Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1984

Vol. 104 No. 6

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

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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

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

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

The general principles of the convention, which cover housing, feeding, watering and care, set out the requirements necessary to safeguard the welfare of animals kept for farming purposes, in particular those kept in modern intensive stock farming systems. Article 1 defines "animals" as animals bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes and "modern intensive stock-farming systems" as systems which predominantly employ technical installations operated principally by means of automatic processes. Article 7 contains the convention's main specific provision, that is that animals and technical equipment used in modern intensive stock farming systems should be thoroughly inspected at least once a day. That is only good husbandry anyway.

The remaining articles of the convention deal with the detailed implementing provisions, including the establishment of a standing committee which is responsible for the elaboration and adoption of recommendations to the contracting parties to the convention.

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

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

The purpose of the Bill before the House is to enable the Minister to do that. It will also make it possible to make regulations in relation to the care and welfare of the animals to which it applies, particularly as regards providing a proper supply of food and water, adequate space and the construction and layout of housing to ensure that there are proper facilities by way of lighting, ventilation, drainage etc. Certain buildings or other structures may also be declared to be intensive units for the purpose of the Act.

The Bill, accordingly, will make it compulsory for those who own or operate intensive units to inspect or cause to be inspected the animals and the equipment in these units not less than once per day. This is in order to ensure that the animals are not suffering unnecessarily and that the equipment is at all times free from defects. In the case of animals not kept in intensive units, their inspection will be necessary at intervals sufficient to avoid their being caused unnecessary suffering. The Act will require simple records of these inspections to be kept and I must emphasise that the records envisaged are of the most simple, straightforward type; there is nothing elaborate whatsoever required.

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

The Minister will also be able to appoint veterinary surgeons to be inspectors for the purpose of this Act and they will have powers to enter premises or land, to inspect, examine or test animals, food or liquid and equipment, as well as to take samples for animals, food or liquid and examine, test or analyse any sample so taken. They will also have power to inspect records. Officers of my Department who are not veterinary surgeons may also be given such of the inspectors' powers as may be specified while a member of the Garda Síochána shall have all the powers of an inspector other than the power to examine, test or take samples for animals. I would like to stress that the powers given to the Garda are intended as a "back-up" service only, that is that the Garda would only be called in where an inspector or authorised officer met with difficulties caused by, for instance, obstruction in the course of their duties. This Bill, therefore, is a relatively simple one but it does mark a stride forward on the road to improve farm animal welfare, an area which, I fear, has probably been neglected in the past but which I feel certain will become more prominent in the future.

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

Mr. T. Hussey

If this Bill is so important now I cannot understand why it has taken our Government six years to ratify the Council of Europe convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. From the Minister's speech it would appear that we are the last member of the European Community to ratify this convention and that indeed is rather strange for a country that depends so much on the production and export of cattle and sheep in order to sustain our national income.

The Bill covers housing, feeding, watering and care and sets out the requirements necessary to safeguard the welfare of animals kept for farming purposes, in particular those kept in modern intensive stock farming systems. I believe that any farmer operating this kind of system does not need a convention of this type to tell him how to safeguard the welfare of his animals. He would have the expertise himself and would certainly ensure that the animals were provided with food and water suitable to their needs. Indeed his intention would be to get them on to the market as quickly as possible and hope to increase his profit margin by doing so and he certainly could not do this by neglecting to provide adequate water and food for the animals.

I suppose there are always exceptions to the rule and perhaps there are instances where animals could be neglected and ill-treated but I think in such cases the law we have at present could deal with those isolated cases. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House how many prosecutions have taken place in countries where the convention has been ratified. The main purpose of the convention and, indeed, of this Bill is to look after the welfare of animals in intensive units. This indeed is understandable because such animals are being raised in an environment which is unnatural to them. There is bound to be a certain amount of tension and nervousness until an animal gets used to its new environment. Almost all animals prefer the wide open spaces. Such animals also come in for scrutiny under this Bill.

In the case of animals not kept in intensive units their inspection will be carried out at intervals sufficient to avoid their being caused unnecessary suffering. I understand the Bill will require a simple record of those inspections to be kept. I would like to inquire from the Minister what kind of records are we talking about here? Does the farmer have to enter in a book the date and times he inspected his stock or does he have to do a report on the physical condition of each animal? If this is necessary, farmers will not be too happy because it will be adding to the burdens they already have with farm accounts, taxation and so on.

The Minister will also be able to appoint veterinary surgeons to be inspectors for the purpose of this Act and they will have the power to enter premises or land to inspect, examine or test animals, food, liquid or equipment as well as to take samples from animals, food or liquids and examine, test or analyse any sample to taken. Officers of the Department of Agriculture who are not veterinary surgeons may also be given such powers as the Minister specifies.

Has the Minister any idea of how many of those veterinary surgeons or Department officers will be required or who will pay their fees? Recently the veterinary fee for inspection at factories was increased substantially. Is the appointment of those officers a further imposition on hard-pressed farmers? As regards the Garda Síochána making those inspections, I am quite sure that will not arise because the Garda at present have more than enough to do in the area of crime. Anyway they would not be qualified to carry out those inspections.

One of the biggest problems facing our farmers is the exposure of our livestock on the land during the winter months. Farmers should be encouraged by every means possible to take their cattle off the land in October or November. If proper incentives were provided for the erection of suitable buildings to house cattle during the winter months I am sure that many farmers would avail of it. That is why I considered it a very retrograde step by the Government to suspend the farm modernisation scheme last year. Their action brought to a complete standstill the efforts made over the years to improve and modernise farm buildings and to provide better facilities for our livestock. It is in this area that I see the greatest hardship for our cattle and the biggest losses for our farmers. Cattle being fed in the open during the winter, trudging through muck and slurry, cannot be expected to thrive. The opposite is the case. Very often those animals lose weight which they had gained during the summer and autumn. It takes the land they are using quite some time to recover.

Would it not be much better for everybody if the Department could provide adequate grants to enable farmers to provide housing accommodation for their animals during the winter months? This, of course, would not have to be elaborate accommodation. A simple structure would do and it would be money well spent. The farmers then would be able to market their cattle much earlier than they do at present. I am not at all satisfied that the Government have any commitment to improving the situation in this area because their allocation of approximately £23 million for the farm modernisation scheme this year is a paltry figure when one considers that a few years ago we were spending £46 million in that area alone. We all know how costs have escalated in those three years so £23 million will not relieve much hardship for our farm animals.

I regret that there is nothing in this Bill to protect animals being transported to and from marts. How often have we seen animals packed into trailers and transported to marts, very often having to remain in those trailers for five or six hours and then stand for a further ten to 12 hours in a pen at the mart without food or water. This Bill should take those hardships caused to animals into consideration. Every effort should be made to encourage farmers and people dealing with farm animals to treat them properly at all times. Indeed, if this Bill goes any way towards achieving this, then I would wholeheartedly support it. We are merely complying here with the convention as laid down and stepping into line with other European countries. I certainly support the Bill.

Mr. Hourigan

I positively support this Bill. It is definitely a step forward and, as has been indicated, it essentially puts us in the position where we ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Animals which was signed by us in 1978 and by all the other countries with the exception of Greece and Italy.

One might say there is no need for this sort of Bill, that people who have livestock to manage know enough about them and care enough for them and so on. While that is the case with 99.9 per cent of cases a very small percentage of cases may exist where animals are not treated in the way in which they ought to be treated. I believe that the appropriate legislation is, in fact, a very desirable thing.

We are, of course, looking here at the basics as far as management of animals is concerned. We are talking about the very simple and basic things like housing, feeding, watering, movement of stock and general management. In fact there is nobody, with very few exceptions, in the business of livestock management who will intentionally or purposely set out to cause any hardship on animals. Not alone would they not do it intentionally, I do not think they would do it at all because livestock owners in 1984 are very conscious of the importance of having their animals in a comfortable state at all times, in a very placid and calm state, because whether it is for milk production, beef production, pork production, bacon or whatever, unless the animals are content and relaxed they will not, and this is a proven fact, give of their maximum.

Having regard to the fact that at present margins in farming are indeed pretty tight it is essential for all those engaged in farming to ensure in so far as they can that they maximise on the whole area of farming. The livestock farmer, to whom this Bill relates, must ensure, apart from this Bill at all, and apart from his love of animals, that he treats his animals correctly. That is a basic fundamental fact that does exist. One's knowledge of the scene would lead one to believe that. Apart from that, I believe the mentality of the Irish livestock owner, the Irish livestock keeper, is that he will not illtreat animals.

We are talking about legislation that will not have relevance for a lot of people. It might apply in rare, eccentric cases but they would be very few in number. It is important that the Minister and his Department should view it in that light, because there is no point in having inspections carried out so freely that we set up a whole team of people costing a great deal of money, which would be quite unnecessary. I would totally agree with the principle and the need for the existence of that legislation, but it should not lead to a situation where inspections are the order of the day. They should be the exception rather than the rule. That is important, otherwise we could have a whole bureaucracy dealing with a matter that does not need attention.

Competence on the part of those inspecting animals is of paramount importance. It is absolutely essential that the Minister and the Government ensure that those who carry out inspections of animals are competent to assess in a very practical, common sense manner whether or not there has been or is illtreatment of animals for whatever reason.

I heard recently of a situation where an animal died over a weekend and the farmer did not have the opportunity of removing that animal until two days later. He was reported and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals people came to his house and he was brought to court and had a lot of explaining to do. Here there was a lack of practical understanding. There could be no cruelty to a dead animal. The animal had died of natural causes, but it was not removed for two days due to a weekend intervention. That is the kind of situation where a person without a knowledge of and an understanding of the business could easily cause more annoyance and interference than would be desirable. I would ask the Minister to make certain that those persons carrying out inspections should be totally competent and capable of doing the job in an intelligent and simple way. I would submit that the inspections should be on a sporadic basis. They should not be on a very frequent, across-the-board level. Very important also in the same connection is the matter of communication with the stock-owner. The person going out there to investigate a complaint or to carry out a spot inspection must be able to communicate with the individual concerned. That is important. It must not be the typical kind of non-personal approach that one sometimes does encounter in these situations. I would attach a lot of importance to the type of person going out.

There is no doubt that we rely very heavily on our livestock exports as an earner of foreign currency. For that reason I do not think we can leave any stone unturned to make sure that our animals are treated well at all times, because it is a basic economic necessity, apart altogether from the caring feeling for animals which I believe exists in all persons, with the odd exception to which I have referred already.

The Bill mentions records, penalties and a number of items which are more appropriate for further stages of discussions on this Bill. They are all very important in their own way. Reference is made to modern systems of farming, intensive livestock units, be they for beef, pigs or whatever. This Bill might have the most relevance in the case of overcrowding of cattle on an intensive slatted floor system for beef production purposes or pig keeping. The same sort of criteria must apply, and common sense will prevail. Nobody must be sent out, no matter how well he is authorised, if he has not got the knowledge and the understanding of animal requirements.

Too many people tend to relate the requirement of the animal to the requirement of a human. Perhaps this is a human trait. It needs stating that they are totally and utterly different. An animal is capable and happier in conditions in which human beings would not survive. I am thinking particularly of the out-wintered animals which, given proper basic sheltering conditions, can be extremely satisfied and content and can do well. That is not to say that from a progressive farming point of view we should not strive to have a far greater proportion of our animals put indoors during the winter time. I say that not alone from the point of view of caring for animals but from a completely practical point of view in the context of our getting more return from our animals and the animals having added comfort. I would say that the animals that are left outside are not ill treated, and this would apply to the west in particular where a very high proportion of animals are out-wintered. I do not believe that there is ill treatment of those animals, but a big loss is suffered by the owners of those animals. The animals very often are left outside for periods when they could be moving forward to the finishing stages if they were indoors and on the appropriate diet of meals or silage, or a combination of the two.

For that reason one would certainly support the concept of better housing and more housing for animals all round, because an extremely high percentage of our animals are still out-wintered, particularly in the western part of our country. It is the farm owners who are the heavy losers here. The animals could be a bit better cared for indoors, but I would say that there is no ill treatment of animals. That might be an exaggeration but it is minimal, if there is any at all.

There is also reference in the Bill to the feeding to animals of foodstuffs which may be damaging to their digestive systerms. I do not believe that anybody does that intentionally. Anybody doing it has lack of guidance, lack of information. It is incumbent on us all to make certain that all stock-owners are better educated as to what to feed animals and what proportion to feed them, as well as the whole area of preventive medicine.

These are the sort of things that we should address ourselves to. I am quite satisfied that we can go along that road of educating our people and ensuring that they give the animals what is required, whether it is in the feeding stuff area or in the whole medicinal area. There are a lot of matters that farmers these days attend to on their own, and more guidance would help them to do things in a more correct fashion. We are at a fairly advanced stage in the whole area of animal production in 1984, which includes the use of hormones for beef production and various feed additives. These are essential to ensure that the farmer gets the most from his enterprise, and I do not think we should in any way thwart that kind of development.

I would wholeheartedly support the Bill. I will have some remarks to make at a later stage in regard to some of the detailed aspects. I would like to think that the inspections carried out would be sporadic and casual and would not become part of a whole process of inspection which would not be warranted. I want to lend my full support to this Bill and would make those few points to the Minister for his consideration.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I welcome this Bill which, as the Minister pointed out, will enable Ireland to ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes which was signed by us in June 1978. It seems to me that most Bills passing through the House are motivated by some kind of necessity for improvement, and I cannot see that there is a need in this regard or that there is cruelty of any kind.

Section 3 of the Bill states:

(1) The Minister may by regulations make such provision as regards the care and welfare of animals to which this Act applies as he thinks fit, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing regulations under this section may in particular include—

(a) provisions for ensuring the provision for such animals of a proper supply of food and water;

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

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

I want to make the point that, as far as I know, there are no regulations existing which provide all these things for human beings. There are people I know living in very inferior conditions, very poor housing. There are some people who are unable to obtain housing. I am aware that in general animals in this State are better looked after than some humans. When we look back to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, 1983 which was debated here some short time ago and seems to have been put on the long finger, it seems that our priorities are wrong. I am all for improving the welfare of animals. I do not believe that cruelty exists, except in so far as many people claim that intensive breeding and farming are cruel. They are facts of life and we have to accept them. By and large Ireland has a very good record with regard to the welfare of animals.

It is no harm to point out that in different parts of this country, the north, north-west, the south-west and the west we had the byre house in some places into this century. This was a thatched single storey building which housed the family and up to four cows in the one room. This was not as a result of poverty; it was more a cultural thing which was established in other parts of Europe also. It puts in some kind of perspective the relationship between people and animals.

There is no doubt that farmers treat animals well, and it is in their interest to do so. I cannot see that this Bill will do anything to improve that situation. I realise that it is necessary to pass it. Some aspects can be looked into on Committee Stage. There is provision for the inspection of animals once daily. My experience, coming from a rural area, is that there are very few farmers who would carry out inspections only once every day. There are many people who believe that there is some form of cruelty in intensive units. The keeping of records may be an onerous task for farmers. The powers of entry and inspection seem to be an intrusion on privacy and the fine for offences is high. I am in total agreement with anything that would help to improve the welfare of animals and I totally support the Bill.

Mr. Ferris

I cannot agree with the comparison drawn by Senator Fitzsimons. I do not believe that the State cannot and does not take action when there is any human being in a situation of cruelty. It is fairly active in that area. The Bill dealing with the housing of the homeless is at a certain stage and has not been delayed. The mover has been in discussion with the Department. I would agree with everything Senator Fitzsimons said about this Bill. It seems amazing that we must enact legislation that will be seen by our colleagues in Europe to be complying with a Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes. One would immediately assume that this is happening already. Could the Minister state in his reply whether he has any evidence that would indicate a level of mismanagement of farm animals? As Senator Hourigan has said, basically people are kind to animals and possibly are often kinder to animals than they are to themselves.

This Bill confers on the Garda certain powers, but I believe they will be unable to exercise these powers because of the manpower problems. They already have powers to investigate the failure to cut weeds like ragwort in farms but they are never exercised. In regard to the ingestion of ragwort by cattle, the ravages of this poisoning in the following year are so traumatic that it can be said to be cruelty to animals to allow ragwort to grow widespread in fields. It is an offence. If we have legislation which we cannot implement it is bad legislation.

I would question the deployment of veterinary surgeons to carry out these inspections because we seem to have a lack of veterinary staff available in the two current disease eradication schemes. I would like to see every veterinary surgeon available to the Government being used specifically in the eradication of disease, ensuring that factories and lorries are disinfected and all the precautions that are part of disease prevention are taken. I am worried about the availability of staff. I hope that when they are looking at intensive units they will consult with the ACOT people who are specialists in the area of ventilation and proper housing for intensive units. Under the new scheme for farm modernisation grants we are trying to designate as many grants as possible to the housing of animals. Anybody who has buildings or is about to construct buildings should contact the experts in this area. There has been the most intensive housing of pigs and this involves the strict control of cooling, ventilation and humidity.

Are we just complying with a European Convention and enacting legislation which we may not be able to implement? If it is implemented, are we going to examine silage yards where animals are standing up to their hocks in slurry at the silage pit? Is this considered to be unfair on animals? There is widespread evidence of this throughout the country. Regarding the out-wintering of animals, do we warn farmers who have sheep on the mountains — like the Galtees where we lost 1,000 in a snowfall — that it is possible cruelty? If so, are we going to assist them by way of additional grants to ensure that animals like this which are at risk in exposed conditions every year could be housed adequately? The suffocation of sheep must be of concern to anybody who cares about animals.

If the Minister could assure me that he could carry out some of the measures of control in this legislation, that would be fine, but I have grave doubts. I hope the Minister can reassure me. We have levels of infection in intensive units that create widespread suffering to animals because of the transmissibility of some of the diseases; some of the diseases are mentioned in the 1966 Act, but this Act needs to be examined as to the way it is written and the type of animals it applies to. In the case of several diseases we ask people to slaughter animals and the Department are not in a position to compensate them. I am speaking particularly of outbreaks of transmissible diseases in pigs. These diseases are well known to the Minister and have been the subject of concern at the Animal Health Council for some time.

There are other areas like particular kinds of feeds available to animals and allowing beet pulp to remain accessible to horses. If horses eat beet pulp, the suffering and death which follows is traumatic to look at. Do we make it an offence in order to ensure that people do not take risks with food such as this, which normally is edible and nourishing food for other animals, but for equines in particular is highly dangerous? I should like to know how this will be operated on the ground. I hope that we have the necessary manpower and that we will not infringe on the normal good management that goes on in the vast majority of our farms.

Mr. Howard

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, to enable us to fulfil our commitments in relation to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals. I welcome the Bill in general terms, as indeed I welcome any measure dealing with the general health and welfare of animals. We are at one here in saying that we support any measures which are designed to prevent and avoid suffering and hardship of any kind where farm animals and animals in general are concerned.

The Minister said the main purpose of this Bill was to enable the Minister for Agriculture to legislate by order for the promotion of animal welfare and in particular for the requirements of the Convention. I should like to concentrate on the need to exercise caution in the preparation of these guidelines and legislation by order. I should hope that great care would be taken in regard to the preparation of these guidelines. We have been told that inspections will be carried out by people such as veterinary officers, by certain officers of the Minister's Department and in some cases by the gardaá. I should like to emphasise to the Minister — knowing him as I do to be a practical farmer himself — the desirability of ensuring that, whoever the inspectors are, they have a practical knowledge of conditions in farming. They will be required to inspect housing, feeding, water for animals, the care of animals, lighting, ventilation, drainage, and so on. I should like to know if there will be general guidelines to help them to interpret their duties or will the matter of interpretation of these guidelines depend on the beliefs of each individual inspector?

I have been taken by the point Senator Ferris made in relation to, for example, sheep on the Galtees. I would hope that the Minister would clarify this point. In my part of the country the Burren is substantially used for the out-wintering of cattle. It is generally accepted that cattle winter there, emerge from it healthy and thrive particularly well in the following year. I am sure there are people who would regard the out-wintering of cattle in the Burren as cruelty to some degree. Were some of these people to be amongst the inspectorate which would emerge from the Department, I could see complications in relation to farm practices that have survived over the centuries in this area.

I should also like to question the safeguards where intensive housing of farm animals is concerned in the event of a power failure or a strike which would affect the ventilation systems and perhaps the means of feeding animals, which is mainly done now by mechanical means.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.