Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Dec 1964

Vol. 213 No. 4

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, 1963 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

Take subsection (4). I am not entirely easy in my mind about the provision in which a public place is spoken of. This subsection, as I understand it, is designed to protect the ordinary person, the pedestrian, taking his dog for a walk and to provide that if the dog jumps across a wall into a field it will not have access to poison laid for vagrant dogs before the owner has the opportunity to call it back. That is a reasonable enough provision but I wonder if instead of using "public place", which has a very wide connotation, "public road" would be a better phrase. I should be glad if the Minister would explain more clearly what exactly "public place" means.

My other problem is, that on many farms throughout rural Ireland the county council may erect a labourer's cottage on a plot. Is it expedient in those circumstances to provide, particularly in the West of Ireland, that no poison may be laid, which we should remember must be staked and fixed to the ground, within 100 yards of that dwellinghouse? Every reasonable precaution must be taken but whether we have not gone beyond what prudence requires in this regard is something on which I should like to hear the Minister say a word, particularly with reference to the full significance of "public place" and the special problem of the cottage situated on the farm.

Mr. Haughey

I think it is safe enough. "Public place" is defined in section 2 as meaning "any place to which the public have access whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge." I am advised in this connection that that includes a public road.

Mr. Dillon

"Public road" is defined in section 2. "Public place" is something else.

Mr. Haughey

"Public place" here includes "public road", both of which are defined in section 2. The provision is largely designed to meet the sort of situation which Deputy Dillon has described. One hundred yards is not a very great distance and it would be very difficult to conceive of a situation where a person would not be able to protect his land by poisoning and be able to comply with this prohibition on laying poison within 100 yards of a house. We have considered this very carefully and it seems to us that a person living in any premises is entitled to certain protection for his domestic animals in his immediate vicinity. I feel that 100 yards is just about the right distance to stipulate. I do not think a situation could arise where by being prevented from laying poison within 100 yards of any residence a person would be thereby prevented from fully protecting his lands.

Mr. Dillon

It is the phrase "public place" that troubles me. A graveyard is a public place and I know a farm adjacent to such a public place. What I am troubled about is whether "public place" is necessary. We are concerned to protect a dog owner out walking on the road and to enable him to call back his dog. Is it necessary to include a public place? We have defined "public road" as including "any public highway, street or footpath". Then we go on to define "public place" as meaning "any place to which the public have access whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge".

I suggest to the Minister that he ought to have another look at the phrase "public place" in the context of this section, bearing in mind that, particularly west of the Shannon where a great many sheep are kept and where great damage can be done by vagrant dogs, he may create a situation in which nobody can within the law protect sheep. I am continually obsessed with the idea that we should not make laws here which it is impossible for people to carry out. I think it is possible for anybody to ensure that no poison will be staked on his land within 100 yards of the public road or footpath but if we extend that to include any residence or any public place as defined by section 2, we shall find that in a great many farms west of the Shannon the kind of protection which the section is designed to make available will not be available lawfully to a small farmer. We do not want to create a situation in which such small farmers, for their own protection, are obliged to break the law.

This presents no problem for large farms in the midlands or where the acreage is extensive but the worst worrying of sheep is done in Galway and Roscommon. While it is humanitarian and good to protect dogs, it is only those of us who have seen sheep after a vagrant dog has been amongst them staggering around the field with their entrails dragging after them or lambs which have been chewed up kicking, waiting to be slaughtered, who can get this problem into true perspective. Nobody wants to poison a dog just for fun. Few people want to poison their land except to avoid this horrible situation when sheep are savaged by vagrant dogs.

We recognise that in section 14 but I invite the Minister to look again at the phrase "public place". He would be wiser if he substituted for the phrase "public place" the phrase "public road" as defined by section 2. The Minister should consult some of his colleagues who represent western constituencies or ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach sitting behind him if there is any farm in West Donegal where he could stake poison which would not be within 100 yards of a public place, except on the mountains.

Mr. J. Brennan

The farms may be small but they go back far enough from the road.

Mr. Dillon

I agree when the Parliamentary Secretary says "from the road". Substitute "public road" for "public place" and I agree with him. However, apart from the mountain range is there any farm in the whole of West Donegal where this would not create a serious situation? Is there any farm in North Roscommon, in Sligo, in West Cavan, in North Monaghan or Galway where the use of the phrase "public place" would not create a serious problem?

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is not worried about 100 yards from the road?

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Haughey

How does the Deputy visualise a public place being in the middle of a farm?

Mr. Dillon

A graveyard is one. It is hard to think on one's feet. All I know is my own experience in the country. If you add in a public place, and a dwellinghouse, bearing in mind the labourer's cottage, the graveyard, and now the abandoned railway line——

Mr. J. Brennan

Does the Deputy visualise a position in which a farmer might not be able to lay poison?

Mr. Dillon

Yes. You must stake it to the ground and we have declared in the Bill that it must not be staked within 100 yards of a number of places. I agree "public road" is defined in section 2 but, if you add in "dwellinghouse and/or public place", then you may create a situation in which there will be no place in which poison can be laid.

Mr. Haughey

If we put in a proviso excluding graveyards?

Mr. Dillon

Let us not make laws that people cannot keep.

Mr. Haughey

We will have another look at it.

Mr. Dillon

I want to make a law which will protect the ordinary pet dog and, at the same time, make it possible for people to lay poison.

Mr. J. Brennan

The farmer must get permission.

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Haughey

We will have another look at it.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Booth

I wonder whether the Minister would consider it wise in this Bill, or possibly in some other measure, to make regulations about the identification of dogs. In some countries, particularly Switzerland, when licensing or taxing a dog, a small disc is issued by the licensing authority and that disc is attached to the dog collar—it is something like the registration number of a car—and in that way the licensing authority keeps a record of the ownership of the dog. That would help in tracing stray dogs, and I think it would——

Mr. Haughey

Eliminate the ringer.

Mr. Booth

Exactly. I do not know whether a provision on those lines could be introduced into this Bill, but I should like to get the Minister's view as to whether it might not be a useful provision.

Mr. Moher

Is it not making the keeping of dogs a rather complicated business?

Mr. Booth

One has to tax the dog.

Mr. Haughey

I think we are all agreed that there is a problem. In my opinion, there are far too many dogs in the country and far too many let roam unchecked around the countryside, where they do a great deal of damage. There is a great deal to be said for stricter control over the dog population. How one could effect that control without causing undue difficulties for the farmer who has a genuine working dog is another matter. There is a problem admittedly, but I would not suggest we should do something about it in this Bill. It is something we may have to tackle in another context. Not alone do these loose dogs or stray dogs damage stock, but it is cruelty to them to have them wandering around underfed and uncared for. We are aware of the problem and we may have to do something about it at some other time.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Mr. Dillon

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (1), page 9, line 31, to delete "four" and substitute "eight".

This amendment is really for the purpose of elucidation. The restriction proposed here relates to the leading of greyhounds. It is proposed to restrict a person from leading more than four greyhounds at a time on any public road, open park, beach or other place to which the public customarily resort. I notice there is no reference here to a "public place". Care is taken to define certain areas in which this restriction will apply. However, that is not the net point raised by the amendment. It has been put to me as to whether or not the limitation to four is a reasonable limitation. Could a trained attendant not safely lead six or eight dogs? All the dogs must be under control, that is to say, each dog must have a collar and leash. Those unfamiliar with the greyhound business may not realise the laboriousness of training greyhounds. I am informed that greyhounds must be walked four or five miles every day. The danger is that, unless the attendant has effective control, the dogs may break loose and attack a toy dog or poodle that some other person is leading and destroy it.

I should have thought that a trained attendant would be able to lead six dogs safely. It is a matter, however, on which I have no very strong views because I am not an expert in it. I do know that if you are walking dogs, and you are restricted to four, though you have six dogs to walk, then you must hire two attendants or else one attendant must walk ten miles instead of five.

Mr. Haughey

Walking is, of course, just as good exercise for the man as for the dog.

Mr. Dillon

That is all very well if you or I choose to walk and want to walk. But, if we are paid to walk, we do not want to walk ten miles if we can earn our wages in five and, if you train dogs, you do not want to employ two men where one man would do. I am not quite clear in my own mind as to what prudence requires but, if we say six, I think that might meet the situation. It is a point the House ought to consider.

Mr. Haughey

I should perhaps explain the way in which this matter developed. The original Bill as drawn up by its sponsors provided that greyhounds could not be exercised in public places by persons under 16 years of age, and that they would have to be muzzled.

Mr. Moher

That was sensible and should have been left in.

Mr. Haughey

If the Deputy will hear me out. It provided that persons under 16 years of age could not exercise greyhounds in public places, that persons could lead only two greyhounds at a time, and that the dogs should be muzzled. I think that was unduly restrictive. It was argued very strongly in the Seanad that a boy or a girl of 12, 13, 14, or 15 years of age, from a farm, who was used to handling stock, would be quite able to control two or three greyhounds. In an endeavour to reconcile conflicting points of view, we dropped the age limit and fixed on four as a reasonable number. I think it is quite clear that a trained man or woman could undoubtedly handle eight greyhounds without any danger, but if we are not to have an age limit—and I think an age limit is undesirable for a number of reasons— we have to bring down the number to something like four. The difficulty is, of course, that the greyhound is a very special type of animal. It hunts by sight unlike most other dogs.

Mr. Dillon

Did the Minister say "like most other dogs"? That would be a most unbecoming observation for a follower of the Galway Blazers.

Mr. Haughey

I said "unlike most other dogs". The greyhound does not hunt by scent but by sight. It is true that greyhounds will make a sudden rush or a burst when they see something small moving, like a poodle, or any small dog for that matter. In those circumstances a young person of 13, 14, 15 or 16 years of age might not be able to control the sudden rushes which greyhounds tend to make.

There is no doubt that we must take the interests of the greyhound breeders and owners into account, because the House will be glad to learn that our export of greyhounds for the first time has gone over the £1 million mark. That is a most satisfactory development in this industry.

Mr. T. Lynch

It would have done so ten years ago only Fianna Fáil held up the Greyhound Bill.

Mr. Haughey

We have done it now and I am sure Deputy Lynch is delighted.

Mr. T. Lynch

You were shown the way.

Mr. Haughey

This industry is very important. In many areas the breeding of greyhounds is a very important supplement to the farm income. We have to take into account the interests of the breeders and owners, and not be unduly restrictive on them. It seems to me that this proposal in regard to four dogs, with no age limit, is a fair compromise. Like Deputy Dillon, I have an open mind, and perhaps we could agree on six as a compromise. Deputy Dillon mentioned the question of the paid man exercising the greyhounds, but in most areas I think it is the son or the daughter of the house who takes the greyhounds out for exercise. I do not know what the House would think of the ability of a person of 13, 14 or 15 years of age to control six greyhounds. Normally persons of that age would be able to control them, but in the sudden emergency situation that can arise with greyhounds, I do not know if they would have the necessary strength to control six. I think perhaps we should leave it at four, but I have an open mind on the question.

Mr. Dillon

I am gratified to learn from the Minister that exports of greyhounds have exceeded £1 million. Having set up a Commission to inquire into the greyhound industry and drafted a Bill to establish Bord na gCon, it is gratifying to learn that Fine Gael economic planning has borne such abundant fruit.

Mr. Haughey

It is Fianna Fáil execution.

Mr. T. Lynch

What about the tote at Harold's Cross?

Mr. Haughey

I planned the tote at Harold's Cross.

Mr. T. Lynch

It was there before you were born.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dillon

It is gratifying to learn that Fine Gael planning has yielded £1 million from these exports in this year when certain other plans seemed to be going agley. However, has the Minister consulted Bord na gCon?

Mr. Haughey

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

What view do they take?

Mr. Haughey

I think they would prefer more than four, but on the whole they are happy with this Bill. They objected to the original provision.

Mr. Dillon

I think the original provision went too far and was too restrictive. It is true, as the Minister says, that this is largely a family business and that usually the owners lead the hounds. One begins to wonder would it be difficult to provide that where the custodian of the hounds is under 16 years of age, he should be allowed to lead no more than four.

Mr. Haughey

That brings us into the undesirable area of the Garda asking questions of children: "Are you 15, 16 or 17 years of age?"

Mr. Dillon

The Garda in rural Ireland have a very shrewd suspicion of how old the children in the parish are. That is part of the system. I always think the local Garda knows more about the people——

Mr. Haughey

Than the people themselves.

Mr. Dillon

——than the people themselves. I always remember a neighbour of mine, Tom Mullen. The Garda would approach a group of children and say: "Are you one of the Mullens? If you are, go home because your mother is looking for you." He had 21 children. I venture to say the Garda would know the names and ages of nearly every child. I see the Minister's difficulty and perhaps he will consider it between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Tully

On Second Reading I made the comment that while it is all right to say we must take into account the interests of people who breed greyhounds, we must also take into account the interests of the ordinary public. On more than one occasion I have seen girls over 20 years of age trying to lead four dogs in each hand and they might as well be trying to hold a team of wild stallions when something attracted the dogs by running across the road. On one occasion a little girl of three who was standing at her father's gate was mauled by greyhounds. The person who was handling them was unable to control them. I believe the Minister is wise in fixing the number at not more than four. Some of my colleagues may not agree with me but I think it would be a great mistake if the present system where any number of dogs can be exercised by children of all ages were allowed to continue, because the miracle is that more children and small dogs have not been savaged. A greyhound can be very savage if he is attracted to something which he thinks is a hare.

Mr. Booth

I should like to support the previous speaker. I am not a greyhound breeder but I have done some investigation into the provisions of this Bill. I am greatly interested in a quotation made by a Senator during the debate in the Seanad. He quoted a man who was described as one of the leading trainers in the west. Mr. Murphy of Oranmore, County Galway was quoted as saying: "No man ever takes out more than four greyhounds at a time. It would be too much for one man." In that case we are talking about one man. The Bill now before the House does not mention the restriction being confined to a man. It could be a child, a boy or a girl. I feel the sponsors of the Bill and the Minister have gone very far to meet the objections of Bord na gCon in this matter. The Board felt it would not be desirable to have dogs muzzled at all times during exercise. It would be most uncomfortable for the health and comfort of the dogs, so the provision was dropped.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy mind telling us again the evidence he quoted?

Mr. Booth

Mr. Murphy of Oranmore, County Galway, who is described as one of the leading trainers in the West. The question of age limit was also dropped, particularly on the same point as Deputy Dillon made earlier that the law could not be enforced. The Garda at the time may know the age of children but Gardaí are often transferred to another area and so it is very difficult. I consider this is a fair compromise. I am frightened, to be perfectly frank, of the handling of greyhounds but that is probably because I do not know enough about them. People who do know a lot about them are very nervous about the number of greyhounds being handled by one person.

I feel the Minister and the Seanad were very wise in accepting this amendment of cutting out muzzling to satisfy the trainers and cutting out the age limit to satisfy those who want to see the law is easily enforced, by retaining what was in the Bill in the early stages, a restriction to four greyhounds. I keep my eyes open and I am possibly one of the lucky ones because I have never seen a man with six greyhounds. In fact I have never seen a man exercising more than four greyhounds. That is a reasonable number. It is bad luck for people with six greyhounds because they have to take out three twice, or four and two. If you have four, eight or 12, you must take them out in multiples of four or make arrangements with a neighbour who is also in the business. You could take out one or two of his dogs one day and he could take out some of yours the next. I would be very unhappy if we got on the slippery slope and made the number six. If we do that, we could say: "Why not seven or eight?" I feel we should definitely decide four dogs is sufficient, in view of the fact that handling may be undertaken by persons of any age or either sex.

Mr. Haughey

I am sorry Deputy M.P. Murphy is not here because at the risk of being referred to by Deputy Dillon as a Pooh-Bah, I should like to tell him that I also breed greyhounds.

General MacEoin

It is amazing the Dáil is legislating for bad luck.

Mr. Dillon

It is the mercy of God the greyhounds do not start laying eggs.

Mr. Haughey

I will not say anything about drowning people with eggs.

Mr. Dillon

It is not drowning them I would be at the Minister's age. I would be bowling them over.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, if the Minister will consider it between now and Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 20 agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

A period of imprisonment is prescribed in this section for a subsequent offence. Is this a suitable offence for which to prescribe imprisonment at all?

Mr. Haughey

I think it is necessary to have it there because a person could continually flaunt the law.

Mr. Dillon

If a man is fined £20 each time he commits an offence, the question of imprisonment should not arise.

Mr. Tully

The present value of £20 might not be a lot.

Mr. Dillon

We should bear in mind that we are legislating for our neighbours.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Dillon knows the type of person you come up against, for instance, in the administration of the bovine tuberculosis scheme, who just will not listen to reason and who will not have any regard to law and order and insists on going his own way without any regard to the law.

Mr. Dillon

These people are our neighbours. If people do things which are intolerable, naturally you will ultimately put them in jail. If all district justices were archangels, these people might not get a very great sentence but they are not. However, let us not discuss the judiciary here. The penalty of imprisonment ought to be given with circumspection. We do not want to send our neighbour's children to jail.

Mr. Tully

I agree with Deputy Dillon for another reason. The fact is that people who go to jail certainly cost the taxpayers quite a substantial sum of money. That might be a stronger argument for what Deputy Dillon says of imposing a larger fine.

Mr. Dillon

The fine might be substantially increased for the third or fourth offence. We ought to be very slow in sending our neighbours' children to jail.

Mr. Booth

It is for the court to decide.

Mr. T. Lynch

Many district justices would not send them to jail unless they had committed murder.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Dillon

Does this provision mean that it is an offence for a child to buy an animal?

Mr. Haughey

It is the other way about. It is an offence to sell an animal to a child unless accompanied by a parent.

Mr. Tully

It is just too bad what is happening, particularly at this time, in the country. Swarms of pets are bought at Christmas time and abandoned afterwards. Something should be done about that. Dogs, kittens and all sorts of birds are sold. They are seen around Christmas time and they are not so popular afterwards. They are left to die.

Mr. Dillon

This is a practice in rural Ireland about which I know nothing.

Mr. Tully

Maybe the Deputy does not spend as much time there as I do.

Mr. Dillon

I do not see people acquiring pets, abandoning them and leaving them to die.

Mr. Haughey

The Ceann Comhairle muttered something about white rabbits. I do not know if he is being offensive.

Mr. Dillon

What is this formidable practice? Upon my word, I did not know about birds that were allowed to die. Sometimes I think when we start legislating, we get off into a realm of complete temerarious daftness. I will not say that juveniles should be accompanied by their parents when acquiring a pet. This fantastic picture in the month of January of the whole country being infested with abandoned pets is, I think, crazy.

Mr. Tully

Would the Minister be able to say if in fact the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have made representations on this?

Mr. Haughey

It is their proposal; it is their Bill.

Mr. Tully

Is it not true to say that right through the year, and particularly after the festive season, there are quite a number of abandoned pets? Mainly in the towns and cities, and also in the country districts, this question of cruelty to abandoned pets has become something of a national scandal. I am amazed that Deputy Dillon will not see a white rabbit, a kitten or a dog rambling around the place without an owner. Perhaps he takes them all in and decides they are no longer abandoned. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can give evidence that this practice has been widespread, particularly over the past few years as children have a little more pocket money and like to buy something alive and do not retain affection for it.

Mr. Dillon

This section does not prevent that.

Mr. Tully

Most of the trouble is caused when the child finds a pet of his own and the parents do not want it.

Mr. Booth

That is the main point.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have a line on this which the section does not cover at all. In cities here in Ireland and in England in the day-old chick season some of the popular cheap stores used to sell day-old chicks and they still do. It is still legal for mama to buy a day-old chick for her little treasure who will promptly choke it after an hour.

Mr. Tully

Day-old chicks die quickly; that is the only thing about that.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister's section does not cover that.

Mr. Booth

You cannot cover everything.

Mr. Haughey

One cannot go too far.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 25 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 9th December, 1964.