Will the Minister clarify whether wild animals are included in the definition of what constitutes an animal under this section? I refer, for example, to wild birds and fish. The Bill may be in conflict with certain aspects of the Wildlife Act on which hunters rely to validate their sports activities. I wish to suggest a wording which might be included in respect of wild animals, namely, "Animals, birds or fish living and sustaining themselves at both an individual and a population level in the wild for their requirements". I ask the Minister to consider drafting an amendment containing this wording before Report Stage.
Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: Committee Stage
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome the Minister. I am seeking clarification of a number of matters. Section 2(1) deals with definitions. Will the Minister provide clarification of what is meant by an intensive unit? Are automated scrapers, automatic feeders and so on included in the definition in this regard?
I have been approached on the definition of what constitutes a farm animal. When one reads the section, it is obvious that the definition in this regard is clear. Some of the farming organisations are of the view that there must be a clear distinction between animals kept for farming purposes and those used for sport, recreation and breeding which are not associated with the production of food, etc. Will the Minister indicate whether sufficient clarification is provided in the Bill of this matter?
Is it safe to assume that under the definition of what constitutes a premises, a farm dwelling house is exempt? I have also been asked to seek clarification of the definition of protected animals. Does the definition distinguish between animals kept for farming purposes and those kept for other purposes? I accept that this is probably covered by the definition of a farm animal to which I have referred.
We are trying to cover all animals, including farm animals, in the legislation. However, we make a distinction in respect of farm animals in the context of farming practices and so forth. We also make a distinction in respect of the treatment of some animals which are hunted in the course of normal hunting or fishing practices — this is covered later in the Bill — although some requirements need to be met in terms of acceptable standards and so on. We have tried to make a distinction between animals which are farmed and other animals, whether they are kept for domestic purposes, pets or whether they are wild animals. It may be somewhat dangerous to get into terminology such as "self-sustaining animals". Certain animals are at risk of extinction if we do not act to protect them, for example, the red squirrel. This may be because of other animals encroaching on their territory or because of human activity.
We have deliberately tried to keep "animal" as a broadly defined word. Moreover, we have deliberately referred to "farm animals" because they are in a different category in many ways with regard to acceptable practices in the normal course of farming and so on. Some of the amendments are attempts to deal with this issue and we can discuss them and try to accommodate the Senator's concerns. We will take it amendment by amendment.
I have received a note in respect of the matter of premises and a farm dwelling. The latter is distinct and requires a separate warrant. The broader definition of a "premises" includes a farm dwelling as well. If an animal is being kept within a farm dwelling and is being abused, it should apply whether it is a farm dwelling or another dwelling. If animals are being abused something should be done about it. There is a distinction between human dwelling places and other premises in terms of the need for a warrant to send someone in to examine them. In other words, there will not be authorised officers walking into people's homes because they have heard something or because they have some evidence of cruelty. That would require a warrant whether it is a farm dwelling or an urban dwelling. There is a distinction in terms of the required warrant for entering a person's dwelling. Farm families can and should be reassured in this regard. That is not to say that if there is evidence or a reason to believe there is significant cruelty going on within a house an authorised officer could not get a warrant to knock on the door. I hope the questions have been addressed.
The Minister has clarified the position on the question I asked about wild animals. I meant to include a reference to "and includes (but is not limited to)" in page 9 at line 6. This is followed by a list of bovine and other animals. The Minister has clarified it but I presume it includes hounds, working dogs and sporting horses.
That is by way of clarification.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8
Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed to? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, subsection (1), lines 10 and 11, to delete "necessary" and substitute "reasonable".
This amendment relates to the wording "take necessary measures to ensure that". Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) follow.
It refers to taking all necessary measures to ensure the animal is unable to stray from the land, that all buildings, gates, fences, hedges, boundary walls and other structures used to contain the animal are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimises the risk the animal will stray and the risk or spread of disease. My amendment seeks to replace the word "necessary" with "reasonable". I seek to do the same in amendment No. 6 on section 11. The word "necessary" has the potential to create difficulties for farm holdings and farmers. I would like to hear whether the Minister agrees with the amendment and, if not, I would have no difficulty with him proposing an alternative wording.
It is not an unreasonable suggestion, particularly in regard to section 8, but if I accept an amendment I want to make sure it is legally sound. I want to explain the difference between these two amendments. Section 8 is about preventing animals straying by putting up fencing and developing an environment that ensures animals do not stray. The Senator is suggesting that all reasonable measures, rather than all necessary measures, should be taken to do that. I do not have a strong view on which word should be used, and I would not be against accepting his amendment, but I would like to check that with our legal people.
I have a problem with amendment No. 6 because it is about the duty to protect animal welfare, which is at the heart of this legislation. It is important to have absolute clarity in terms of what we are requiring of people. I want people to take necessary steps to protect animal welfare as opposed to reasonable steps, which is ambiguous. When we are talking about ensuring animals do not stray, the word "reasonable" may not be as vital. If the Senator is happy to withdraw these amendments, I will consider introducing the word "reasonable" if it makes sense legally to do that. If there is a problem with it, I will let the Senator know but I would like to leave the word "necessary" in section 11, if he is happy to agree that. That is as far as I can go on that.
That is acceptable. I thank the Minister for being so forthright.
On Fianna Fáil's amendment No. 1 to replace the word "necessary" with "reasonable", will the Minister clarify the matter on Report Stage? He said he would consider replacing "necessary" with "reasonable", as is suggested in amendment No. 1, because it relates to control of disease, but regarding amendment No. 6, which deals with protecting animal welfare, the word "reasonable" should be inserted because the section states: "Where a person having possession or control of a farm animal fails to comply with subsection (1) and that person is not the owner of the farm animal, then the owner of the animal shall also have committed an offence under subsection (3)”. Section 8——
That is a separate amendment. We will come to that shortly.
I will come back in at that stage.
I support the retention of the word "necessary". I believe that in both cases, the word "necessary" is what gives this Bill its strength and makes it stand out from where we have been. Most farmers will assume the reasonable thing, but to make it necessary is at the heart of what this Bill is about. I appreciate the Minister will obviously look at it, but I would like to see the word "necessary" retained in both cases.
In fairness, the Minister has expressed a willingness to look at this before Report Stage. Will Senator Ó Domhnaill withdraw his amendment?
I will withdraw it. I accept totally what the Minister has said. I would just like to clarify the reasoning behind the words "necessary" and "reasonable". If a farmer has put up fencing, and for one reason or another, people break those fences and animals stray, then the question of "necessary" versus "reasonable" comes into play, as well as the potential of fines and whether they are class A or otherwise. I wanted to bring in a little bit of common sense thinking on the issue.
The matter will be put on hold until Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, subsection (1)(b)(ii), line 19, after “kept” to insert the following:
"having regard to the potential of wind borne spread of disease or of protected or other species of wildlife spreading disease".
This amendment again deals with section 8(1) and the risk or spread of disease onto farmland or premises on which the animal is kept. The potential of wind borne spread of disease, or of protected or other species of wildlife spreading disease, is obviously outside the control of a farmer. There has not been a low incidence of the spread of wind borne disease in this country, although it certainly has happened in other countries. I do not want farmers to be left exposed if that line in my amendment is not put in. I would like to hear the Minister's thoughts.
Ironically, we are asking farmers to do a little bit more here, but it is not necessarily a bad thing to do. Disease is often spread by wind borne spores or else by wild animals. For example, the badger culling programme, which nobody likes but is very necessary in my view, has produced significant results in reducing the incidence of TB in Irish herds. They have not taken a similar approach in the UK, and they have had much more difficulty in reducing TB levels in British herds. There is clear evidence to suggest that wildlife can spread diseases. We had a recent incidence of this in respect of bird flu. There is also evidence on wind borne diseases.
If we were to introduce this amendment, it would reinforce the idea that we change the word "necessary" to "reasonable", as per amendment No. 1. If we are asking farmers to take account of the spread of disease through wildlife when they are putting up fencing or housing, I do not think we can be unreasonable to them if a badger gets through the gap and people can make a connection between that and a TB reactor in the herd. I do not think people should be taken to court for that, but we should be encouraging farmers to think about the spread of disease in its fullest sense, such as through wind borne diseases or wild animals.
I would like to look at this amendment and try to improve it a bit. I hope the Senator will not take offence to that. I told my officials that I think this is a useful suggestion, but I am not sure about the actual legal terminology used. I cannot accept the amendment as it is, because I would not want to have to delete it on Report Stage. I would, however, like to accept the spirit of the amendment. As with amendment No. 1, would Senator Ó Domhnaill be happy for me to have a look at it and come back with a proposal on Report Stage? The Senator may also table the amendment again on Report Stage. If I do not accept it then he may press the amendment at that stage if he wishes. If he gives me a chance to have a look at the proposal I will try to incorporate the spirit of what he proposes into the section. His proposal is a useful addition. I would like to talk to some of the farming organisations to make sure that what we are putting in is reasonable.
I will withdraw the amendment. This is a matter of practicality. A farmer should not be legally liable if a wind borne disease is present on his or her land. If the Minister or his officials have an opportunity to speak to some of the farm organisations that would be welcome.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, subsection (2), line 20, after "excuse", to insert "or without right of way".
I welcome the Minister to the House. Senator Reilly, who represented Sinn Féin during the debate on Second Stage of the Bill, is, unfortunately, sick at present. I am stepping in for her today.
Amendment No. 3 deals with rights of way. All public representatives deal with issues of right of way on a regular basis. I am dealing with two such issues in my own county of Waterford at present. I know the importance of rights of way, how they are valued by people, the purpose they serve and the frustration caused if they are removed. A right of way can lead to a beach or a source of water or provide access across a field. Blocking a right of way can be seen as a breach of property rights.
I fully support the main thrust of the Bill. It is important legislation which my party fully supports. It is important, however, that the intent of the Bill in this area is not misunderstood. We have no difficulty with what the Bill is trying to achieve with regard to ensuring that people do not open gates or entrances or do anything that would harm animals. We are concerned that confusion might arise if our amendment is not accepted and the words we propose are not added. It is important that confusion does not reign in issues as important as this. Right of way disputes can lead to unnecessary tensions, and dialogue is the best way of dealing with them. I fear the wording of the section might be misunderstood by some and I look forward to the Minister's response to the amendment.
I hope Senators do not get the wrong impression. I will not be able to accept every amendment. I will try to accept the spirit of a number of them.
I know what the Senator is saying here. However, the section is not, in fact, about right of way. It, essentially, says a person shall not damage or interfere with a building, gate, fence, hedge, boundary wall or other structure used to contain farm animals unless the person has a lawful excuse to do so. This includes, potentially, right of way. Even if a right of way goes through a person's farm, we must, nevertheless, try to ensure that people close gates after themselves and do not damage walls. A person who is walking on a right of way may, occasionally, have to climb over a hedge or another obstacle. The existence of a right of way does not limit our responsibility for animal safety while using the right of way. We are always obliged to close gates behind us, and so on.
The terminology in line 20, page 11, which says, "without lawful excuse" should cover a myriad of things, including right of way. I cannot accept the Senator's amendment which excuses people from damaging or interfering with a building, gate, fence or hedge because it is part of a right of way. That is sending a signal that people who are walking along or using a right of way do not have to be conscious of the fact that there may be an animal next door. It is a fair point to raise rights of way but this section does not preclude people from walking along a right of way. If a farmer decides to put a gate across a walkway where there is a legal right of way, there is nothing to stop someone taking a legal case against him or her, but if there are cattle in the field and someone opens the gate and walks through because they see it as a right of way, they have a responsibility to ensure the cattle do not go out the gate. It is likewise if there was a sheep pen or something else of that nature. The aim of the measure is to ensure that as people walk across the countryside, they do not deliberately open gates or release animals. It is about making people conscious of the fact that if there are animals kept either in a pen, a shed or a field, everyone has a responsibility to ensure that if they are enclosed they remain enclosed if that is appropriate. I cannot accept the amendment because I do not want a person to make a case in a court of law, having left a gate open and where an accident ensued, to say in his or her defence that it was a right of way and therefore there was no need to close the gate. I am trying to give a practical example of what might happen. "Without lawful excuse" should cover rights of way as it is and that is probably as far as we should go.
Our amendment was not to excuse people who have access or right of way through a farmer's land from not doing what he or she should do, namely, close gates and refrain from damaging hedges, for example. Our concern was that this provision could be misunderstood and abused by some people who might erect gates on rights of way to frustrate people from gaining access. I am mindful of the Minister's response. Perhaps we could examine the matter further on Report Stage. As I am somewhat persuaded by the Minister's response, I will withdraw the amendment with a view to examining the matter again on Report Stage.
I will examine the matter again to see whether the amendment adds to the Bill. If that is the case, I do not have a problem with it, but I suspect it is probably not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This is a matter that concerns Senator O'Neill and which he has partially addressed. The Minister indicated there could be a response down the line. Will the Minister clarify section 8(4), which relates to where a person having possession or control of a farm animal fails to comply with subsection (1) and that person is not the owner of the farm animal, then the owner shall also have committed an offence? There is probably a reasonable explanation for it but it would seem to me that where a person operating an animal feed lot or livery stable does not conduct his or her business properly under the law, the owner of the animal could also be prosecuted. Perhaps there is an explanation but it appears that if the person is not the owner of the farm animal, the owner shall also be deemed to have committed an offence.
In layman's terms it appears to me that if I am the owner of a horse and the horse is in livery in a stable where, unknown to me, things are not operating as they should and there is some sort of inspection, it is not just the operator who is liable to prosecution but I, as the owner of the animal, could also be considered responsible for the difficulty. The way the provision is written would appear to indicate the owner of the animal shall also have a liability. Where a person who is not the owner of an animal but is in possession of it fails to comply with the section, the owner shall also have committed an offence. Perhaps the Minister might reflect on this provision. There may be an explanation, but it is not jumping off the page for any of us. Senator O'Neill brought this matter to my attention and I am sure that he will contribute. In particular, I have in mind people in the equine business. Livery is an important part of the care of horses. As the Senator mentioned to me, a horse might break out of a livery yard or stable where the owner of said stable does not have matters fully in order. That person is not the animal's owner, yet this provision seems to indicate that the owner would also be guilty of an offence. A little clarification might be required.
I agree with Senator Bradford. He has pointed out a matter that might require further discussion. This issue has to do with section 8 on animals straying. According to the wording of subsection (4), if a person is in possession of an animal, for example, someone in a contract rearing or bed and breakfast arrangement who looks after animals, and the animal strays, the owner is culpable even though he or she had no knowledge of or played no part in breaking a fence or the fact that a shed is capable of being escaped from. The owner is seen as having committed an offence. I am unsure. Perhaps I am reading the Bill incorrectly, but this provision seems to leave the owner in a difficult position despite having had nothing to do with the animal going astray. There may be a logical explanation.
I thank Senators Bradford and Ó Domhnaill for raising this matter. Senator Bradford has read out the subsection starting on line 25. This matter has to do with Senator Ó Domhnaill's amendment on deleting the words "necessary" and "reasonable". Although I am jumping around the Bill, this subsection is tied to section 11(3), as both read exactly alike. As the Minister pointed out, these two provisions might apply in different circumstances. One relates to the control of disease by prohibiting animals from straying and the other relates to animal welfare.
What reasonable and necessary steps can an owner take if his or her horse, for example, is in a livery yard or a feed lot? What would happen to the owner who sent a horse to a farrier or vet or a dog to a boarding kennel? Will the Minister examine the wording in these two subsections? They will have implications for the rights of owners. An owner may take reasonable steps to ensure that his or her animal is looked after well and give that animal to someone else in good faith. Perhaps the word "necessary" needs to be changed. The subsections' wording needs to be changed, given the differences between livery yards, feed lots, farriers, vets and boarding kennels. There is too great an onus on the owner. If a person hires someone to look after an animal, the onus is on the latter to do his or her job. I will make excuses for no one, but an owner might not be in a position to inspect his or her animal even once per day, week or month. He or she has handed that animal over to be cared for in good faith.
I will provide the reasoning behind the wording as is. We are trying to ensure that the owner of an animal does not hide behind an employee working in the yard, on the farm or in the livery if that animal is being abused, subjected to cruelty or whatever. For this reason, the Bill's wording is, "unless the owner shows that he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that all necessary measures in the circumstances were taken to comply with subsection (1)", which is on the prohibition of farm animals straying. This section is not about cruelty to animals broadly. Section 8(1) states:
A person who has in his or her possession or under his or her control a farm animal shall, having regard to the animal's nature, type, species, breed, development and environment, take all necessary measures to ensure that—
(a) the animal is unable to stray from the land or premises where it is kept, and
(b) all buildings, gates, fences, hedges, boundary walls and other structures used to contain the animal are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimises
(i) the risk that the animal will stray...
I will think about the concerns expressed by Senators. I have good practical experience of what it is like to have a horse 40 miles from where I am living which is being looked after by a friend. Likewise, an owner of a suckler herd may be sharing grazing facilities with another farmer. There could also be the case of a dog placed in kennels when his or her owner goes on holiday which escapes. There are many cases of people who, for whatever reason, may arrange for their animals to be in the possession, control or responsibility of somebody else. We do not want people to be prosecuted because of the irresponsibility of somebody else while minding their animals. At the same time, I want to ensure there is a responsibility on an owner to ensure good care is taken of his or her animals if they are being looked after by someone else. It is about getting the balance right between the responsibility that comes with ownership of an animal and the practical realities of farming. The Department's view is that this issue is covered by the provision "he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that all necessary measures . . .". I will examine this provision before Report Stage to see if it can be improved.
The wording of section 8(4) should be different from that of section 11(3) as they cover different circumstances, namely, the straying of animals and welfare issues. Welfare is much more important in that somebody should take the necessary rather than reasonable steps. However, this wording should not be used in section 8(4).
I call Senator Paul Bradford. In fairness the Minister has said he will reflect on this issue before Report Stage. He is not shutting the door.
I appreciate the Minister's consideration of the issue. The section should read, "the owner shall have reason to believe all necessary measures are taken". That would provide for a reasonable balance. Under the current wording, the owner would almost have to have an audit undertaken of the place where his or her animal is kept. It would be better if the obligation on the owner was to have a reasonable belief matters were in order. Owners would not give their animals to people who would not look after them properly. How can an owner take all reasonable steps to monitor someone else's property? I look forward to the Minister coming back to us on this issue. We are all at one in that we want to ensure every animal, be it a farm or domestic animal, is properly looked after and cared for, but we do not want too many difficulties to arise from genuine mistakes. Perhaps we can arrive at a working compromise.
This is a genuine issue. What we do not want is prosecutions being taken against owners in circumstances where they may be paying for and have reason to believe, as the Senator said, that everything should be right and proper with a housing facility, livery or whatever. I will examine the issue and will try to arrive at a wording that is fair without absolving people of the responsibility that comes with owning an animal, which is what the legislation is about.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 12, lines 19 to 21, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) The Minister may for the purposed of subsection (3) issue a permit and may attach such terms and conditions to it as he or she considers appropriate.”.
This amendment concerns authorised officers, who are defined in section 2 as a member of the Garda Síochána, an officer of Customs and Excise, or a person appointed under section 37 during the period of his or her appointment. Section 10(4) states:
An authorised officer may for the purposes of subsection (3) issue a permit and may attach such terms and conditions to it as he or she considers appropriate.
Without questioning the role or functions of an authorised officer, the subsection gives him or her much latitude. It would be more appropriate for the Minister to have the power to issue a permit and attach such terms and conditions as he or she considers appropriate, following consultation with an authorised officer, rather than give an authorised officer on the ground the responsibility to attach such terms and conditions as he or she sees fit. The subsection appears to be very wide-ranging.
The reality is that such a permit would be issued by a qualified person on the ground who may be an employee of a local authority and, therefore, the term "Minister" is inappropriate. In the past this terminology has been used as a basis for litigation by those who have worked on the assumption that all permits must be issued by the Minister personally and not by one of his or her officers. This is an important section. It is about ensuring that we can enforce the rules in regard to the deliberate spread of disease. If a person has an animal which he or she knows to be infected and is trying to get rid of it from the farmyard and sell it, we need to be able to act quickly. That is the reason for authorised officers, whether at local authority level or working from my Department. We do not need a process whereby the Minister would have to personally authorise the actions of an authorised officer for the purpose of inspections or appropriate action on freezing the movement of animals. We have a set of rules for authorised officers governing the appropriate response when they have reason to believe something like this is happening under section 10(3). I would like to place some trust in these officers to behave as they see fit. If their response is over the top, the Minister may have to intervene, but it is important to place some trust in them. The authorised officers will be qualified. Perhaps we might discuss this issue later in the debate.
There was a concern, particularly among farming organisations, that many new officers who might not have much experience of farming but who might be connected to animal welfare organisations would be appointed. Authorised officers need to be qualified. Predominantly, they should be veterinarians or veterinary nurses who understand animals and the complexity of animal welfare issues as opposed to individuals who may well be well meaning but who are not qualified or informed to make the necessary decisions. I am not sure there will be a change to the current group of authorised officers who undertake farm inspections. Experience of how farms work is important to the authorised officer's role. Local authorities, as well as my Department, have a responsibility to put such officers in place in certain instances. Involving the Minister in sanctioning these appointments would probably be too restrictive in the context of getting the job done quickly. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
I fully appreciate the Minister's comments and accept his reference to making the system too unwieldy. If there was an issue in every county on a particular day and everything had to go through the Minister, I appreciate it would take more time to deal with it. The authorised officers will be professional staff, but they can be members of An Garda Síochána and Customs officers. In this case, they will not have the knowledge or expertise to address specific agriculture queries, but I assume they will work with a veterinarian or a veterinary nurse. Will the Minister attach to the legislation a list of the terms and conditions the officers can apply? This would help authorised officers also. I am not trying to confine the terms and conditions they can apply where there is a breach. Would it be appropriate to have prescriptive terms and conditions attached to the legislation in order that where an authorised officer has a query, he or she could deal with it using black and white terms and conditions? The farming organisations and farmers in general would then also be well aware of the consequences of a breach. The expression "such terms and conditions as they may consider appropriate" is vague.
The vagueness of the reference is its strength because it gives authorised officers the flexibility they need in responding to any situation. The requirement is that authorised officers be of a high standard, but I would like to provide them with the flexibility they need to respond according to need. The Senator is correct that some officers may well be gardaí or Customs officials because we do not know where an incident will occur. It could happen in a port, mart or at the horse sales, but, more than likely, it will happen on a farm. I will examine this issue again, given that the Deputy has raised it, but we are trying to be flexible in the legislation to allow authorised officers to do their business as they see fit. If there is a problem, we can follow up on it, but that is the intention. Having in place authorised officers who are properly qualified and informed in their work is the best approach to take.
I will withdraw the amendment on the basis of the Minister's undertaking to review the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 12, subsection (5), line 22, to delete "This section does" and substitute "This section andsection 12 do”.
This is a technical amendment to include section 12 in the exemption contained in this section in respect of activities authorised in accordance with the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, the Animal Remedies Act 1993 and the Irish Medicines Board Act 1995. The exemption relates to experiments conducted in laboratories, predominantly for the purpose of testing for human health reasons.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "necessary" and substitute "reasonable".
In light of the Minister's offer to review the proposal before Report Stage, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 13, subsection (1)(b), lines 23 and 24, to delete all words from and including “that” in line 23 down to and including “suffering” in line 24 and substitute “appropriate to the animal species”.
Subsection (1)(b) states:
having regard to the animal's nature, type, species, breed, development and environment, ensure that all buildings, gates, fences, hedges, boundary walls and other structures used to contain the animal are constructed and maintained in a manner that the animal is not caused injury or unnecessary suffering.
I have no difficulty with these provisions. However, the amendment arises from the fact that various forms of fencing may not be suitable for all species. For example, sheep netting would not be suitable for cattle just as barbed wire fencing would not be suitable for sheep. As it stands, a farmer who, in the course of loading cattle into a trailer, finds that one of them has injured itself on barbed wire fencing would be negligent under the legislation even though that type of wiring has been used for generations to contain cattle. I appreciate that the Minister may consider the amendment too broad, in which case I would have no difficulty if he were to come back to the issue on Report Stage.
I am not satisfied with the Deputy's wording in this amendment. The difficulty is that the phrase "appropriate to the animal species" does not deal with suffering or welfare issues. One certainly might make the assumption that it does do so, but we are striving for the utmost clarity in terms of the requirements on farmers and other animal owners. Specifically, we must ensure they have regard to the animal's nature, type, species and so on and that they ensure all buildings used to contain animals are constructed and maintained in a manner conducive to the welfare of those animals. We need to ensure animal owners have regard to the animal's nature, type, species and so on and to ensure all buildings used to contain the animal are constructed and maintained in a manner that ensures the animal is not caused injury or unnecessary suffering rather than just say "appropriate to the animal species", because that could be appropriate in terms of efficiency as regards stocking rates, for example, or appropriate as regards access to water, feed or whatever. The section specifically states: "in a manner that the animal is not caused injury or unnecessary suffering". In other words, there must be adequate space. Animals need to be able to move around. They should not fall through slatted floors. Likewise, it is not always cattle. It could be some other form of housing that ensures animals are not causing themselves injury by simply trying to move around. For me, this is quite an important section on which we need to be very clear in terms of people's responsibility in terms of the housing of animals and ensuring animals do not cause themselves unnecessary suffering. I mention sharp objects on the ground or sticking out of the wall and so on. That is not really covered by the words "appropriate to the animal species".
I know what the Senator is getting at and I will take a look at it but we need a much stronger wording than what he proposes. Perhaps there is something we could include which recognises that different types of housing are required for different types of species. I do not have a problem with that. If the Senator wants to come back with an amendment on Report Stage, I will look at it but I want the words "that the animal is not caused injury or unnecessary suffering" and that we have a practical approach towards the housing of animals which will not lead to unnecessary injury. I am afraid I will stick with my wording on this.
I listened carefully to the Minister and accept everything he said. Perhaps the wording in the amendment is not ideal. We will have another look at it. This side of the House supports fully anything which would ensure animals suffer less or ensure there is no undue suffering. Perhaps the wording of the amendment did not encapsulate that. We will have a look at it and maybe come back.
The point we are making is probably from a farming point of view. Barbed wire fences are one example but there are probably others as well. We will have a look at the amendment and come back on Report Stage. The Minister might want to reflect on it as well.
If the Senator comes back with something that adds to it, I will look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 13, subsection (1)(a), line 35, before “do,” where it firstly occurs to insert “intentionally”.
This is the prohibition on animal cruelty section. It states: "A person shall not — (a) do, or fail to do, anything or cause or permit anything to be done to an animal that causes injury (including disfigurement) or unnecessary suffering to, or endanger the health or welfare of, an animal”. We seek to add the word “intentionally”. If a farmer or pet owner does something intentionally, it is a crime.
I will give the legalistic answer and then my view on it. The proposed amendment weakens the welfare thrust of this Bill. We have worked hard to achieve a fine balance between the rights of the individual and the need for the State to have the power to intervene where offences have occurred. The Attorney General and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel have been closely involved in the drafting of this Bill and have been very active in ensuring civil liberties and constitutional rights are upheld. The reason we have sought legal advice on this is that we do not want a situation in which people go to court and say in their defence that they did not mean to do it. If an animal is abused when someone comes home with too much drink taken or if a person flicks a cigarette into a barn and it goes up in flames, killing or burning animals, the person should not be able to defend himself or herself by saying it was not on purpose. In the normal course of law, a person will have a natural defence, if something goes to court, that there were reasons that were outside his or her control. I know exactly what the Senator is saying, and it is not unreasonable. However, according to my legal advice, if we put in the word "intentionally" to obtain the phrase "A person shall not . . . intentionally do, or fail to do, anything or cause or permit anything to be done to an animal that causes injury (including disfigurement) or unnecessary suffering to, or endanger the health or welfare of, an animal", it will severely weaken the capacity to achieve prosecutions where appropriate. I can drop the Senators a note on our understanding of that, if they wish.
I can understand why farming organisations have concerns in this regard. Sometimes there are reasons, such as mental health problems, for a person behaving out of character or doing something unintentionally to cause suffering to animals in his or her ownership or control, but those circumstances would be taken account of anyway in a court of law, even if it were not put in as an excuse in the legislation. Such an amendment would weaken the Bill. In every case, solicitors and barristers would try to base their cases around whether the act was intentional. To be fair, much of the cruelty that takes place in Ireland is probably not intentional. Nevertheless, it may be significant, and we need to try to act on that to ensure behaviour changes.
I am told that section 61 provides for mental health problems, so there is another section that deals with that particular issue. I know there have been cases in which severe depression or other challenges may have led people — especially those living in isolation — to behave as they would not normally behave, and we need to take account of such things. That type of person does not belong in prison, and should not be fined; they need help.
In essence, this amendment weakens what we are trying to do, and I am not in a position to accept it.
I will explain where I am coming from. What about animal sports, or even, by a further extension, pest control? There are sports such as stag hunting that we are not too used to up in Donegal, but there are many other sports such as hare coursing. Where does that fall with regard to section 12? The section states: "A person shall not . . . do, or fail to do, anything or cause or permit anything to be done to an animal that causes injury." Where does that leave the area of sports? Does it have any effect? I know there is other legislation dealing with sports, but where does it leave horse racing, for example?
We went to great lengths to ensure we were not doing anything that would prevent people from continuing to participate in field sports as they would have in the past, as long as that is in a way that is consistent with the codes of conduct enshrined in those sports, including coursing, hunting and fishing. The measure applies only if there is undue cruelty such as the digging out of animals when they have gone to ground, which is unacceptable. In the legislation I am not banning coursing and hunting through the back door. We are trying to get the balance right between facilitating field sports and ensuring the codes of practice agreed for those sports are respected. If people begin to operate outside these codes, that is a different issue. The legislation states:
Nothing in this section applies in relation to anything which occurs in the ordinary course of—
(a) fishing,
(b) lawfully hunting an animal, unless the animal is released in an injured, mutilated or exhausted condition, or
(c) lawfully coursing a hare, unless the hare is hunted or coursed in a space from which it does not have a reasonable chance of escape.
We have spoken to individuals involved in field sports to try to recognise what constitutes lawful hunting. If there is behaviour outside this definition, we need to act on it legislatively. The balance is about right on these issues.
I ask the Minister to clarify a few points on section 12. On page 14——
There are a number of amendments to section 12. Normally we deal with the amendments first, after which we discuss the section.
Okay.
It makes matters easier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 14, subsection (2), lines 4 to 7, to delete paragraph (b).
Section 12(2)(b) reads, “cruelly treat or beat, kick, ill-treat, over-work, over-drive, over-load, over-burden, torture, mutilate, infuriate or terrify an animal, or cause, procure or permit an animal to be so treated, infuriated or terrified”. My amendment is to draw attention to this paragraph which is over-descriptive. There is nothing in it about normal agricultural practices. The definition appears to cover all agricultural practices because very often normal farming practices, even when conducted professionally, can include infuriating animals. Examples include trying to put a bull into a trailer and practices where animals are dealt with in close confines such as sheep dipping, dosing and tail docking and the de-horning of animals. Many everyday farming practices appear to fall under the definition in section 12. While I propose the deletion of paragraph (b), I would be willing to accept a prescriptive definition exempting normal farming practices.
In other words, there should be a distinction made between "cruelly treat" or intentional cruelty, which the Bill which we support is trying to minimise or eradicate, and normal farming practices which we do not want to see included in those few lines, between lines 4 and 7. That is where we are coming from. We are willing to work with the Minister on the creation of that definition of farming practices, if that can be done on Report Stage.
I understand why Senator Ó Domhnaill raised this issue. In some ways, this is language of another time. This subsection is based upon language included in the 1911 Protection of Animals Act.
I can see no reason to remove this section. It states that a person shall not beat, kick, over-work, torture, mutilate, terrify an animal, etc. I can see no reason that such actions, which are clearly against all principles of animal welfare and which are currently illegal and have been so for the past 100 years, should now be made legal by this Bill.
Having said that, the purpose of this legislation is to modernise both the legislation and the terminology used around animal welfare. I do not want to legalise anything that is currently illegal around abusing animals, over-working them or over-driving them, and certainly not terrifying or infuriating them unnecessarily. Section 16 deals with castration and other exemptions, and Senator Ó Domhnaill might take a look at that while he is listening.
I do not want to delete this until I have something better with which to replace it. If Senator Ó Domhnaill wants to come up with a wording for Report Stage that essentially sums up these practices but puts them in a more modern but acceptably legalistic language for the Bill, I will certainly look at accepting it.
I do not want to start legalising practices that have been illegal for 100 years unless there is a reason to do so. Essentially, we have maintained the wording in terms of beating, kicking, ill-treating and over-working animals. In some ways, this paragraph sums up what this legislation is all about in terms of protecting animals, including wild animals, that may interact with human beings.
On farm animals, I understand from where the Minister is coming.
He might clarify the meaning of "over-work" and "over-drive". In what way will this apply to a man out hunting with a dog and a hunt out with a pack of hounds? There may be unsubstantiated and malicious complaints made. The Minister will be aware that there is an anti-hunt lobby in this country. Who will follow-up on such a complaint? Who will determine whether a dog is over-worked or over-driven, or a horse is over-ridden in a hunt?
I ask the Minister to clarify this. Will there be a register kept of those who continuously make complaints because they may make these complaints for a nuisance factor rather than for the good of the animals?
I would say nobody was aware there was a 1911 Act that contained this wording. Who determines "over-drive" and "over-work" where it is one person's view against another's? Somebody may telephone a section of the Department stating that a hunt has over-worked its hounds. Who will determine that? By the time the inspector gets there, the hounds would most likely have recovered.
Hunting is dealt with in subsection (12).
It states, "normal".
Subsection (12) states anything which occurs in the ordinary course of lawfully hunting an animal, unless the animal is released in an injured, mutilated or exhausted condition. We are trying to outlaw catching a fox that has been injured or mutilated and then releasing it again, in other words, throwing it to the hounds. We are not condoning that type of activity for one second.
On the point Senator O'Neill makes, subsection (2)(b), in terms of hunting anyway, should be covered by subsection (12). In other words, the normal course of hunting is not being outlawed in this Bill — not by a long shot. Dogs and horses, as anyone who has been to a hunt will be aware, get very excited and over-exert themselves, but that is not what we are trying to stamp out here.
Subsection (2)(b) is about laying down the rules, that the idea that one would beat, kick, ill-treat, over-work or over-drive an animal is not acceptable in law. In fairness, a normal hunt will not be affected by that paragraph.
In terms of the person who makes the judgment on it, I assume, if it is an authorised officer following up on a report of cruelty, there must be a judgment made in that regard but, ultimately, as with all of these matters, it is a court of law that decides in the end, if it goes that far.
Is Senator Ó Domhnaill pressing the amendment?
No. I am willing to accept what the Minister has said and the assurance he has given that he is willing to look at a revised wording on the amendment on Report Stage.
I agree that the 1911 Act was a long time ago. None of the Minister's officials would remember that far back. It shows the real need for updating the legislation when one sees that it is 101 years since that legislation. I agree with the Minister. How can he justify removing it, if it was there previously? Coming up with a more sensible form of words might be the option.
If this was a problem for hunts or for farmers, it has been there for 100 years in law and I would have thought it would have been a problem by now.
Nobody knew it was available.
I am not aware that it has been an issue.
Something must have happened last week.
I am not aware that it has been an issue, in the early 1900s or in the past couple of years. As it was not an issue, we felt that to weaken the wording on it would send out the wrong signal. If we can use better or more accurate language that reflects modern Ireland, I have no difficulty with looking at that. At present, I do not want to weaken the wording.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 30 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 14, subsection (5)(b), line 21, to delete “or a code of practice”.
Amendment No. 10 relates to the code of practice and amendment No. 30 relates to the functions under the Bill on the establishment of a code of practice.
In general terms, a code of practice would be good, particularly for pet owners. For those obtaining their first animal as a pet, it would be good and responsible for them to adopt a code of practice.
However, on extending it to the care and husbandry of farm animals, the farming organisations have raised queries on the code of practice and the implementation of a code of practice in respect of the keeping and rearing of farm animals for the production of food.
No one knows how to rear animals better than a farmer and no one will give more attention to the rearing of animals than a farmer. The farming organisations have raised issues about this section, section 25 and the introduction of a code of practice. The introduction of a code of practice relating to the keeping, protection and husbandry of pets would be an excellent step. As there may be a logical reason for what is being proposed, perhaps the Minister will provide reassurance in that regard. We are seeking clarification as to whether the deletions proposed in the two amendments are necessary.
Codes of practice are useful. Other jurisdictions have been utilising them for decades. The purpose of allowing the Minister of the day to adopt a code of practice from another state or organisation relates to administrative simplicity. There is a provision in the Bill which requires public consultation to take place before the adoption of a new code of practice. In a farming context, this type of process works well. Prior to the adoption of codes of practice, for example, there is input from both farming bodies and welfare organisations through the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council. The purpose of section 12(5) is to give an indicative, not exhaustive, list of considerations to be borne in mind when examining whether suffering is taking place. Codes of practice are an obvious aid in this regard. Some actions which might be deemed cruel could, in fact, be in accordance with a code of practice and this may speak in the animal keeper's defence. Codes of practice could be used by the courts, even if they are not mentioned in the legislation. It is more straightforward and fairer to everyone involved to retain the reference to a code of practice.
We are trying to ensure people understand what is acceptable practice. A code of practice is not necessarily legally enforceable. It is actually a set of guidelines to which there should be adherence. A code of practice can be used as an example or as evidence in court. If a person is not abiding by an acceptable code of conduct, that can be a measurement of whether he or she is behaving in a cruel way. I have been driving the agenda on codes of practice, particularly in the context of animal welfare organisations. There are many well meaning individuals involved with such organisations who, in some instances, are taking on more than they can cope with, both financially and, in the context of space, from a resources point of view. I refer to those who may be keeping horses, dogs or cats. It is probably good that we should seek to put in place codes of conduct which make clear to those involved with animal welfare organisations, farmers, etc. what is or is not acceptable. Codes of practice are not law, but they are recognised in law. There is a difference in that regard.
I wish to reassure people, particularly those in the farming community, that I have no intention of introducing a series of new codes of practice for how farmyards or cattle sheds should be run. However, we are using codes of practice as a tool. Last Christmas we introduced such a code for animal welfare organisations for the care of animals, re-homing, neutering, spaying and all of the other matters related to the responsible keeping of rescue animals. There must be standards, codes of conduct and acceptable forms of behaviour when it comes to the care of such animals. We have linked this with the grant aid available from my Department to support these organisations. If such organisations reach a certain standard in the codes of conduct we are setting, we will support them financially. However, if they do not reach the standard, we will not be in a position to provide such support.
I understand why farming organisations would be concerned about discussions on new codes of conduct. They are already concerned about the number of farmyard inspections which take place. They do not want more form-filling, red tape and rules. In many ways, farmers are the ones who understand, in most detail, how to care for animals because they do it for a living. There is not going to be a raft of new codes of conduct. If we were to consider the introduction of a code, we would be obliged to do so in consultation with farming organisations. The last thing I want is the creation of a new enforcement nightmare in the implementation of codes of conduct on farms. Any action we take in this area will occur in consultation and co-operation with farmers in order to ensure, from their point of view and that of the Department,that there will potentially be a better understanding of the appropriate ways to care for animals, whether they be farm animals or domestic pets.
Section 25 does not state that before a code of practice or conduct is introduced, consultation must take place with the farming organisations. Would it be possible to amend the section in order that reference would be made to a consultation process?
This is covered under section 25(5)(b).
That paragraph states "may, having considered any representations received, establish or adopt the draft code". It does not state consultation shall take place. Section 25 also states:
(5) Before establishing or adopting a code of practice, the Minister—
(a) shall publish on the website of his or her Department of State a draft of the proposed code...
Perhaps the Minister might consider including a reference to prior consultation taking place with the relevant organisations.
I will examine the position in that regard. Such a reference would not be unreasonable, particularly as that is our intention.
That might satisfy the farming organisations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 14, subsection (6), line 30, to delete "reasonable grounds" and substitute "evidence".
This is similar to a previous amendment and relates to the issue of authorised officers. Section 12(6) refers to "An authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is offending against this section". I am seeking to have the term "reasonable grounds" removed and replaced with the word "evidence". The subsection would then read "An authorised officer who has evidence for believing that a person is offending against this section".
Amendment No. 12 is to section 12(8) in which the phrase "Where an authorised officer has reasonable grounds" is used. I am again suggesting the term "reasonable grounds" be replaced with the word "evidence" in this instance. The term "reasonable grounds" is vague. I am not for one moment questioning the professionalism of authorised officers, but I am concerned that the provision is overly vague. Again, subsection (6) states "An authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is offending against this section, in relation to an animal...". If authorised officers are given the powers they rightly deserve, in exercising such powers they should be able to substantiate evidence, not just establish reasonable grounds. As stated, the term "reasonable grounds" is vague, whereas "evidence" is much more concrete. If gardaí are entering a premises to seize drugs or deal with a complaint, they must have evidence before doing so.
In some ways, this goes to the essence of what we are trying to change in law. Much of the existing legislation which is outdated requires animal cruelty to take place before an authorised officer can act. In other words, there must be evidence of cruelty before action can be taken or a prosecution pursued. What we are trying to do is intervene at an earlier stage, particularly, as discussed, in the context of disease control. If there is a suspicion that animals are being cruelly treated we want authorised officers to be able to act on it if they have reasonable grounds to do so. This is the terminology we are using. If a neighbour sees that animals are been repeatedly abused but he does not have photographic evidence, he may report it to the Department or the local authority. At that stage we want authorised officers to be able to go in and make clear that they have received a report and that until they get to the bottom of it they want X, Y or Z to be done. We are issuing a warning through this legislation to people who have committed offences. We have no wish to take people to court unnecessarily. We want the flexibility for early intervention when there are reasonable grounds for it in the case of suspected cruelty. This can only happen through authorised officers. This point is important; it is not the case that anyone can do it. There is no point in having a hotline for the public to report instances of cruelty if one cannot act on those reports. If the onus of proof is such that one must provide evidence before an authorised officer can intervene, then the cruelty has taken place before one can prevent it. The purpose is to ensure that authorised officers can react to situations, reports or evidence that cruelty is taking place. If they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is offending against this section of the Bill, then they can take action. We need to give them the appropriate powers. Otherwise, there is a problem with the onus of proof and the gathering of evidence before an authorised officer can act. I have no wish to go down the route where people are hiding behind a hedge with cameras trying to take photographs of others, whether they are farmers, huntsmen or whoever, and then going to authorised officers with photographic proof of certain things. We are trying to ensure that if there are reasonable grounds for believing that cruelty is taking place, then authorised officers can act and respond quickly and in a way in which they deem appropriate. To change the reasonable grounds to a requirement to have full evidence would significantly limit what authorised officers can do. It would be a retrograde step for the Bill.
I am keen to make some progress. Are you satisfied with the proposed wording?
I have listened carefully to the Minister. I accept the explanation he has given. I had planned to push both of these amendments to a vote because I believe the reasonable evidence of proof for authorised officers is very wide. Anyway, I appreciate where the Minister is coming from. As public representatives, we have all experienced issues in our constituencies involving animal cruelty. I appreciate the Minister's remarks and that authorised officers will be professional people who will react only on sound, reasonable grounds. I am unsure, therefore, whether there should be any further clarification of the Bill at this point. Perhaps not. I am willing to accept what the Minister has said. We are all aware of instances — the Minister referred to them as well — involving people who have too much alcohol consumed or who have mental health problems. Other people have pets but cannot look after them. Some farmers mistreat their animals by not feeding them properly and so on. I accept on merit the comments of the Minister. It probably makes sense to give the Bill teeth. I accept his remarks on this basis and I will not press the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Amendment No. 13 is out of order since it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
I wish to explain why. I can understand why people may have been lobbied on this issue. If an amendment has a cost to the Exchequer then it is automatically ruled out of order and, apparently, I am unable to say anything on it. That is probably convenient from my point of view.
It is out of order because it involves a charge on the Revenue. The decision is self-explanatory.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 15, subsection (12), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(d) normal farming or agricultural practices.”.
Section 12(12)(c) states “lawfully coursing a hare, unless the hare is hunted or coursed in a space from which it does not have a reasonable chance of escape”. I propose to include a further subsection with the phrase “normal farming or agricultural practices”. The beginning of section 12(12) states: “Nothing in this section applies in relation to anything which occurs in the ordinary course of”. This relates to a previous discussion on hare coursing and the hunting of an animal and so on. The matter is covered earlier in any event. It answers a previous query raised. Normal farming or agricultural practices should apply in this case as well. This will lend a distinction and a definition to farming practices under that section.
In its submission, the IFA stated that the vast majority of farmers treat animals according to the highest welfare standards. I fully endorse this point and, as someone who has grown up with farming for a long time, I have personal experience of this. Farm animals are well provided for by the Animal Health and Welfare act generally. The exceptions listed in this section relate to wild animals as opposed to farm animals. There is a similar provision in the Northern Ireland Act. That was the basis for this part of the section and I do not propose to accept the amendment. The main reason is that I have no wish to put normal farming practices in the same category as lawful hunting, coursing and fishing. The reason we make an exception for fishing, hunting and coursing is that everyone accepts that there is a level of stress and animal suffering in fishing, hunting and coursing but that this is a part of these activities. To put farming in this category suggests all the wrong things about farming.
The majority of farmers in the country treat animals very well. In the case of dairy herds many farmers know their animals by name. Most farmers would be comfortable with the fact that this Bill applies to them as it does. It recognises the status of farmed animals and the issues around farming and so on. There is no need to make an exception for farming to put farm animals in the same category as hunting and coursing because they are in an altogether different category. In many ways farming and farm practices are the best example of how animals should be looked after. I am comfortable, as are the farm organisations, that farm animals should not be in the section since it would suggest in some way that farming, coursing and hunting are all part of the same type of activity. They are very different. I am satisfied that section 12(12) ensures that we do not disrupt lawful field sports. This should not, however, apply to farming generally. That would say something about farming that we have no wish to say in the Bill.
Does the Senator wish to press the amendment?
No. I accept what the Minister has said. What I am trying to achieve, following consultation with the farming organisations, is that there would be a differentiation between other sports, for want of a better term, husbandry, caring for pets and so on and farming. I want that distinction in respect of farming. If a code of practice is introduced farmers will abide by that because they are looking for a return on their investment. Given what farmers are trying to achieve and the role they will play in the development of Food Harvest 2020 I want that distinction for farmers because they are not covered exclusively under the animal cruelty section of the Bill.
I tabled this amendment following discussions with the farming organisations which wanted it. Fishing is included in the subsection also. I am not making a distinction between farming and hunting or coursing, and it is entirely different from fishing. The reason behind this amendment, and the Minister can insert it elsewhere in the Bill if he wishes, is to make proper farming practices separate from the animal cruelty aspect of this section. I appreciate the Minister may not be able to accept that because while 99.9% of farmers are responsible for the manner in which they farm and care for their animals, as in any profession a small number of them may engage in elements of animal cruelty. That distinction could possibly be covered under the code of practice the Minister is proposing to introduce under the legislation. That is the distinction I am endeavouring to make. I was not trying to put it into a similar category. Following the consultations with the organisations we felt this was the best section on which to table an amendment.
This is at the heart of the Bill, namely, prohibition of animal cruelty. Many of the animals we have here are on farms. If we decide to insert into this section wording to the effect that nothing in the section applies in regard to anything which occurs in the ordinary course of farming, what are we at here? That is the reason the Bill contains sections which state that a person shall not cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-work, over-drive, over-load, over-burden, torture or mutilate an animal. That must apply on a farm as well as in a person's back garden. This legislation is not just about eradicating dog fighting or cock fighting or dealing with people who go to work and leave their dog starving in the porch. It must be about the majority of animals in the country, and I do not believe farmers have a difficulty with that as long as what we are asking them to do is not unreasonable. As I have said repeatedly in the context of this legislation, farmers understand the importance of animal welfare probably better than anyone else. They make their living out of it. The healthier and happier their animals are generally, the more commercially successful are farmers. I do not suspect that commercial return is the sole driver behind farming in terms of the relationship between farmers and animals. The idea that we would exclude from the section on prohibition of animal cruelty the entire farming sector is not credible. However, I understand the Senator's point about the need to respect commercial farm practice and make exceptions on issues such as tail docking, castration and dehorning, when appropriate, and all of the other practices a farmer must do with farm animals to control disease, infection and so on. We are covered on that score.
The Minister might clarify two points. First, on subsection (12) and the three opt-outs, I listened to what the Minister said about an element of risk or where pain etc. is involved in terms of fishing, lawful hunting an animal, and lawfully coursing a hare. It may be covered elsewhere in the Bill through the use of other language but does the Minister see any reason to have horse racing and show jumping added to that list?
Second, subsection (11) states: "Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner." The Bill makes provision in respect of veterinary officers, authorised officers etc. yet this subsection states that nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner. What if people out shooting or hunting, or someone who is alone, come upon a wounded animal or bird that has been shot and not killed, in other words, a dying animal, and they do not have immediate access to a veterinary officer or an authorised officer? How does this subsection apply? Why is it necessary if we are already making provision in respect of authorised officers and veterinary officers? Is some flexibility not necessary in that regard? I refer to people out hunting, fishing or shooting who may come upon a dying animal and where it would be in the interest of the animal to put it down. An authorised officer or veterinary officer is not present in those circumstances. Does this section provide for that? I am confused in that regard.
I hope the Minister found us satisfactory at the races in Roscommon yesterday.
I did, yes. We had a very enjoyable day in Roscommon yesterday.
Section 23 deals with the humane destruction of an animal. In amendment No. 26 I am improving that section in respect of some of the issues the Senator is concerned about. If somebody comes across a dying animal it is often a charitable act to put it down if one has the expertise to be able to do that. We do not want to unnecessarily prolong the suffering of an animal that may have been knocked down by a jeep, but I will deal with that section shortly.
On the question of horse racing, my note indicates that horse racing is not mentioned but that section 12 would apply. I am not sure what that means because if it is not mentioned I am not sure how it can apply. I do not believe there is much cruelty attached to horse racing or show jumping but if somebody is mistreating an animal under any of the other subsections of section 12, whether it be cattle or horses, then it should apply. If an animal is being rapped to make it jump a little higher, if a horse's legs are being damaged as a way of training it or if a series of unacceptable practices are being used in an effort to try to get a better performance from animals, there should be consequences on foot of that. The same would apply in the case of the downright mistreatment of animals that were being beaten, kicked, not fed properly or appropriately housed. That should apply too horses as much as it applies to any other farm animal.
We are on section 12 but I think the Senator was referring to subsection (12) of thesection.
We will deal with the section later.
I am sorry. I was doing my adviser a disservice. I do not believe we need to specifically name sports horses or horse racing. Every now and again horses tragically die or are injured while racing; this is not something that will result in a prosecution. Similarly, if an animal falls and breaks its leg in a field, it will not result in a prosecution either, as it is something that happens in the normal course of events. Accidents sometimes happen, but when there is cruelty in the conditions outlined in section 12, whether in the racehorse or show jumping industry, we have to act. If I am missing something, the Senator can talk to me later and we will do something about it.
I welcome the Minister's clarification. The first line of section 12 rightly states a "person shall not do, or fail to do, anything or cause or permit anything to be done to an animal that causes injury". It does not include the words "deliberately causes injury". I am just thinking and trying to be protective of the horse racing and show jumping industries. Unfortunately, an injury can occur at times when a horse jumps during a competition or during a race. The legalistic definition included provides that a person shall not do anything that causes injury——
The Senator is dealing with the section.
I am.
We have not come to it yet; we are still dealing with amendment No. 14 in the name of Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill.
I thought we had moved on.
Unfortunately, we have not. Does Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill intend to press the amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Minister might look at this issue with his officials and interested bodies. The racing industry has strong representative organisations. There might be a necessity to insert an opt-out clause because of the language used in the first part of section 12 which states a person shall not do anything that causes injury.
Do the exemptions listed in section 12 — fishing and hunting — match the sentiments behind the Bill, where they apply? I appreciate that I am asking a question about the broad thrust of the legislation, but is it case that where the welfare of an animal is called into question, the Minister is unilaterally exempting fishing and hunting?
I will check the answers to Senator Paul Bradford's queries. The last thing I want to do is to prevent a gymkhana in Mallow from going ahead because one would be breaking the law by participating in show jumping. That is certainly not the intention, as I think people realise. We will take a look at the issue and make sure we are not doing anything that will cause something we are not expecting.
It is important to clarify the issue in respect of fishing, hunting and coursing. We are talking about the act of fishing, hunting an animal or coursing a hare lawfully. If somebody is keeping dogs to do this but is not feeding them or is abusing the hounds, that person is not exempt from the legislation. Section 12oo(12) states, "Nothing in this section applies in relation to anything which occurs in the ordinary course of . . . fishing . . . hunting . . . lawfully coursing" and so on. I accept Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill's comment that fishing is very different from the other two activities. We are essentially providing for the distress or cruelty caused to animals in the course of hunting or coursing lawfully to ensure we can act if cruelty is inflicted by the owner on the animals used in the activity. I hope I have made the distinction clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Ar 10.30 maidin amárach.