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Desmond, Cornelius.
- Fitzgerald, John.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- McDonald, Charles.
- McGuire, Edward A.
- Mannion, John.
- Ó Conalláin, Dónall.
- Quigley, Joseph.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
Tellers:— Tá: Senators Ó Donnabháin and Farrell; Níl: Senators Cole and Sheldon.
Question declared carried.
Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I suggest that Section 19 be deleted. This is entirely a drafting matter. It does not alter the principle involved in the original draft of the Bill. By deleting Section 19, we can incorporate the necessary removal of disqualification in the new section which is down as amendment No. 20. In other words, amendment No. 20 incorporates the existing Section 19 and makes a neater Bill. There is no question of any new principle being introduced.
Question put and declared lost.
Section 19 deleted.
SECTION 20.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 10, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete "both under control and muzzled" and to insert "under control".
The section as it stands is the subject of some opposition from interested parties, particularly from Bord na gCon who have responsibility for the greyhound industry as a whole. I suggest we would be going far enough if we accepted this amendment, the essence of which is to delete the requirement that greyhounds must be muzzled.
Section 20 (1) as it stands stipulates:
(1) A person shall not exercise or lead or cause or permit to be exercised or led or cause or permit to be at large a greyhound in any public road, open park, beach or other place to which the public customarily resort, unless such greyhound is both under control and muzzled.
Apart from anything else, it has been pointed out that to keep a greyhound muzzled over a long period could in itself cause suffering. My suggestion is that if we stipulate that a person may have only four greyhounds at a time and that they must be on leash we shall be going far enough.
There are arguments both ways as far as the muzzle is concerned. On the whole, the Minister is meeting the situation fairly well by having four greyhounds on lead which is defined as a sufficiently strong chain or leash, cutting out the word "muzzle". There is an argument in favour of having the dog unmuzzled when he is walking a considerable distance especially if the weather is warm.
Senators will know that, in exercising a dog on an ordinary day, he likes to have the tongue out and the mouth open. If the dog is muzzled for a considerable period and is walking a distance of three or four miles I fancy the muzzle would be objectionable to the greyhound, as it is objectionable to Bord na gCon. Therefore, if we agree to the four dogs, two in each hand, on lead by a youngster, be it a boy or a girl, we are meeting the situation fairly well. I think Senator McDonald has an amendment in relation to age. He suggests 13 years and the wording here is 16 years. However, that concerns another section.
I personally accept the Government amendment that we delete the word "muzzle". I have seen a boy leading dogs—I cannot say now, from recollection, whether the number was four or six—which were muzzled. They put a loose muzzle on them and, of course, there is no doubt but that a muzzled dog is a safeguard from the point of view of the prevention of cruelty to animals. That is the greatest safeguard they can have. If a dog breaks away on seeing a cat or another dog, or even a youngster running across the road, he can do little harm if he is muzzled. The fact of not having a muzzle provides the opportunity of doing harm. It is with mixed feelings that I would accept the amendment, deleting the word "muzzled".
If we agree to reduce the number of greyhounds it would give a better chance of control. If an unmuzzled dog breaks away from a youngster leading four dogs, two in each hand, the trouble we seek to avoid is worse than ever, because of the damage the dog may do when he is not muzzled. I do not know whether Senator Stanford would agree with me in this but if we reduce the number of dogs on the lead and if we leave them unmuzzled we will be going half-way.
The Senator made a point about the dogs not being able to breathe. Are the muzzles not so designed that a dog can open the mouth to breathe?
The dog will stick his tongue out. He salivates and thus cools his mouth. It is not a question of breathing. We all can breathe with our mouths shut.
Are there muzzles so designed with a low underneath section so that a dog can put his tongue out.
The dog would not put his tongue through the muzzle.
On section 20, I take it we are dealing with amendment 13 only. That is the amendment which proposes to delete the provision for muzzling greyhounds while being exercised. As I understand it, it is necessary to walk greyhounds when in training for coursing or for the track, but particularly for coursing, a long number of miles each day. I think to make a provision that those dogs should be muzzled over all that time is unnecessary. I think probably it would make it more difficult to train the dogs. In other words, I think that walking a dog for that length of time when he is muzzled, and probably uncomfortable, would not have as beneficial an effect on him as if he were unmuzzled and relaxed.
I should like to know from Senator Stanford, or the sponsors of this Bill what the record is of greyhounds on leashes having attacked other dogs. Has it been a common practice or are there only isolated instances of it? I must admit I saw one case myself, but I feel, that it is only on very rare occasions it has happened that greyhounds being walked along the roads on a lead have attacked other animals. I do not think we should legislate here for the rare occasions on which a dog breaks loose and perhaps damages or injures another dog. I shall have something to say about the other sections of the Bill but I certainly agree with the Minister in this case that if dogs are under proper control it is not necessary that they should be muzzled as well.
I have all my life had a little experience of greyhounds. They are really a most companionable dog. They are very seldom vicious. I have never seen one vicious greyhound. Apart from the fact that they have a tendency to follow a small animal, they are certainly not vicious if they are loose in the street. I cannot see why the greyhound is singled out to be led and muzzled while the Alsatian, which is possibly the most vicious and most dangerous animal, is not mentioned in the Bill. I am absolutely satisfied that muzzling is not necessary in the ordinary exercising of a greyhound. But I am positively frightened every time I meet an Alsatian and I have knowledge of Alsatians having attacked children, and they are allowed to run loose on the street or in the town. They are a positive danger and I think that they are much more entitled to mention in the Bill than the greyhounds.
As a qualified person, can you say whether a muzzle makes a dog vicious?
No.
I understand it does.
It certainly makes politicians vicious.
The Minister to my knowledge has never been muzzled.
The fact is that muzzling is an extra protection for the small animal or child in danger of being savaged by these greyhounds. If the greyhound slips the leash or gets away the muzzle will be an added protection. I told the House half an hour ago about a case where a lady was bringing her dog on a leash in a suburb of this city and a greyhound passing by on a leash made a snap at the small dog. If the greyhound had caught the small dog it would have been badly injured. Any small animal coming within range of an unmuzzled greyhound is in trouble.
I want to make this point about greyhounds being specially singled out in the section. I think it is admitted by most people that greyhounds, for the reason I mentioned earlier that they hunt by sight and not by sound, once they start going for something are more dangerous than any other dog. The Alsatian will go for people if it is cross and in a bad mood but it will not go instinctively for people, whereas the greyhound will go for a small moving animal instinctively and will not be held back by sensing that it is not a hare. There is a definite biological and physiological distinction here between greyhounds and Alsatians and there is good reason for singling out greyhounds. People would welcome the muzzling of all dogs. I personally would welcome the muzzling of Alsatians. Indeed, some members of my family have been attacked by them but I do not think it is practicable at this stage to advocate the muzzling of Alsatians. I think there is good reason for beginning with greyhounds. If the House thinks it is going too far that settles it, but the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals thinks it is necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Arising out of the acceptance of that amendment, perhaps we could have the agreement of the House to some minor consequential changes. The first is that the definition of "muzzled" is now no longer necessary in section 2 and the side note "Muzzling of greyhounds" is also wrong.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
There are two amendments, Nos. 14 and 15, to this section. The section itself is being opposed. I suggest that the most orderly procedure would be to consider the section and, if the section is retained, these amendments can be tabled on Report Stage. Perhaps the House would agree to discuss the section now?
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
I want to ask the House to reject this section the purpose of which is to ensure that persons under the age of sixteen years shall not exercise or lead greyhounds in any public road, open park, beach or other place to which the public customarily resort. I have had very strong representations about this from Bord na gCon and other persons. I think my main argument is a commonsense one. We want an Act which will be a practical measure and which will have public support. Senator Stanford, right through the discussion, has said that there are things which he would like to do but he does not insist on them because he wants to get the maximum amount of support for the Bill. I think that should be our approach too. If the law is too restrictive then people will tend to evade it. The more acceptable we can make this Bill the better it will be from the point of view of its implementation. I think it is going a bit too far to insist that a young fellow under 16 years of age will not be allowed to exercise greyhounds in public. If you permit a lad of 17 to exercise four greyhounds in public on a leash, as stipulated, then it is a bit unreal not to allow a lad of 15 to exercise even one greyhound. I think we shall be going far enough if we provide that nobody may lead more than four greyhounds in public places.
Greyhounds are all that Senator Stanford has said of them but they are also valuable animals and they do represent a source of livelihood to a considerable number of people. The greyhound industry is important and I think it would be unnecessarily restrictive on greyhound proprietors if we prevented them having a young fellow of 14 or 15 years of age exercising them in public. We are singling them out in this Bill as it is. We cannot, I think, be too tough. If we are too tough the tendency will be to evade the law and ignore it. I think we should confine the restrictions to those I have mentioned and that we should delete Section 22 altogether.
I should like to support the Minister in this amendment because I believe it would be wrong if the House were to enact legislation that would prohibit boys of say, 14 years of age, after school, from helping their parents at home. The greyhound industry is a sizeable one in rural Ireland. In most parts of the country, where there are greyhounds, these boys, when they get home from school, help in exercising the greyhounds. It occupies the boys to exercise the greyhounds. When they have something to do it prevents them from becoming juvenile delinquents. If his charge happens to be a winner the little fellow who exercises him, will be more proud of his job. It is a good thing to give boys of tender years an interest in a job like this. It serves to give them a purpose and something to do in their spare time. Therefore, if we were to insist that a boy should be 16 years of age before he could exercise greyhounds I think it would be very wrong. There could be extraordinary comparisons drawn, especially in rural Ireland, where lots of boys are able to tend cattle at fairs and make a very successful job of it. For that reason I should like to support the Minister.
We have in the Bill at the moment a suggestion of 16 years and Senator McDonald wants to substitute 13 years for that. I am very dissatisfied with the Government's point of view to delete the section. If we reject the section it means that we will have a child of seven years going around with a greyhound on the public road. As far as Senator McDonald's remarks are concerned there is nothing to prevent a farmer's son or daughter exercising his dogs for 10 miles around his own premises. It is when you have him coming on to the public road or public strand that the danger arises. There is nothing to bar a young member of a family exercising his greyhounds on his own farm, or on his neighbour's farm if he wishes. The section, as it stands, puts a ban on exercising them on the public road where there is a danger to other humans as well as to animals.
Senators received a letter from Bord na gCon in which it was said they were satisfied with what the Government are doing but that section 22, which debars all persons under sixteen years from exercising greyhounds, would impose a severe penalty on the owners of greyhounds in rural Ireland. There is no bar if they do not go out on the public road or go into a public park. You would not have so many of them; you would have only the road.
"In any event difficulties of enforcement would be virtually insuperable". I do not know why they say that but it would not be easy for any person challenging a boy to know whether he was 16 or 14. A fellow of 14 could be as big as myself.
"If a provision on these lines were deemed essential it was suggested that the limit should be fixed at 13". The age 13 meets Senator McDonald's suggestion and 14 would strike a happy medium. Fourteen is the school leaving age and up to that children have to attend to their lessons and school. Again, remember that it is a question of exercising dogs on a public road or place and there is nothing to stop them from exercising them on their farm.
Bord na gCon would be satisfied with 13. The Minister, in seeking to delete the section, is going further, which I do not think is fair, and I suggest that we agree that even in a public place a boy or girl of 14 years could lead two greyhounds in each hand. We have agreed about leading two greyhounds in each hand, that is, four greyhounds, but 16 is a pretty high limit because a fellow at 16 is as hefty as Senator Stanford or myself sometimes. To delete it altogether is going too far and I suggest that we take the Bord na gCon figure and Senator McDonald's, or 14, the school-leaving age.
The further this discussion goes the more I am becoming convinced that the Bill has singled out greyhound owners, the greyhound industry and the coursing industry for unnecessary interference. The greyhound industry is a valuable part of the agricultural industry. We export a lot of greyhounds to both England and America and get good prices for them and the industry is giving good employment.
I do not think any case has been made to establish that greyhounds are vicious animals or that they have unduly attacked other animals. I think that any cases of greyhounds attacking animals are isolated ones. Dogs run after cats and other dogs, and kill cats, but there is no outcry about that.
It is simply unrealistic to say that a boy must be 16 years of age before he is allowed to walk a greyhound or two, or four greyhounds. All of us who come from greyhound rearing districts have experience of exercising greyhounds on country roads but you would think that all greyhounds were exercised in exclusive parks in Dublin where small pet animals are exercised. Most greyhounds are exercised on country roads. Each of us who comes of farming stock knows that a boy of ten or 12 years of age is given a horse and cart and sent to the creamery with the milk. A horse is a dangerous animal, if it gets out of control, but there is no suggestion that legislation should be brought in making it illegal for a boy of 14 to go to the creamery with his father's horse and cart. Boys are also allowed to change cattle from one field to another, or from one farm to another, and we know that if animals of that sort get out of control, they can be dangerous; but there is no suggestion that it should be made illegal to have the assistance of one's family in this way in running a farm.
I intended to say something on section 21. I missed the section but I do not think I am the only Senator who missed the opportunity. I understand that Senator Stanford would like all stages of the Bill this evening and I certainly would like to facilitate him, especially when the Bill is discussed in the Dáil and I can avail myself of the final section to say what I had to say on section 21. I think I will be in order.
I did not make a deep study of the Bill but listening to the debate, I thought that an unreasonable attack— and I can use no other word—a well-intended, perhaps, but an unnecessary attack, was made and unnecessary interference sought with regard to a valuable part of the agricultural industry.
I have no particular brief for Bord na gCon or for any particular kind of dog but I am in sympathy with this amendment which the Minister has proposed, seeking the delation of the section because, I think we have gone far enough in section 20. We have laid down that these dogs be under control and when we say "under control", it does not matter how many dogs are on the leash or what age the individual is in whose charge they are. If they are under control, that is all we want.
Age, after all, is not a very specific factor in the question of control. You might have a boy of 16 who is not very strong, not nearly as strong as a boy of 14, so the age factor is not an absolutely certain method of determining that there will be control in any particular case. If you specify that there must be control, whether the control is by a boy of 12, 14, 15, or 16 is, I think, a secondary consideration, so on the whole I am in favour of the Minister's amendment.
I agree with what Senator Jessop has said. I do not think that section 22 adds anything at all to the provision already laid down in section 20. The only reason for the suggested provision regarding age in section 22 is to ensure that greyhounds will be kept under control, but that is already provided for in section 20. The following section, section 23, lays down the same penalty for a breach of section 22 as for a breach of section 20 so that the owner of a greyhound who is having his dog exercised is liable to exactly the same penalties, whether he has sent it out with a youth under 16 or with an adult, if it is not under proper control.
The only point of interest to the public is to ensure that greyhounds are under control and since this is provided for already, it does not seem very efficacious to have section 22 in the Bill. The guards would be under an obligation to check the age of anyone who looked at all young who was exercising a greyhound. As Senator Jessop said, there might be many youths unable to keep the greyhounds under control and boys under 16 strong enough to look after them, so I think we should leave it out.
I entirely agree with those who have objected to the section. I think it should be deleted. I agree entirely with Senator Fitzpatrick when he states that this is an unreasonable attack on, undue interference with, an industry which exports up to a million pounds worth of greyhounds each year and is giving very good employment.
I have plenty of experience of greyhounds, perhaps too much, but certainly the vast majority are not vicious animals. They are quiet, timid and docile animals and it would be no trouble or hardship on any boy of nine, ten, or 11 to lead out three, four or five greyhounds. I led them at that age and I see young boys and even girls leading them at the present time, and usually when dogs are being led, the trainer or perhaps the father of the children is with the dogs which they are leading along the road. In any case, it is no hardship on any country boy of 11 or 12 to lead half-a-dozen greyhounds.
I entirely agree with the Minister and am in favour of his amendment.
There is a great deal in what Senator Jessop has said. Perhaps section 20 properly worked would be satisfactory. I should like briefly to answer other suggestions made just now. It was said that this was an unreasonable attack on a particular section of our citizens. I do not think that this can be sustained. I want to quote three cases which happened very recently of greyhounds attacking people. These cases come from a body interested in recording all cases of attacks by any kind of dog. In their experience attacks by greyhounds are much more frequent. Here are three typical cases.
On the 8th June, 1963, two valuable Cairn terriers, the property of So-and-So—I can supply the name if anyone wants it—were being exercised on leads on the Drimnagh road. They were attacked by two loose greyhounds and very badly savaged. The bitch is now so nervous that she will not lead and when mated had three dead puppies. An action is impending against the owner of the greyhounds.
They were loose greyhounds?
I am making the point that greyhounds in general belong to a particular category. Here is another example. Mrs. So-and-So was exercising two dogs in the Phoenix Park on 11th January, 1964. She saw a boy unleash four greyhounds which immediately charged her dogs. She just managed to get into her car and escaped in that way. Again, the greyhounds were the attackers.
Very frequently greyhounds are exercised beside the canals in Dublin. A lady was sitting on a path beside the river with her pet dog. A man came along leading four greyhounds. Two got away and savaged her dog which got a broken leg and she was bitten on the shoulder. The case was taken to court and she was awarded damages. It is not that the society are singling out greyhounds. The fact is that they do attack more often than other dogs.
I want to quote now a person who is called "one of the leading trainers in the West" in the Evening Press of Thursday, 27th February. Mr. Murphy of Oranmore in County Galway is quoted as saying:
To my knowledge no man ever takes out more than four greyhounds at a time—it would be too much for one man.
If more than four dogs can be too much for one man, can it not be argued that four dogs are always too much for a youth of ten, 12, 13 or 14 years? There is certainly that implication if it is a full-time business and a full exercise of the strength for one man to hold four greyhounds.
The Senator will have to establish an upper age limit now, too.
The fact is that these dogs are tremendously strong. They are bred to be strong. The strength is bred into them, and fed into them intensively. During the war there were stories that when none of us could get brandy or eggs or meat, some Irish greyhounds were getting brandy and eggs and meat and doing very well on them. They are very well fed animals, and they are the strongest animals pound for pound probably of any dogs in the country. That is why this stringent restriction in regard to their exercise in public places is being asked for. It may be that I am asking for too much. It may be that under section 20 we can get what we are asking for in section 22. I want to make the point that it is untrue to say that any section of the community is being singled out unjustly or to say that greyhounds are not uniquely dangerous in that respect.
Surely the Seanad will agree that no man will commit valuable dogs to the care of a juvenile or a youth if he has the slightest doubts in his mind that the young person is not capable of controlling them? No one will give a prize winning greyhound to someone he thinks will let it get hurt.
I resent the attack on us. I do not think it was justified. We are trying to do our best for the greyhound industry as well as safeguarding other dogs and human beings. Senator McDonald has an amendment down which coincides with the request of Bord na gCon. Why should we turn down the circular of Bord na gCon?
I am not acting on behalf of Bord na gCon.
I am not saying the Senator is. I hope the Minister will withdraw his recommendation to us that the section should be withdrawn. Let us have some age limit. The Bill suggests 16 years, and Bord na gCon and Senator McDonald suggest 13 years. I was trying to strike a happy medium by suggesting 14 years. I appeal to the Minister not to delete the section completely. That would mean that a kid of four years could take out a greyhound.
He could take out a tiger too.
Age limits are difficult to enforce. You cannot ask a boy leading greyhounds whether he has got his birth certificate with him. I think Senator Jessop was quite right when he drew attention to the fact that Section 20, as it stands, is sufficient to ensure that greyhounds are under proper control. If a garda meets a very small boy toddling along with a lot of greyhounds, it is obvious they are not under proper control, and if a prosecution is brought under Section 20 it will be sustained. I think the Minister is right in opposing the section and saying it should be withdrawn. There is ample protection under Section 20.
Can anyone tell me why greyhounds alone are mentioned? Why not Alsatians, or foxhounds, or bulldogs, or Kerry blues or certain terriers? To my mind they are far more dangerous than greyhounds. Why pick on greyhounds alone?
Other dogs are not usually exercised three and four at a time. I have quoted three cases, and with a little more notice I could quote 33 cases of greyhounds, against isolated cases of other dogs. But I am fairly well satisfied that it is better that this section should go if we get Section 20 fully administered.
Question put and declared lost.
Section 22 deleted.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."
I think it is completely unnecessary to include the penalty of imprisonment for any offence under sections 20, 21 or 22. I would ask the proposer of the Bill to remove the word "imprisonment" from the section. I think it is completely unnecessary to say that a person can be sent to prison if he leads five greyhounds at one time.
This is a threat. I think it is desirable to have a very severe penalty in the case of persistent breaking of the law. I imagine that it is only on a very persistent offender that imprisonment would be imposed. There is a choice—£20 or imprisonment.
If he did not pay the fine of £20 he would go to prison.
Is there not a consequential amendment?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 10, line 43, subsection (2), after "animal" to insert "(including the dehorning of an animal that involves such interference)".
This is one of several amendments in my name which were considered by the veterinary profession and were to be included in the Schedule but after discussion with the Department it was suggested they would be more suitable here.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 10, subsection (2), after paragraph (a), to insert the following paragraphs:
"( ) the application of a rubber ring or other device to an animal within seven days after its birth for the purpose of constricting the flow of blood to the scrotum of the animal; or
( ) the application of a rubber ring or other device to a lamb within seven days after its birth for the purpose of constricting the flow of blood to the tail of the lamb; or
( ) the cauterisation of the horn buds of a calf within fourteen days after its birth; or".
These amendments were suggested in the interests of the fanning community.
This type of treatment can take place?
Yes, it can take place.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In pages 10 and 11 to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister may after consultation with such organisations representing the veterinary profession or agricultural interests as may appear to him to be appropriate, by order vary any of the ages specified in paragraph 6 of the said Schedule."
In the Bill, as originally before us, subsection (3) says:—
The Minister may, after consultation with the Veterinary College of Ireland and with such organisations as appear to the Minister to be appropriate (being organisations which in his opinion represent agricultural interests), by order vary any of the ages specified in paragraph 6 of the said Schedule.
It was thought, on further consideration, that the phrasing used here would be better, namely,
In pages 10 and 11 to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister may after consultation with such organisations representing the veterinary profession or agricultural interests as may appear to him to be appropriate, by order vary any of the ages specified in paragraph 6 of the said Schedule."
This is what the veterinary surgeons want. I gather this is what the Department of Agriculture wants. We hope the House will accept this largely formal change.
I think it should be mentioned that the Veterinary College of Ireland does not really exist any longer except as a series of buildings in Ballsbridge. It is now the home of two schools of veterinary medicine and as such it has not got any real voice in a matter like this.
In the section as it stands, I understand it is obligatory on the Minister to consult the Veterinary College and such organisations as appear to the Minister to be appropriate. Under the amendment, the Minister is obliged to consult only the veterinary profession or agricultural interests. I should be happier if the word "or" read "and". I think it would be in the interests of the agricultural industry as well as of the veterinary profession.
This is the Minister for Agriculture, so he is not likely to neglect that side of it.
I was not too clear that that was so. Notwithstanding that, I think it would be no harm that the Minister should consult agricultural organisations as well as the veterinary profession. If it is thought necessary to oblige the Minister to consult the veterinary profession or organisations representing the veterinary profession, I submit it is not unreasonable to ask him to consult organisations representing the organised farmers of the country.
You could not use "and", I am afraid, because it would mean an organisation which represented both the veterinary profession and the agricultural interests. I think the wording is right.
It is—because it could exclude the veterinary profession. The "or" does not mean a sort of alternative: it means whatever interest is or both interests are concerned.
I cannot do it on the spur of the moment but I am sure the amendment could be redrafted in such a way that the Minister would have to consult the interests of the veterinary profession and organisations representing the organised farmers. I think that if it read: "The Minister after consultation with such organisation representing the veterinary profession and organisations representing agricultural interests...." it would be clear enough.
I cannot see anything wrong with it as it is.
It means that the Minister can consult with the Veterinary Council, if there is such a council, and he can stop there. They might give him advice which would appear to them to be reasonable but which might appear to farmers to be unreasonable. I think it is not unreasonable that the Minister should consult both interests.
The Minister for Agriculture.
Its organisation.
With such organisations as may seem appropriate, whether veterinary or agricultural.
I think from the section as it reads he can consult either one or the other. I do not think he must consult both.
He is given discretion —as seem to him appropriate.
He is given a general discretion.
I think if he is given any consultation at all it should be consultation with both these interests.
I think this wording is much better than the original wording. The original wording was altogether wrong. The terminology here better represents the veterinary profession. There could be two bodies representing the veterinary profession but the one originally mentioned was the less suitable to this occasion because it is a member of the professional trade union, if you like, and that is called the Veterinary Medical Association in Ireland. The word "Medical" can be deleted because it is superfluous. It is far better not to have either Veterinary Council or Veterinary Association specified. "Organisations representing the veterinary profession or agricultural interests" is the most suitable wording I can suggest anyway.
I think the matters on which organisations are to be consulted are generally matters of agricultural interest. As far as I understand the amendment, it is limited to a very specialised technical matter— the ages at which certain operations can be performed on animals. It is a limited matter and a technical one on which I think the Minister should be capable of making up his own mind as it is limited solely to the ages at which operations may be performed.
I have now read the section as it originally stood and as originally drafted it is perfectly clear. It says—
The Minister may, after consultation with the Veterinary College of Ireland.
There is no objection to that.
and with such organisations as appear to the Minister to be appropriate (being organisations which in his opinion represent agricultural interests).
I think that was a perfectly reasonable section. The Minister was required to consult the veterinary interests.
It is "may".
The Minister may do certain things after other things. The "may" refers to what he may do after he has consulted the veterinary interests.
Under the section as originally drafted he has to consult the Veterinary College of Ireland and he has to consult such other organisations as appear to him to be appropriate.
That is a process taking place in his own mind. He might consult none of them.
It says "such organisations representing the veterinary profession or agricultural interests as may appear appropriate." I think if he decided he was not going to consult any other organisation he would not be keeping within the section. I should like to know what is the objection to the section as it stands.
The section is simply not workable because the Veterinary College of Ireland is not in the full sense a corporate body. There are two schools of veterinary science, so it just was not workable originally. I can assure Senator Fitzpatrick that there is no intention to alter the tone of the section. It simply would not be operable under the old section. The body is at the moment incapable of consultation.
I support Senator Fitzpatrick. If the Minister consults one he should consult the other. The Veterinary Association, for example, have in the past, and I do not blame them, tried to keep drugs for their own use and have not allowed the farmers of Ireland to use them. There are certain drugs on the market at the present time and the farmers would not have a chance of getting control over them but for the fact that the farmer's organisation kicked up ructions. I do not blame them. As Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin has said, that is their trade union. From their point of view it is only right that they should try to get them. They will give advice to any Minister which would be contrary to the advice which would be given by farmers.
According to the amendments agreed on, I take it after a lamb is seven days old he would have to get an injection before he is cut or ringed. I did not object at that particular time but I think that putting them on to 10, 12 or 14 days would not cause them any suffering or harm. Now the veterinary people say nobody can give an injection but themselves. If a farmer has 40 or 50 lambs to do the Veterinary Association could say to the Minister that the farmer will have to employ a veterinary surgeon to give those injections to lambs over seven days.
As it stands, the Minister can consult any organisation which seems to him appropriate, whether it represents the veterinary profession or the farmers.
If he consults one he should consult the other.
He will if he thinks it appropriate.
I know the word "appropriate" is there but I think it would be better if the Minister were to consult the veterinary profession and the farmers.
That is what it means. If he thinks it is appropriate he must consult them.
I should like to see it put in some other form.
He must consult them if he thinks it appropriate.
I do not want to pursue the matter further. There seems to be a difference of opinion. After all, this section will have to be interpreted by somebody at some stage and perhaps the Minister would look into it before the Bill goes before the Dáil.
It seems from Senator Fitzpatrick and Senator L'Estrange that all that lies between them and the amendment is the substitution of "and" for "or".
The Minister is not agreeable to that. If it is made "and" the other word must be made "must".
I will look into it.
I want to clarify a statement made by Senator L'Estrange. He accused the veterinary profession in this House of restricting the sale of dangerous drugs. I want to speak on behalf of the veterinary profession and refute what Senator L'Estrange said in this House. There was never an attempt made by the veterinary profession to control medicines for their own use. I resent the Senator's criticism on that line.
They certainly have and they never co-operated with some of the chemists.
I did not interrupt the Senator when he was speaking. I object to the Senator constantly interrupting other speakers.
That is the Chair's business, not the Senator's.
I resent the Senator's attack on the veterinary profession and I am certainly entitled to say that without Senator L'Estrange interrupting me. The time mentioned would facilitate farmers. Farmers deal more with lambs during the first week of life than at any time afterwards. The time is to facilitate contact by the farmer with the young lambs. After a week elapses he has not the same facility of contact. If he wants to take the tail off the lamb it is during the first week he does it. I will not let Senator L'Estrange infer that it is for the benefit of the veterinary profession I want that done.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 11, to delete subsection (6).
In the original draft of the Bill, with which the veterinary profession had nothing whatsoever to do, subsection (6) was inserted. It gave to the veterinary profession the privilege of committing a cruel act at any age. We do not want that. That is the reason for deleting this paragraph. Nothing in this section should apply to castration by a veterinary surgeon of a horse over the age of 12 months. That was a privilege afforded the veterinary profession because of some extenuating circumstances connected with an adult sire which could not be castrated easily by means of a local anaesthetic. Advances made in general and local anaesthetics have improved matters. There is no reason why this privilege should be afforded the veterinary profession and we do not want it. If that will satisfy Senator L'Estrange I hope it will be some compensation to him for the remarks he has made.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
May I return for a moment to subsection (2)? It seems to me that the position has arisen in which we have got a number of exceptions in subsection (2) of this section and a number of exceptions in the Schedule. I know Senator Ó Donnabháin will be bringing in amendments to have them deleted from the Schedule. I suggest, at this stage, that we should have subsection (2) include all the operations referred to in the Schedule. We could bring all the exceptions in the Schedule back into the Bill. We have the position now in which we have got some of the exceptions in the Bill proper in section 24 (2) and we have got the others in the Schedule.
The exceptions in the section deal with interference in the use of anaesthetics. Those in the Schedule deal with other specified exceptions.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
I raised a point on the Second Stage in connection with this matter and I thought an amendment would be put down. It seems to me quite wrong that the word "apparently" should be here. I think a person commits an offence if he sells to a child under 12 years. It seems to me impossible to implement this section. It is a matter of opinion as to what "apparently under the age of twelve years" means. I think the word "apparently" should be struck out.
What is the object of leaving in this section at all? Personally, I would always like to encourage young children to keep pets and I am sure a young child under 12 years of age if he or she has any money to spend on buying a pet will not treat it cruelly. I think such children should be encouraged. If those pets—guinea pigs, white mice or whatever they might be—are for sale I would encourage children to get them and spend their own money on them. I would not prohibit children from having them. When children are over that age pets do not mean anything to them. They have not had the experience of looking after and tending an animal. Perhaps they are more callous about other animals later on. I would rather encourage children to get pets out of their own money.
The point here is this. A child under 12 years of age gets 5/- from his uncle. He thinks he would like to have a dog or a cat. He runs around to the pet shop, without consulting anyone, and buys a dog or a cat. He may leave the animal some place no one knows about. After a few days the child gets tired of the animal and abandons it. We should like to ensure not that a young child should be deprived of having pets—of course not—but that there should be someone, over the age of 12 years who knows about it and has control of it. A more responsible person should know about the purchase of the pet. That person would take responsibility for its interests as well. The situation we want to avoid is that where a young child, in a moment of enthusiasm, buys a pet, loses the enthusiasm and leaves the animal to die or suffer in particular circumstances. The Senator need not fear that the desire is to prevent children having pets. In point of fact the child has simply got to say to someone over 12 years of age that he has 5/- and he wants to buy the pet. We want to avoid the casual going into a shop and buying a pet.
I think Senator Stanford's point is a good one. If a child wants a pet the normal thing is to ask the parent to accompany it when making the purchase. I think Senator Ross's point is a good one also. If the child is under 12 years of age it is easy but it is very difficult if the child is a few days over or a few days under 12 years of age. A child of 13 years of age could be refused a pet by the shopkeeper because he thinks he is apparently under 12 years. This is a rather loose way of putting this.
It is a fairly common phrase and it has been used in other statutes. The idea is not to split hairs over a day or two. Whether a child is 11½ or 12, he may be apparently under 12 and if he is eight or nine he is obviously too young to have the responsibility. That is why it is put in this particular way. This form of words is used in other statutes quite frequently.
It has not led to any difficulty?
It is an archaic use of the word "apparent", meaning "clear to vision": the Latin apparet. If there is every indication that the child is under 12, the shopkeeper can be prosecuted. As the Minister says, it is a legitimate phrase, but slightly archaic.
It may be in use in statutes but I do not think it is a good thing. It is a question: apparently to whom? If the child is under 12, he is under 12 and if he is over 12, it is all right.
He might be under 12 and look 14.
We want to avoid a child having to produce a birth certificate.
A shopkeeper knows he may not sell an animal to a child under 12.
If the child looks 12, he will be all right but if he is six or seven, he is in trouble.
If he toddles into the shop and can hardly speak you cannot make a mistake but he may look 14 or 15 and be only 11.
Then you are happy.
Or to take Senator Yeats's case, you may have a child of 14 looking under 12 who is refused by the shopkeeper.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."
The question arises here of who will enforce this or inspect in this case. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have inspectors but I do not see that they can inspect, or that they will be allowed to inspect these pet shops, and I think candidly that the local authorities should have the power to enter and inspect them. There are health inspectors and I had a little experience of it myself in my time in the veterinary department of Dublin Corporation. In the four main cities, there are veterinary departments and some of these people, or the local authorities anyway, should be responsible for the inspection and satisfactory running of pet shops. There are not so many of them. I do not know that their inspection would entail any great difficulties. I am wondering who else can do it. The guards will not do it and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals might be denied the right of entry.
A member of the general public can make a complaint to the guards. All we do is to stipulate that it is an offence. It is then part of the general law and it is the duty of the Garda Síochána to enforce it. Anybody can make a complaint to them.
I quite appreciate that anyone can make a complaint, but precisely who is to decide?
The court.
Who decides what the temperature of some place was at some other time?
You have this in a variety of statutes, in the food regulations among others. The regulations stipulate the conditions and thereafter it is a matter of having them enforced.
Some expert must come in to help the court. It could be more simply arranged. It is easy to say in what conditions food should be stored, but who is to decide as to size, cleanliness, ventilation and so on at a particular time? Cleanliness might be easy enough, but I think this is a very vague way to lay out something that can lead to a prosecution. Something should be put in to say that somebody should do the inspection and what type of criteria should be used in various cases.
A temperature which would be cruel for one type of animal would not be cruel for another.
If the Garda or anybody else want to bring a prosecution, it must be established to the satisfaction of the court that an offence has been committed. It is quite reasonable. We are not suggesting a system of inspection. The framers of the Bill are trying to be reasonable. We are not going to appoint inspectors specifically to inspect these premises but we are laying down conditions under which animals must be kept on the premises.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 27 and 28 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 20:
Before section 29, to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) A person in respect of whom an order under subsection (1) of section 18 or subsection (2) of section 28 of this Act is made may, at any time after the expiration of three months from the date of the order and from time to time, apply to the Court by which the order was made to remove the disqualification imposed by the order, and on any such application the Court may, if it thinks it proper, having regard to the character of the person disqualified, his conduct subsequent to the order, the nature of the offence and the other circumstances of the case, by order remove the disqualification as from such date as may be specified in the order.
(2) Where an application under subsection (1) of this section is refused, a further application thereunder shall not be entertained if made within three months of the date of the refusal."
This again is entirely a matter of drafting. It is consequential on a proposal which was accepted, the proposal printed in front of amendment No. 13 and in the list of amendments. This incorporates the two powers to remove disqualification into one section instead of having them separate. It is a drafting measure with no extra principles added. It simply makes this a tidier Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
Before section 29, to insert the following section: "For the purposes of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, ‘instrument' shall be construed as including a system of gassing."
I am glad to be able to tell the House that this is the last piece of obstruction I am going to indulge in this evening. I am asking the House to reject Section 29 as it stands and accept this amendment and perhaps it would be as well if I said a word of explanation of the situation here.
Section 15 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, empowers the Minister for Agriculture to declare a particular type of instrument to be an approved instrument for the slaughter, or rendering unconscious for the purpose of slaughter, of animals of a particular kind. It has not yet become feasible to prescribe an approved instrument in relation to pigs. The instruments approved for cattle and sheep are not suitable for pigs. To that extent pigs are outside the scope of the 1935 Act.
The Minister for Agriculture agrees that provision should be made for a suitable humane slaughtering method for pigs.
The Minister for Agriculture himself favours a system whereby the pigs are anaesthetised in a carbon dioxide tunnel. This is the method I would favour, not only on humane grounds but because in fact it is the best possible way of doing it from the point of view of the meat itself.
A captive bolt type of instrument is used in some cases. You may say: why not prescribe that this instrument be used on all pigs being slaughtered. I understand that this is not a satisfactory system in all circumstances. I think there are some countries abroad which would not accept the meat of pigs that have been killed in that way.
So the Minister for Agriculture favours the carbon dioxide gas tunnel method and I think most of the larger factories are, in fact, using that method. The Minister for Agriculture gives a grant of 50 per cent of the cost of putting in one of these systems in a factory. Unfortunately, they are quite expensive and we would not be justified at this stage in compelling every bacon factory to instal one, even with the incentive of the grant of 50 per cent of the cost from the Minister for Agriculture. So we cannot go the whole distance here even though we should like to. My amendment has the effect of putting a provision in the Bill that the Minister may approve a method as well as an instrument. At the moment it would seem from the 1935 Act that he can only approve an instrument and, as I say, my amendment would enable him to approve a method, if a suitable one can be devised, as distinct from an instrument. As I said originally, this is the last thing in the Bill which I shall ask the Seanad to reject and I hope Senators may be able to agree with me. It is purely a matter of economics.
Will it now be obligatory on people slaughtering pigs to use a humane method such as one of the methods mentioned by the Minister?
No. All we are doing is saying that the Minister——
May.
He has not yet any one in his mind. He might stipulate one six months from now.
Is it the intention that pigs will still be outside the scope of the Act and can be slaughtered without an anaesthetic?
I am afraid so.
It is a great pity some humane method of slaughtering pigs cannot be devised.
There is such a method.
It is a pity it cannot be enforced.
We are encouraging it with a grant of 50 per cent of the cost. The Senator will appreciate that it costs about £4,500. Most of the large bacon factories have the system.
I would be in full agreement with the Minister that all bacon factories should be encouraged to operate a humane system of slaughtering pigs.
Rendering them unconscious for the purpose of slaughter has been in operation in slaughter houses throughout the country so far as cattle and sheep are concerned since the 1935 Act and before it. Pigs in Dublin are slaughtered, or rendered unconscious for the purpose of slaughtering, with a humane killer. There was a certain amount of intimidation and a certain amount of appeal that it should be done because it prevents a lot of squealing. In co-operation with the Department of Agriculture the question of an electrolethale was introduced but it is difficult in the slaughter of pigs because there is a certain amount of contraction of the muscles from the electric shock and the bones of the thighs and the arms were broken. I understand that can be improved now with greater electric shock. It was the weaker voltage that caused some of the more violent contractions of the muscles. The animals were rendered unconscious for the purpose of slaughter and subsequently bled. In the bacon factories, the Minister cannot enforce that and that is why pigs are excluded. No system of stunning or rendering them unconscious for the purpose of slaughter was capable of being utilised in the bacon factories. Now we have gone a long way and it is grand to find in this Bill an encouragement to every bacon factory to do what others are doing, that is, anaesthetising pigs. It is a fascinating method. The pig comes down a conveyor belt in a tunnel, practically in the open air and the carbon dioxide puts him to sleep. We cannot get that system of killing pigs in the ordinary private slaughter houses.
The third system is the electrolethale. A tongs is applied on both sides of the head and the pig becomes as quiet as a lamb. There are certain convulsions and contractions of the muscles. That system is not in general use. Pigs slaughtered in private slaughter houses should not be excluded from being rendered unconscious for the purpose of being slaughtered, even slaughter houses where only nine or ten pigs are killed. They should have a system of stunning pigs the same as for other animals, namely the captive bolt pistol. It would not be difficult to operate throughout the entire country.
To my mind this is one of the best sections of the Bill. I hope the system will be operated throughout the country as it is in some factories at present and on the Continent.
I am very glad to have the information that Senator Ó Donnábhain has given about gassing. I was a little worried about it. I thought perhaps it might have meant some form of poison gas to kill the pig. Apparently it is a question of rendering it unconscious. I wonder if we might use the words "render unconscious" by gas rather than the word "gassing".
We are only empowering the Minister to approve a system. That is all.
The system is there already.
There might be other systems. The Minister might approve the tunnel with the carbon dioxide or he might approve a different type of system. The amendment empowers him to approve a system.
This amendment involves the deletion of section 29 and I take it I may refer to that at this stage. The reason for section 29 is this. There is a good deal of what may be called unnecessary suffering for pigs in bacon factories now. I shall not go into lurid descriptions but I could. Secondly, there is the economic fact that the quality of the meat does suffer, I understand, if the pigs are in a psychologically disturbed state when they are about to be killed or are being killed. This sounds peculiar, but in fact the Danes, who go into this thing very carefully, are working in their research institutes on how they can avoid the pig being psychologically disturbed before it is killed. They are convinced it damages the meat. Most experts agree with them.
Therefore, if section 29 is retained, it puts a stop to unnecessary suffering and also may improve the quality of our Irish pigs. We are in direct competition with Denmark. They are ahead of us on this. I appeal to the House that that is a matter to be taken into consideration as well as the protection of the animals.
I do not see why pigs should be left unprotected when every other edible animal is protected. I gather that it is argued as a sheerly economic matter. It is stated that it would be too expensive to equip the factories with the necessary apparatus. I should hope that the Department of Agriculture would assign sufficient subsidies to get over that difficulty. In this country, as I see it, we are inflicting unnecessary suffering on pigs. We are also doing some damage to the quality of our bacon as a result of this. For these reasons, I think it would be a pity if section 29 were to go. Section 29 will become mandatory, under subsection (1), on first June, 1965. The Minister for Agriculture does not want that, but I wish we could come to some compromise between the two.
I am afraid I took up Senator Jessop wrongly. I see now that I was not answering the point he made. I am not sure that in the Dáil, on this amendment of mine, if accepted here, I might not leave out the word "gassing" altogether and leave it "at large" so that the Minister can prescribe any system.
Yes.
Senator Jessop's point is that the whole purpose of the Slaughter of Animals Act is that the Minister must prescribe humane systems. If he is going to prescribe a method at all, it will be a humane one.
Amendment agreed to, Senator Stanford dissenting.
Acceptance of this amendment involves deletion of section 29 of the Bill.
SCHEDULE.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 29, standing in the name of Senator Ó Donnabháin, might all be taken together.
There is a series of amendments here in the Schedule and, as I said before, they have been discussed and approved of by the organisation representing the veterinary profession. I think they make the whole thing more operable though the ages generally are being reduced. The other amendment provides for alternatives. The Schedule has been in existence for a long time and undoubtedly is very much out of date now with modem methods of general and local anaesthesia. The ages of animals designated in section 6 of the Schedule are entirely out of line and out of date.
Amendment No. 22 deals with the docking of the tail of a dog.
Amendment No. 23 concerns the castration of a male dog. It really seeks to delete the reference to the castration of a dog.
It also deals with cats.
We put in cats afterwards. Dogs in the country are generally not castrated and dogs in the city are generally castrated by bringing them to the college or to a veterinary surgeon. Amendment No. 24 concerns horses. Some people may ask: "Why not take out the age of the horse altogether?" It is out of date and that is why we took it out. Amendment No. 25 deals with bulls. The castration of a bull up to 12 months is not very likely and to reduce to six months is not very hard. In regard to amendment No. 26, the figure in the Schedule allowed the castration of a ram up to the age of 12 months without an anaesthetic. That was ridiculous. I do not know why it should be so high. Anything in the nature of the castration of lambs will economically and more satisfactorily be done before the age of three months. Amendment No. 27 concerns goats. The kid is a very lively little animal and we do not like to see it going to three months. Amendment No. 28 deals with pigs. The question of castration in respect of seven months old pigs is preposterous. It would never be done at the age of seven months and is generally done before the bonham is sold or marketed as a store. Amendment No. 29 refers to cats.
These amendments are being accepted by the Department of Agriculture and by the Department of Justice and they are being recommended by the veterinary profession. They are recommended in the interests of the farming community as well as in the interests of dog owners and cat owners generally.
I move amendment No. 22:
In paragraph 3, line 37, to delete "before its eyes are open" and substitute "under one month old".
I should emphasise that this is not a special privilege to the veterinary profession. I shall deal with the question of a dog. I am told that dogs in the country are frequently castrated, and they should be taken to a veterinary surgeon. In the city they should be taken to a veterinary surgeon or to the Veterinary College. I am emphasising that there is nothing of particular interest to the veterinary profession here. I want to emphasise that what we did before was to cut out a section where there was a special privilege in the veterinary profession. They serve the community and expect justice and I recommend the Bill for adoption by the Seanad.
I would go a long way to meet Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin, but I wonder could we compromise, for example, in the case of a bull where it is twelve months. I think eight or nine months would be sufficient. Where seven months is given for a pig, I think two months would be sufficient, but I would be more in favour of three months. I would be in favour of all the other amendments if we could compromise on these—a bull at eight or nine months and a pig at three months.
This is a question of anaesthetics. At the age of two months a bonham is well grown up. From my experience in the country there was always a man skilled in this work.
Some of these are very successful politicians, I understand.
The operation is ridiculous in respect of a pig which is older than two months. It is no use leaving a pig until it gets too strong, and I think the figure of seven months is ridiculous. I am not allowed to make alterations.
I refer to the amputation of the dew claws of a dog before its eyes are open and the docking of the tail of a dog. I just want to know is there any reason for that, or should these operations not be put off until they are one month old. Perhaps the amputation of the claws is the more substantial operation and is it usually done at the same time as the other?
Yes.
One is up to a month and the other is up to the time its eyes are open. Is it better to have them done at different periods, or at the same time?
There is no relationship between them, but docking the tail of a little puppy does not cause pain and instead of confining it to between two and nine days we allow a month for it. There is no cruelty in it and the owner of the dog can remove the tail without any difficulty for the pup.
I should like to ask whether the views of the National Farmers' Association were ascertained on the changes involved. Did the Department of Agriculture get the views of the National Farmers' Association? It would appear to me that certain financial changes are involved. For instance, there will be veterinary fees and anaesthetists' fees. I do not know what the fees involved are. While I do not want to get into the general technicalities of the job, I question the statement of Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin about dogs in the country. Could I have an answer to my question?
I do not know what the question is.
Have the Farmers' Association been consulted by the Department of Agriculture?
I am not responsible for the Department of Agriculture but I am sure the National Farmers' Association are conversant with this Bill, as they are with any Bill that goes through the Oireachtas.
My question is: could Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin enlighten us as to whether the National Farmers' Association were consulted or not.
I cannot enlighten you on that.
To make changes without consulting the farmers' association is wrong. If it were made without consulting the Department of Agriculture, should it have been made without consulting the National Farmers' Association?
Could the Minister give the information?
The Department of Agriculture are my advisers in the matter. I am sure they considered the matter carefully.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No 23.
To delete paragraph 5, lines 40 to 42.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No 24.
In paragraph 6, line 45, to delete "Horse twelve months".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No 25.
In paragraph 6, line 46, opposite "Bull" to delete "twelve" and substitute "six".
I am not in favour of amendment No 25. Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin has agreed to eight or nine months in the case of a bull. It is twelve months in the Bill and Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin has proposed six. I think we should compromise at eight or nine.
I do not see the necessity for eight or nine. It is a question of susceptibility to pain. A calf is fairly well grown at six months and I do not see the point of putting it to pain at a later age. I cannot agree to it and I do not think anybody else would recommend that we should make it eight or nine months. It does not serve any purpose at eight or nine months rather than six.
The whole thing relates to susceptibility to pain as Senator Ó Donnabháin knows. The strength of a calf depends on the feeding and one fed on the cow would be heavier at eight or nine months than one fed on the bucket. Calves may have been delicate or may have got ringworm and the farmer may not be in a position to have this operation attended to at six months. I think we are not unreasonable in asking the Senator to compromise. The Minister would apparently agree to eight months. It is 12 months in the Bill and it is reducing it to half. I was first going to say six months but I would agree to eight months.
I do not agree.
I do not know whether Senator Stanford and I should arbitrate at this stage.
Amendment put and declared carried, Senator L'Estrange dissenting.
I move amendment No. 26:
In paragraph 6, line 47, opposite "Sheep" to delete "twelve" and substitute "three".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In paragraph 6, line 48, opposite "Goat" to delete "three" and substitute "two".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In paragraph 6, line 49, opposite "Pig" to delete "seven" and substitute "two".
The Bill states seven months and the amendment suggests two months, which I think is too young. We should agree to three months. The very same argument can be made here. I think Senator Ó Donnabháin knows, where a sow delivers two bonhams, at two months they would be much stronger, healthier and heftier than the bonhams of a sow which had a litter of 12 or 13 would be at the same age. I think we should agree to three months instead of seven months. It is seven months in the Bill and Senator Ó Donnabháin proposes two months. I think we should agree to three months. That is not unreasonable.
At seven months the pig is going to the market so that figure was reduced to two months. I understand that two months is a suitable age and I know from the time I was a youngster myself it was done between two and three months. As I said, I was at liberty to consider any changes but if the House insists on a change I do not think it should generally suggest an outrageously high figure, seven months.
I agree the figure was too high.
We had a recommendation to put in two months. It was seven months and we are reducing it to two months. I think that is an appropriate time.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In paragraph 6, to add at the end: "Cat
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I should just like to say one or two words before the Bill finally leaves this House. Before doing so, I should like to compliment Senator Stanford again on introducing the Bill, on the way he presented it to the House and on the manner in which he steered it through the House. It is no easy matter to prepare a Bill like this, to come into the House and answer criticisms on it. Without in any way taking away from the Minister, it is much easier for a Minister of State to pilot such a Bill through the House. He has his experts sitting at his shoulder. For that reason I should like to compliment Senator Stanford on the very fine job he has done.
I missed an opportunity of raising one matter on section 21 of the Bill. The section, as it now stands, and as it leaves the House, makes it illegal for any one person to exercise more than four greyhounds at a time on any public road. I think that, in reducing the number to four, we have brought it too low. Senator Ó Donnabháin made a point earlier that these greyhounds could be exercised on private property or in fields. It is an acknowledged fact by people who are interested in the greyhound industry, and acquainted with the requirements of training, that a certain amount of road work must be put in and that it is necessary to walk these animals, particularly in relation to coursing matches, several miles a day, and, I understand, even twice a day.
There is a provision in section 21 which sets out that these greyhounds must be under proper control. I think that an adult strong man could certainly control six or eight greyhounds. Some people interested in the greyhound industry and with long experience of it, the Irish Coursing Club, think likewise. I suggest that, where a person has, let us say, six greyhounds under his control, if he has to bring out four of them and walk four to five miles with them and then go back and bring out the other two or three, it is imposing undue hardship on him. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should take further advice on this section and should reconsider the section and its implications before the Bill leaves the Dáil.
I should like to express my thanks for the way in which this Bill has been received. It was very kind of Senator Fitzpatrick to say what he has said but I have been merely on the crest of a wave or the froth of a wave in the discussion this evening. A great many people were behind the Bill. I want to thank the House and the officials of the House for their consideration and courtesy in discussing the Bill and for taking it so promptly. I want, especially, to thank the Minister and his officials for their invaluable and most generously given help at all Stages of the Bill and even before it reached the House. It has been an exhausting but a very pleasant experience for me to steer the Bill through the House and I am very grateful to all who shared in it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be sent to the Dáil.