I will go along with the amendment on this. As the section stood, it was defective because if a dog, for example, were on the property of another owner, then the regulations could not apply to it. It could apply only if it were on the public road. The trouble arises in respect of a dog worrying sheep, not on a public road, but on somebody else's land. I agree to that extent that the amendment is an improvement but I do not think that when being amended, it should have been amended to prescribe and regulate the wearing of collars by dogs while on the property of their owners and cut out the reference to a public place. It is ridiculous to provide in a statute that the Minister can make an order that a dog in the front garden of a house in Anglesea Road must have a collar. That is bringing this Bill into disrepute.
I will go all the way with the Minister in providing that the statute will have the power that I think the Parliamentary Secretary wants it to have. I do not think he wants to provide that a collie which is handling sheep on the owner's land must have a collar. I do not think he intends to do that but the Bill permits that. That is not what it should be doing. It should be providing that if a dog goes off his owner's land to a public place or on to somebody else's land, then it must have a collar. I think that is what the Parliamentary Secretary intends. If he can give an assurance that it will be dealt with in that way, administratively, then I will be quite happy.