merrion street

I am very pleased to bring the Animal Health & Welfare Bill before the House. I look forward to constructive, informed debate during the Bill’s consideration in following the debates in the Senate.

The Bill represents a significant step forward in the area of animal health and welfare law and is a priority for me. It will lead to a consolidation and modernisation of much of the primary legislation in this area, some of which is over a hundred years old (Diseases of Animals Act 1966 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911.)

While in the past animal welfare and health may have been seen as distinct, they are closely related and synergy is to be gained by bringing them together under one legislative roof. In the past, the focus was on outlawing animal cruelty rather than the fuller measure of welfare which this Bill provides for.

This Government has shown that it has a strong commitment to improving animal welfare legislation. The Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 was the first piece of legislation signed by President Michael D. Higgins.

This paved the way for the commencement of the Dog Breed Establishment Act by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

In 2011 I introduced a code of practice for welfare organisations as part of the ex-gratia payments arrangements which placed particular emphasis on the issues of re-homing abandoned animals. The Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council and the associated Early Warning System continue to work well. This latter arrangement has seen my Department officials working in conjunction with farmers and welfare groups to head off welfare problems.

I launched a free telephone number, based in my Department, for people who have animal welfare concerns and funding for animal welfare organisations was enhanced in last year’s budget, despite the difficult economic constraints we are facing.

The Animal Health & Welfare Bill continues this agenda and will ultimately provide a framework within which we may significantly improve and safeguard the welfare of animals.

Ireland has been successful in dealing with, avoiding and minimising animal health problems. The Animal Health & Welfare Bill will build upon this success. The risks of animal disease have grown significantly since the Diseases of Animals Act was enacted in 1966. There is far greater movement of animals, animal products and people. Ireland needs to ensure it has robust biosecurity procedures so that the state can act not just when there is a disease outbreak but in a preventative way, focused on risk and reducing risk.

Food Harvest 2020

In terms of animal health, this legislation is important not only nationally but globally for Ireland from the perspective of a food producing Island. The proposed legislation will play a key role in protecting Ireland’s image as a country which not only respects the welfare of its animals but also accords critical importance to its high animal health status.

The ability to increase our exports of food products will play a vital role in ensuring the improvement in Ireland’s economic well being. We have agreed a very ambitious set of targets to this effect in the Food Harvest 2020 Strategy.

Food Harvest 2020 has given the sector a vision of the future and clear targets for the next decade. I am determined to lead the drive towards achieving by 2020 our export target of €12bn per annum. To do this, the sector will need to minimise the losses from animal health issues.

Human Health

However, this issue is a concern for all, not just those who earn their livelihoods from animals. As should be clear, the Animal Health & Welfare Bill is not only about farming or rural areas but is of concern to the whole country.

While animals may be less central to urban life, ownership, involvement with and interest in animals is hugely important to many urban dwellers. Furthermore while not the direct focus of the Bill, animal health can have implications for human health. Sixty percent of human infectious diseases can be contracted from animals (whether domestic or wild) and some seventy five percent of emerging human diseases have their sources in animals. Controlling animal disease is an important factor in ensuring human health.

Protected Animals

This Bill applies across the board, both to rural and urban areas and to all animals whether they be commercial, domestic, sport, show or for other purposes, and whatever species they may be.

The owners of all animals are required to provide feed for their animals, to provide adequate and safe housing and to provide veterinary care and protection.

The only major distinction the Bill draws is between those animals classed as “protected” - any animal under the ownership of individuals as opposed to animals in a wild state. Protected animals are accorded greater protection than animals living in the wild as there is an obligation placed on the owner or person in charge to ensure that a protected animal is fed, sheltered and so on. However, all animals are “protected” insofar as cruel acts are forbidden. The term “protected animal” is also used in the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation.

Now to move from the reasons and general principles behind the Animal Health & Welfare Bill to some of its content. Current legislation requires modernisation because it focuses only on cruelty whereas the Animal Health & Welfare Bill will make improvements in what is legally required of owners ensuring that their animals are fed and watered, provided with adequate shelter and have their welfare protected.

These are basic common sense requirements. In the case of intensive units there is a need for greater checks as temperature controls and mechanical feeding and watering systems have to be more carefully monitored. This provision (in section 19) reflects obligations already in place through the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Act 1984 which is being subsumed into this legislation.

Authorised Officers

In order to combat the threats posed by serious disease outbreaks as witnessed during Foot and Mouth Disease and in order to deal with welfare compromised animals authorised officers must have adequate powers with appropriate checks and balances. Firstly, much care and attention has gone into ensuring that the powers of authorised officers are appropriate, balanced and proportionate. Officers cannot come and enter premises as they wish. There needs to be sound reason to do so and the courts will demand that officers justify their actions in the event that prosecutions follow.

I strongly believe that the powers given to authorised officers are appropriate and balanced, and necessary to prevent the small minority of people who would damage our food industry by introducing disease or by fraudulently claiming to have disease. We either take the necessary action to prevent disease threatening the viability of our industry or we fail to do our job.

In the Animal Health & Welfare Bill Gardai and customs officers are automatically considered authorised officers. Officers of my Department and other appropriate personnel in local authorities may be appointed as authorised officers. Others such as Temporary Veterinary Inspectors may be authorised for limited purposes such as carrying out meat factory checks as is currently the case.

Offences

I have been keen to ensure that penalties are strengthened for abuses under the Bill and have made sure that all of the significant offences under the Bill, meaning those where animals are injured or where disease problems are spread intentionally, attract the most severe penalties. For major cases taken on indictment the maximum penalty has been raised from €100,000 to €250,000 with a maximum custodial sentence of five years imprisonment.

Over the years judges who have heard some of the unpleasant animal cruelty cases have asked for powers to restrict the ownership of animals by those convicted of animal cruelty, particularly repeat offenders. Such powers must be used carefully and only where an individual has been convicted of repeated or more serious animal welfare offences. Not only could such an individual be potentially prevented from owning animals they may also be prevented from working with them (sections 58 to 60).

In some instances of abuse of animals the owners themselves may be suffering their own mental difficulties rather than who are doing it out of malice. In taking account of this the above powers can limit the ownership of animals. It is the case that caring for animals can be therapeutic for some individuals and therefore it may be appropriate that they be allowed care for one or two but not a large number that may be beyond their coping capacity. Once again I would remind deputies that while these powers exist their use cannot be invoked without appropriate procedures and that the courts will provide oversight and review.’

Animal Health

The Animal Health & Welfare Bill will also improve the area of animal health. There will be a greater emphasis on bio-security. Much of the existing powers of authorised officers are focused on where a disease outbreak has occurred but this Bill also allows for appropriate action to be taken to reduce the risk or the spread of disease.

This Bill provides, for the first time ever, a specific provision in relation to the payment of compensation in respect of particular types of diseases and provides a proper legal framework in this area. These arrangements are consistent with the constitution and case law.

The eradication of TB is an important policy aim and significant progress has been made in recent years. Ensuring that cases of disease are reported and tackled requires the continuing confidence of the farming community that they will be treated fairly. Therefore compensation for destruction is an important plank. The Animal Health & Welfare Bill will make no change to the approach that currently exists on an administrative basis for such compensation schemes.

Currently the ERAD scheme operates without any legal requirement on the government to pay compensation. Nevertheless the government pays, and will continue to pay, fair compensation. I have made this point clearly that there is no reason to see any move away from the current approach, in the ERAD scheme. I promised our Seanad colleagues to revert with an appropriate amendment which will allow greater flexibility in the appeal process.

However, the importance of animal health for the state as a whole needs to be protected. This means that we cannot be overly prescriptive in the legislation as it will be legally applied in all situations. The situation for dealing with cases of an endemic disease like TB are not those that we would want to apply in the case of outbreaks of rare exotic or imported diseases like Foot and Mouth Disease or rabies.

Animal Baiting and Dog Fighting

Other areas where the laws are being strengthened are animal baiting and dog fighting (section 15). These are practices which cannot be tolerated and must be stamped out.

Under current legislation, it has been very difficult to take a case against those involved in dogfighting. In the most significant case that was taken in recent years, many of those convicted succeeded on appeal after claiming that they had not been involved in organising the fight but had merely been present.

In my view, having any involvement in dog fighting or animal baiting is despicable and should be completely done away with. This is a significant problem across the country and is often hidden. Some people breed or buy dogs solely for the purpose of fighting. It is an extremely cruel practice.

To overcome this, I am making it illegal to attend a dogfight. Under the new legislation, anyone involved in organising or attending dogfighting will be subjected to serious repercussions.

There was concern that this section in the existing draft which also outlaws a number of other types of performance with animals, as currently worded could mean that farmers might be taken to court for breaking bulls. While I consider this possibility remote as the use of the term performance makes it very unlikely that activity occurring on a farm would be challenged I may to bring forward an amendment at committee stage to confirm that this normal practice is acceptable.

I know that the issue of serious cruelty such as mutilation is of significant concern to many people and these kinds of practices are also expressly forbidden under the Bill.

Codes of Practice

The Bill also provides for Codes Of Practice. I want to reassure members that this approach has worked well in other jurisdictions, and my Department has experience with using such codes which have worked remarkably well. They allow, through agreement with the sector as a whole, detailed guidelines to be set out for specific animals. Such codes, adopted under the overall legal powers of this new Bill, are a far better way of spelling out detailed best practice rather than over-burdening the Bill itself.

Instead of detailing how much food an animal needs to be fed or what type of accommodation it should have, this can instead be done through Codes of Practice and updated as necessary without touching the Primary Act, a process that would waste the House’s time and always be lagging behind. The current proposed approach whereby general requirements are laid down, which can, if necessary be fleshed out via Codes Of Practice is the best way to provide an adequate level of detail and information, suitable protection for animals and minimise bureaucracy for both individuals and the state as a whole.

In fact the issue of reducing bureaucracy has been important in drafting the Animal Health & Welfare Bill. One development in line with this is the provision for on the spot penalties for minor offences. These are akin to parking tickets. These have advantages for both the individual and the State. They avoid the time and costs of court proceedings. I might emphasise that there is recourse to the courts for individuals who do not wish to pay an on the spot penalty and who wish to contest that an offence has occurred. This provision work well in other areas and has become commonplace in our legal system.

Balanced Approach

Throughout the development of this Bill I have sought a balance between the differing demands being made upon me during the drafting of the Bill. As I am sure you will realise the Animal Health & Welfare Bill is one where views between differing interest groups vary and resolving these presents a difficult balancing act. My key objectives in this process have been to bring about a legislative framework that offers greater protection towards the welfare of animals while also reducing the risks posed by animal diseases.

I now turn to the provisions of the Bill – there are seventy five sections spread over fourteen parts.

Part 1 — Preliminary and General (sections 1-6)

The Part largely comprises standard form provisions relating to expenses, costs and laying of documents. It also sets out the purpose and definitions within the Bill and the provision for commencement.

Part 2 – Prevention and Control of Animal Disease (Parts 7 -10)

This part contains some key biosecurity measures. Section 8 prohibits farm animals straying and requires that fences and farm buildings be kept secure. Animals mingling presents a serious risk of disease spread. The requirements of this provision are not greater than what the vast majority would consider good farming practice. Section 9 provides for disease eradication areas. The provisions of section 10 outlaw deliberately interfering with a test or giving a disease to an animal.

Part 3 — Animal Welfare (sections 11-24)

This part provides for general provisions which cover all animals and a greater level of protection to animals which are owned or under the control of man. An individual is not allowed to harm any animal and furthermore any animal that an individual owns or is in control of, must be provided with adequate food and water, appropriate shelter and its general welfare protected.

Cruelty is expressly forbidden in Section 12. This includes any unnecessary suffering whether caused by direct physical abuse, recklessness or negligence. This is to a very large extent based on the existing legislation.

For the sake of clarity this Section does not apply to activity occurring during the normal course of hunting, fishing and coursing. However, the cruelty provisions may apply if an animal is hunted after being released when exhausted, mutilated or injured or if a hare is coursed without reasonable chance of escape.

Section 13 provides that keepers must provide protected animals with adequate quantities of suitable food. It would obviously not be possible to provide detailed and precise measures of food and other requirements for all animals nor would it be desirable to lay down such detail in primary legislation. Therefore, greater detail can be laid down either via Codes of Practice (Part 4) or in secondary legislation (Part 7).

Section 16 bans operations resulting in the mutilation of animals e.g. castration, disbudding and tail docking, except where there is a good reason to allow them. In the latter case I may consider making regulations under the Bill which will allow the procedure. My intention is not to interfere with commercial farming as in the farming context these are generally done for health and safety reasons and where done properly occur at a very young age before tissues become hardened and before the operation would cause a significant degree of pain. Where these conditions are met I do not intend to change current farming practice.

This part also bans the sale of animals to minors and requires that animals be inspected by their keepers at regular intervals to ensure their wellbeing. It also requires the use of anaesthetics when an animal is operated on, protects animals from poison and gives emergency powers for authorised officers and veterinarians who encounter animals in distress or suffering injuries and requiring immediate destruction on humane grounds. This section also provides for emergency killing of an animal by an owner or on his behalf for example by knackery personnel.

Part 4 — Codes of Practice (section 25)

While common internationally, including at EU level, codes of practice on a legislative basis are relatively new in Ireland. They are primarily to educate and assist the person involved in the various activities relating to keeping animals. A breach of a code of practice is not of itself an offence but a relevant code may be considered by a judge as a form of best practice and may indicate in more detail where an offence has occurred.

Part 5 — Animal Health Levies (sections 26-29)

This part is based on the Bovine Diseases Levies Acts 1979 and 1996. There is provision to allow the charging of animal health levies on a wider range of species and diseases than currently where levies are only paid in relation to cattle and milk and are for control of TB and Brucellosis. Through the levy system farmers make an important contribution towards the compensation regime operated through ERAD.

Part 6 — Destruction, Disposal of animals etc. (sections 30-35)

This Part deals with the slaughter of animals for disease control purposes and compensation with the overall aim of making the compensation provisions more explicit. There is an independent valuation and arbitration system to ensure that where this is done owners are treated fairly. While this area has attracted some discussion in some cases, this has been based on a misreading of the current legal position. In any case I would like to reassure Deputies that this system will be fair, equitable and in line with the constitution and case law in this area.

Clear grounds for the reduction of compensation are given. Instances where such compensation can be reduced or refused include where animals were illegally imported, where correct information has not been provided or if an animal is destroyed due to offences under the Animal Remedies Act 1993.

Part 7 — Regulations relating to Animal Health and Welfare (section 36)

The Bill sets out in Schedule 3 the various activities in respect of which secondary legislation may be introduced, key amongst these are to prevent the risk of spread of disease, the control or eradication of disease, matters relating to animal welfare, animal transport and animal identification and to give effect to the acts and institutions of the EU. The extensive list of detailed issues for which regulations can be made is set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill.

Part 8 — Enforcement (sections 37-46)

This part provides the necessary powers for authorised officers and for a system of notices. Without officers to enforce the Bill it becomes pointless. The powers of officers are limited and even more so where they are delegated. The powers of prosecution remain with the Minister and cannot be delegated. Furthermore, as I have a skilled cadre of staff familiar with and located in rural areas, the real shortfall in skills and resources on the animal welfare front is in the urban and non farming sector. If NGO staff are empowered as officers it will almost certainly be in a manner limited to these areas.

Section 42 provides for authorised officers to serve welfare notices upon animal keepers. These notices can require the keeper to undertake a variety of things for the purposes of protecting animal health and or safeguarding welfare. These notices are circumscribed by the right to appeal in section 43.

This part also contains provisions in relation to search warrants (section 45), obstruction, false statements (section 46) and requires that in some instances animal keepers may be required to give assistance or provide information (section 41).

Part 9 — Local Authorities (sections 47 and 48)

These provisions concern the functions of local authorities and reflect similar arrangements under the Diseases of Animals Act 1966.

Part 10 — Proceedings and sanctions (sections 49-62)

This Part provides a detailed regime of offences, service of notices, court proceedings, evidence and prosecution. These sections provide for penalties which vary from fixed payment notices for minor infringements (section 49) to more major penalties based upon conviction by the courts (section 52). The Bill provides for Class A fines for most of the breaches of the legislation. Class A fines are the highest level available under the Fines Act 2010 but not all animal welfare or disease offences are equally serious and therefore the courts will take into account the specific circumstances of each particular case and apply a lower level of fine where they see it as appropriate.

Sections 58 to 61 relate to disqualification from keeping animals and related matters. This can occur if the courts see it as necessary upon conviction. Furthermore, where a person is either physically or mentally incapable and criminal proceedings seem inappropriate there is a procedure based upon the Mental Health Act which can provide for their ownership or work with animals to be prevented, limited or circumscribed.

Part 11 — Animal Tracing Systems (sections 63-64)

This replaces similar provisions in the National Beef Assurance Scheme Act 2000 and underlines the importance of traceability which is relevant to both the health and welfare areas. This part also covers such issues as taking a census of animals (section 64).

Part 12 — Animal Marts (sections 65-71)

This Part largely concerns the licensing of marts. Again this is based on the existing Livestock Marts Act 1967.

Part 13 — Miscellaneous (sections 72-75)

Part 13 contains miscellaneous matters such as revocations of statutory instruments, forgery (section 72), payment of fees (section 73), service agreements with other agencies (section 74).

Part 14 — Amendment to Animal Remedies Act 1993 (section 76)

This section arises from a Supreme Court judgement where the Supreme Court found that Regulations made under this Act could only be amended by Act of the Oireachtas. This section rectifies the position and allows for the amendment of regulations by further regulations.

Conclusion

This Bill has been a long time in preparation; public consultation began over five years ago. I would like to express my thanks to the large number of people who have engaged constructively with my officials in improving this Bill. I look forward to a constructive debate in this House with a view to finalising a robust, fit for purpose Act that provides a strong framework for the future.

I commend this Bill to the House.