Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1992

Vol. 416 No. 7

Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Carey

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"‘guard dog' means a dog used primarily for the purpose of guarding any premises other than a premises solely used and occupied as a dwelling house.".

Extensive representations have been received by Deputies on all sides of the House from people concerned about dog ownership and the description of dogs. They wish the Minister to take advantage of the opportunity given by this legislation to tackle this matter in a more efficient manner and to have proper description included in the Bill.

This amendment seeks to have guard dogs described because of the particularly nasty incidents which gave rise to the Minister taking such draconian powers. These incidents concerned abandoned guard dogs and not dogs in private ownership in dwelling houses.

Probably everyone in this House has an animal or pet of some sort at home. Even the former Minister, the man who brought in this Bill, owns a labrador. That labrador and the former Minister were seen on a beach in Mayo at the weekend. He did not have that dog muzzled; he did not have it on a leash——

Mr. Ferris

Has he a licence for it?

Mr. Carey

He has a licence for it. That dog was able to bite — it bit another dog.

Mr. Ferris

So did the Minister.

Mr. Carey

The Minister should take this opportunity to define properly the people he wants to get at, the people who have these savage animals which are, in the main, guard dogs. The people involved in the campaign against muzzling and who have made representations through various dog organisations are caring and responsible people who look after their pets properly. That is true of almost everyone who has a dog as a pet in their house. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Smith)

The effect of this amendment would be that people using guard dogs to guard their dwellings would be exempt from the requirements of regulations made to ensure the welfare of guard dogs, and that is not acceptable. The main reason for providing specifically for the welfare of guard dogs is that they may be badly treated specifically for the purpose of ensuring their ferocity and their antipathy to intruders. It is no less likely that this would happen in the case of a dog kept to guard a dwelling and, therefore, these dogs deserve the same protection of the law as do other guard dogs.

The other powers to regualte the use of guard dogs relate specifically to the use of guard dogs at premises used wholly or mainly for the purpose of any business, profession or occupation. Obviously this would not include a premises used solely as a dwelling house, so the amendment will not have any real effect. The Deputy will appreciate, when he has had an opportunity to consider this more fully, that what is really involved here is ensuring that we have a type of law enforced by regulations which takes account of all types of circumstances. This is what we are seeking to do here.

Mr. Flanagan

I am disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to engage in any greater discussion on the points referred to in the amendment. It is important that specific reference be made in the course of the legislation to the question of guard dogs, to the specific category of dog that we have in this State that can commonly be described as a guard dog.

I accept what the Minister is attempting to do — to control dangerous dogs. There is nobody in the House who would not go a considerable length of the way with the Minister's proposals. However, it is important that we define a guard dog because what the Minister describes as dangerous dogs are almost exclusively guard dogs, specifically trained by their owners or persons in charge of them to ensure the safety of a premises or persons. Looking at the statistics of fairly vicious attacks by dogs in recent years one is entertained almost exclusively by the guard dog, in many cases, bred, fed and trained to become a particularly vicious animal whose owner will defend it by stating that it is necessary in this day and age to have an animal on a premises for no other reason than to ensure that anybody entering those premises, lawfully or unlawfully, will be put on notice, if not put in fear, of their personal safety, by the mere existence of that vicious animal. While the Minister introduces power to destroy certain vicious, dangerous animals, we need to specify what we mean by a "guard dog" within the overall category of dangerous dogs. Replying to this debate or on Report Stage, perhaps the Minister would come up with a definition of what can be described primarily as a "guard dog".

Mr. Garland

I must express my extreme disappointment at the Minister's reply. From my reading of the Principal Act it would appear it contains no definition of a "guard dog"— if I am correct, perhaps the Minister could inform me in what section of the Principal Act there is a definition of "guard dog"— nor is it proposed in this Bill to define "guard dog".

It seems to be absolutely essential to insert some definition of "guard dog". My party have proposed a definition. We do not contend it is the absolute answer but it would appear to be a reasonable definition. If the Minister were to propose something slightly or substantially different, we would examine any such proposal carefully; at least it would constitute an effort on the Minister's part.

We need to think through its implications. If there is no definition of a "guard dog" included then one is dependent on the English language or on dictionaries. My common sense would tell me that a guard dog is a dog kept for guarding; that is putting it very simply.

People buy and use dogs for a wide variety of purposes. If one were to ask the average home owner who keeps a dog what is their purpose in keeping that dog one might get a different answer depending on the day of the week one posed that question. People buy and keep dogs for an infinite variety of purposes. We have had dogs. I do not know whether they would have been regarded as guard dogs, we just kept dogs and I suppose they guarded our house.

Surely we are introducing a huge element of bureaucracy here. For example, are the provisions to apply to everyone who owns a dog? It could be argued that every dog is a guard dog, whether it be a Pekingese or a Rottweiler? With regard to the question of possible cruelty to dogs, I take the Minister's point that he is anxious, and rightly so, to protect dogs from cruel owners. I put it to him that this is bureaucracy gone mad. Every dog owner, whether it be a guard dog or not, has a responsibility to look after that animal; if they do not they can be prosecuted under the relevant legislation. Indeed, people are prosecuted frequently for treating dogs cruelly; they can be convicted, fined and imprisoned, and rightly so. In my view, this is introducing a complete layer of bureaucracy. Unless the Minister can convince me to the contrary, I feel very strongly that this amendment should be pressed.

Mr. Ferris

In an effort to remove some misunderstanding about this amendment, might I refer the Minister to the second paragraph of the explanatory memorandum which reads:

The Bill makes a number of amendments to provisions of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, which have been found in practice to be deficient. These include restricting a general dog licence to dogs kept at one premises, requiring the production of a dog licence before recovering a seized dog,

Then it continues:

empowering a dog warden to enter premises (other than a dwelling) where a guard dog is kept...

Obviously, there is a misunderstanding in that because, if a guard dog is in a dwelling, it precludes a dog warden from entering. There is a reference there which separates a dwelling from a guard dog, as opposed to a guard dog in any other premises not a dwelling.

Mr. Gilmore

I contend this is a very good amendment. I am surprised the Minister has not taken it on board. Indeed, I am somewhat confused by his response.

As Deputy Garland said, there is no definition of "guard dog" in the Principal Act or in the Bill before us. Yet, in section 6 of the Bill before us — which replaces section 19 of the Principal Act — there are a number of very specific references to the term "guard dog". For example, it is proposed to enable the Minister to make regulations specifying the kinds of standards of premises in which a guard dog may be kept, to enable him make regulations providing for the registration of premises in which a guard dog can be kept.

Two issues arise here. First, how does one define what is a "guard dog"? There are many types of dogs which could be described as a "guard dog". In fact, in some respects I suppose any dog could be classified as a guard dog, but it is fair to assume that what are intended here are dogs kept specifically for the purpose of guarding premises, businesses or whatever; at present the provisions virtually apply to premises of a commercial nature. However, there are cases where it is quite clear that a dog is being kept for the purposes of guarding a private dwelling. One need not travel very far to see sings on gateways "beware of guard dog". Unfortunately, such signs are becoming ever more common these days. The issue that arises here is that clearly those dogs are bought and kept for the purposes of guarding those particular premises.

Will the Minister include in his regulations a requirement that domestic dwellings must be registered with the relevant local authority in order for example, that a householder, may keep an Alsatian, which some householders keep, or will he allow circumstances prevail in which dog wardens will be required to inspect domestic dwellings and the kinds of facilites provided in those dwellings for the retention of guard dogs? I know the Minister said that is not the intention but I am puzzled by section 6 (2) (c) which reads:

make provision for the regulation of the use of guard dogs at or in the immediate vicinity of premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of any business, profession or occupation;

I would assume that the term "occupation" would relate to a domestic dwelling. The issue needs to be cleared up: what is or what is not a "guard dog"; do the regulations cover domestic dwellings or not? Could the provisions of this Bill be used, as many people fear, as an unwarranted intrusion into private dwellings and/or people's homes?

Mr. Smith

Running through this debate since it began are some misconceptions which have arisen again here this morning, first and foremost, the question of "guard dog" not being defined in the Principal Act. Most Members in this legislative Chamber will have had some experience of how and where specific terms should be defined. By and large matters like that are almost inevitably dealt with by way of regulation and that is the appropriate place in which to include this definition. For the benefit of the House I will read out the provision in the Control of Dogs Act, 1986 (Guard Dogs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1989:

"guard" dog means a dog which is being used—

(a) to protect premises, or (b) to protect goods or property kept on premises, or (c) to protect a person guarding premises or such goods or property,

and includes any dog brought to or kept on premises to which article 3 of these Regulations applies unless it is shown that such dog was not brought to or kept on premises for any of the purposes specified at (a), (b) and (c);

The definition of a guard dog is enshrined in existing law. I know that Deputies are extremely busy and do not have the same support facilities as the Minister. I am not comdemning anyone by what I am saying but it is important in the context of this debate to work through the day on the basis of trust. There is not a hidden agenda. I want to succeed in putting in place a law supported by regulations which deals primarily with the threat to public safety and to help dog lovers and dog owners, whether they keep dogs on their premises as guard dogs or as pets. Dog lovers, as well as everyone else, are as anxious as I am to deal with the uncared for, unfed, dangerous dogs marauding around the country, specifically in the areas we have dealt with.

It is not necessarily the case that regulations relating to guard dogs would apply to dogs used to protect premises, even if the power was there. They could be excluded if the Minister deemed it appropriate. If they were included, the type of regulations which would be made would govern the type of accommodation required for the dog and would require the provision of food and drink for the dog. They could also require that the premises be registered with the local authority. These are all reasonable requirements to provide for a dog which is being kept to protect a premises, as against a dog being kept as a domestic pet. I am seeking to be flexible here. We may or may not in certain circumstances want to put these regulations into effect, but the effect of the amendment before me is to exclude the possibility of being able to enforce a regulation, for instance where there was an undesirable development with regard to a dangerous dog if the dog was being used to guard a premises as distinct from a business. Deputies will accept that in that context it would be more appropriate to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Having heard the Minister mention regulations, I have further goose pimples. Three times I raised the Abattoirs Act, where regulations were to be implemented. Carlow County Council have spent £75,000, because the Ministers are funking bringing in regulations. Surely it is in this Bill that we should have the definition of a guard dog so that it can be discussed. The Minister can make regulations and they cannot even be raised on the Order of Business because they are not legislation, and everybody is shut out of the whole thing. Surely this is the place to deal with the definition. The Minister should stop hiding behind regulations.

Mr. Smith

Deputy Browne is as familiar as most of us with the way matters of this kind are dealt with in the House. It was the Deputy's party who introduced the Bill in 1986 with wide support. This is a normal procedure. The regulations provide a certain flexibility so that each time we need to make a change in the face of circumstances which could not be foreseen during the passage of the Bill, it could be dealt with without the House being constrained to pan amendments to legislation wherever change is needed before being able to take action. Many Deputies on the opposite side have consistently made that argument and so do I.

With regard to the question about when the regulations will be decided on and enforced, I am meeting the requests of Deputies by saying that before introducing regulations I will have the widest possible consultations with Members in the context of this Bill, and with associations interested in these matters. I am not in a hurry to introduce regulations which might not be fair, which might not deal with the problem and which might not support what I consider to be about one-third of the owners of dogs who are careful and loving with regard to their animals. Unfortunately, throughout the country there are people who do not consider the dog to be man's best friend, who keep dogs and train them to be dangerous and a threat to the public; who keep them in abominable conditions without food in order to make them vicious. Parents have approached me complaining that they and their children are afraid to walk through parks because of such vicious dogs. Let us be frank about it. We are not introducing this legislation for the sake of being here all day. We are trying to deal with a situation. I will be as flexible, as open and as helpful as I can be to Deputies in the context of what we are trying to do and in the spirit of the regulations which will ultimately be introduced. The regulations will be based on wide consultation. I make that firm commitment to the House.

Mr. Gilmore

Under section 6 there will be a provision for the Minister to make regulations and those regulations may require premises to be registered with a local authority for the keeping of guard dogs. They require those premises to meet certain standards which will be specified in legislation, and may also involve the inspection of premises by dog wardens. There are many homes in my constituency and, I am sure, in other constituencies, where one regularly sees the notice "Beware of Guard Dog" on the gate and inside one sees a large dog. This often has the effect of dissuading those of us who are about our electoral business from pursuing it in the way we would like to. Is it the Minister's intention to require these domestic premises to be registered with local authorities? Is it the Minister's intention that those domestic premises will have to meet the standards set down in regulations or that they can be inspected by dog wardens? Will the Minister clarify that at this stage so that we will know what we are getting into?

Mr. Smith

There would be no point in introducing legislation of this kind unless it had the widest possible scope in terms of dealing with the problems to which Deputy Gilmore refers. The question of registration and the question of the dog wardens having the right of access and so on, will be dealt with as firmly and as resolutely as possible. There would be little point in having regulations and in having this Bill passed if a warden did not have the option to visit a premises where he or she suspected there was improper handling or management of a dog.

Mr. Gilmore

That is not the question.

Mr. Durkan

I wonder about the wisdom of introducing regulations. Regulations are laid before the House, but we do not always have the opportunity to debate them. I note that the Minister has indicated his willingness to discuss with other Members the merits or demerits of various regulations when and if they are introduced. Like my colleagues, I am a little concerned about that aspect as it leaves matters too vague and does not make provision for the open-ended debate that one would feel is necessary in relation to the amendment, and, indeed, the legislation.

Arising from Deputy Gilmore's submission, may I point out that there is a danger that we may be about to generalise in order to deal with all comers, whether commercial operations providing guard dogs or ordinary householders who keep a big dog. There is a difference. Most householders have no wish to keep a dog of the type referred to as guard dogs except out of necessity. Generally speaking, respect for the other people's property has degenerated to the extent that people now have to maintain a guard dog or an animal of that type in order to protect themselves and their property. There may well be a considerable difference between the legislation that should apply to the private householder and to the person providing guard dogs on a commercial basis, and whether the animals are protecting a private household within the confines of the person's property or guarding a commercial enterprise such as a factory, etc. I would like to have this matter further clarified. I accept that the Minister is saying that the legislation is being forced upon us by virtue of previous incidents but one cannot enact legislation to resolve that problem if it imposes restrictions on individuals who are trying only to protect their own property within the confines of their own home. There is a difference and I know the Minister is anxious to clarify the confusion arising from this point.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to pursue the questions I put earlier. I do not think there is any difficulty with the requirements being placed on commercial businesses or security firms to have the premises in which they keep their guard dogs registered and that they would be governed by regulations and so on, because by definition those premises may not necessarily be occupied by people all the time. Regularly we come across premises which are guarded by guard dogs and it is perfectly proper and in order that the Minister should have regulations which set down the conditions under which such dogs are kept. I often worry about the conditions in which the dogs are kept and the Minister is quite correct to regulate them, but the difficulty that has arisen is in relation to domestic dwellings. It is an unfortunate fact of modern life — I do not like it and I am sure other Members share my view — that a growing number of householders feel that in order to protect themselves and their families they have to have a great big dog around the house. It is an unfortunate fact that this is becoming more and more common. I often worry about what would happen if some of these dogs broke free from the curtilage. It is fair to assume that in the vast majority of cases these dogs are well cared for and are something between pets and guard dogs.

The issue that has arisen — and the Minister did not answer any question when I raised this point specifically — is that there is a fear among dog owners that the Minister will apply these regulations in a very draconian way. He will have to reassure dog owners, the public and this House that that is not his intention. On the specific question of domestic dwellings, will the Minister respond to the following points? Let us say that a private householder owns an Alsatian, will his home have to be registered with the local authority under these regulations, because this is what the Bill says? We should bring this point out into the open. If people want to keep a big dog to protect their premises will they now have to register their home with the local authority and allow the dog warden to come in and inspect the dog house and will they have to comply with the standards laid down in regulation in order to keep the guard dog? We should get a clear answer so that we will know what we are dealing with. This was not clear from the Minister's last reply.

Mr. Flanagan

Before the Minister replies, may I state briefly that it is very disappointing to hear the Minister speak of proposed discussions with interested parties and lobby groups on aspects of the legislation. I would have thought that the time to do that was prior to a debate in this House or, if not, in the course of the passage of this Bill through the House. It is extraordinary as this Bill was published and circulated very recently and we only finished the Second Stage debate last week and the Committee Stage is due to conclude today. Why is there such haste?

Mr. McCartan

The Deputy agreed to it. That is why the Bill is being rushed through.

Mr. Flanagan

It was not agreed to on this side of the House.

Mr. McCartan

Why did you not call a vote on it?

Mr. Flanagan

The Minister made the point as to a hidden agenda, may I ask the Minister what is his hidden agenda? If open debate on this legislation is to be concluded——

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Is the Deputy trying to suggest that the Minister has a new agenda?

Mr. Flanagan

——as a matter of urgency, why is the Minister not meeting with the lobby groups before the Bill is passed by this House? The Minister referred to his powers to make regulations and he is quite right in speaking of his powers to introduce regulations. In defence of his defining "guard dog" in regulations as opposed to legislation, he cites the feeble example that it was done on previous occasions by those at present on my side of the House. However, since the Government took office in 1989 Ministers promised in the course of Committee Stage legislation to introduce regulations at the earliest possible date and they have failed to do so in a plethora of cases. May I cite for the record the following: the Video Recordings Act, 1989, the Nursing Homes Act, 1990, the Abattoirs Act, 1988, referred to by Deputy Browne and now the Minister here present is promising to introduce regulations at sometime in the future after discussions with the various interest groups and parties. What is the need for a debate on this Bill in the House if it is all going to be done by regulation at a stage when Deputies will not have the opportunity of discussing them because of the manner in which the regulations will be introduced? Could the Minister be more specific? As far as this side of the House is concerned, there is no hidden agenda and I wonder what the Minister means by such phraseology. In such important legislation and having regard to the changes being made in the Principal Act I certainly question why he is vehemently opposed to introducing a definition of "guard dogs". In view of what Deputy Gilmore has said regarding a local authority register, I would ask the Minister to be a little more specific on registration with the local authorities. The Minister for the Environment is involved in the whole area of the role and function of local authorities. As a member of a local authority, I am very concerned that this House, year in, year out, enacts legislation and foists regulations and duties on local authorities without any insistence or direction on the part of the Minister as to how these local authorities are to find the money to fund such sections of Acts or regulations.

In County Laois we have a dog warden under the 1985 Act who finds it extremely difficult to carry out his functions in accordance with the legislation because the funding is not available. If the Minister is now suggesting a new set of regulations and a register which will require local authority officials and dog wardens to visit on a regular basis houses and commercial premises to ascertain the nature of the dog on the premises and to compile and keep a register, will he indicate how he will fund this and guarantee that any extra and onerous tasks imposed on the local authorities will be funded directly by his Department?

Mr. McCartan

I am glad of the opportunity to comment on this amendment, particularly in view of the Minister's comments on the important role of regulations in dealing with these issues and the flexibility he hopes to exercise in this respect. Unfortunately last week I was unable to contribute on Second Stage because I was attending a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That debate collapsed very quickly and there was not a great deal of input.

I am surprised by the remarks made by Deputy Flanagan. The New Agenda group attempted this morning to deal with the matter of the guillotine which had been agreed by the Whips last Thursday.

Mr. Flanagan

Where was the Deputy's agenda last week when the matter was being decided?

Mr. McCartan

I was not there. I was not invited to the Whips meeting last week; I understand that might be changed.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

We cannot discuss the Whips' business here. Let us discuss the Bill.

Mr. McCartan

We sought to ask the Government this morning to lift the guillotine because there are 51 amendments tabled to this Bill. Deputy Gilmore raised very important questions about the operation of the legislation in regard to guard dogs. The Minister indicated that his approach is flexible in dealing with the regulations. On the one hand, he would have regard to the interests of the genuine dog owner who looks after his animal well and takes a serious interest in his wellbeing. On the other hand, there are unscrupulous owners who exploit dogs for all kinds of nefarious ends and allow them to run wild in parks, endangering young children.

Regulations, legislation and flexibility of attitude all mean absolutely nothing if the proper resources are not put in place. Dublin city is a good illustration. The entire city is served by three dog wardens who are expected to regulate and control dogs wandering the streets, dogs in private houses, in industrial premises and in security companies. As we have learned recently by way of a court case, they are also expected to regulate and control dogs in dog fighting circles. Three wardens are expected to do all this work and I do not need to labour the point about what this means in terms of effectiveness. In 1990 the dog wardens in Dublin issued 3,400 ten-day notices to owners of unlicensed dogs to produce a licence. They also issued 1,200 on-the-spot fines but not one court action or prosecution has been taken arising from all that work. One of the dog wardens appointed under the ISPCA in May 1989 has not to date been required to give evidence in a court case regarding anything done in his work.

Arising from the Minister's last set of regulations, the wardens have been looking for an allocation of funding from the Department of the Environment. They have two Toyota vans bought in 1987 for their service. They are looking for protective suiting to deal with the more vicious animal as well as tranquilisers and tranquiliser guns to take down vicious animals. None of that has been provided to date — the Minister should not shake his head.

As of this morning I was speaking to one of the three Dublin wardens who confirmed the up-to-date position. At present they are operating a work to rule and they are not operating any of the regulations dealing with the more dangerous type of animal. They are basing their position on the health and safety regulations which apply to all workers. They are not adequately equipped and are not prepared to put themselves in the way of dangerous animals. The man I spoke to this morning told me that in the course of his work so far he has strangled four dogs, shot two Rottweilers and poisoned one dog because this was the only way to deal with such dangerous animals. Leaving aside what that represents in terms of the policy of the ISPCA, his immediate employer whose job it is to avoid cruelty to animals, the Minister will appreciate the difficulties encountered by wardens.

The flexibility of which the Minister speaks regarding his approach to regulations can mean nothing unless his Department are prepared to give financial support to those regulations and ensure that adequate numbers of staff are employed and given the necessary resources to do the job.

The wardens in Dublin are not in a position to deal with the scale of the problem of stray dogs in parks. Under the 1985 legislation the Minister has given the local authority responsibility for dealing with the overall situation, but he allows them to contract out, and in Dublin they have contracted out to the ISPCA who, in turn, employ the wardens. The manager or administrative officer who wrote to the ISPCA on 10 February suggested that two wardens concentrate on the licence follow-up while the third warden would handle the day-to-day calls.

In order to deal with licensing as proposed in this Bill and in the proposed regulations, and in the context of this guard dog amendment, the manager in Dublin corporation is suggesting that two of the three wardens be assigned to going to people's homes where there are warning signs about guard dogs, going into factories and security companies and knocking on doors asking for the licence, and if it is not produced they are fined on the spot. While all this is being done no cases are being taken to court because of the lack of resources. The third warden of the city of Dublin then has to go out on the streets and chase stray and vicious dogs.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech. I appreciate you missed the Second Stage, but I would ask you to deal with the amendment before the House.

Mr. McCartan

I take your stricture. I am trying to address the point the Minister talked about of the regulations being flexible. I am trying to illustrate that while regulations and legislation have been in existence for some years they are meaningless because of the lack of a departmental response.

Dublin County Council have three and a half wardens because they share one with Dún Laoghaire Corporation. The geographical spread of the county is, even more thinly addressed than in Dublin city. It is all very well for us to be legislating and regulating, but we are only fiddling while the problem is escalating daily. Until we put wardens on the street who are adequately equipped, the Minister can keep his regulations and his legislation because they are achieving nothing.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to refer to the Minister's reply on my previous comment. I agree with him on the number of dogs in the country, some of which are ill-treated, and I accept that this Bill is necessary, but I should like to make a point of principle. As one of the 166 Deputies elected to this House, I think I share some responsibility for legislation passed here. We are pilloried every day by the media who, when they have nothing better to do, decide there is an easy target which is to decide that TDs are a useless lot. The leader of my party, Deputy Bruton, has emphasised at different times that 15 TDs run the entire show and the rest of us might as well be at home. For that reason, when the Minister brings in a Bill, such as the Control of Dogs Bill, the first thing we should have is a definition.

I do not want to mitigate the seriousness of a case some time ago where a father was not properly identified in court and was let go scot free. Here we are talking about the control of dogs and we cannot define what a guard dog is. We should have such a definition in this legislation. If something happens later which suggests there is some anomaly — for example, if a breed of Alsatian has only one eye, two legs and one ear the Minister may wish to insert a regulation exempting them, or if pomeranians have been exempted in the definition and some of them grow savage through some defect in the genes — the Minister may want to include them in the regulations. In passing legislation like this it is indefensible that a definition is not included on which we can agree or disagree. After a while the Minister will be the only person who can decide what a guard dog is, and then nobody can do anything about it. Journalists will write articles asking what kind of TDs we have and saying that when this Bill went through the Dáil there was no protest. On principle, we should have a definition.

Mr. Kemmy

I take the point made by Deputy McCartan that time is not on our side. A number of amendments have been tabled and it is unlikely we will get through them all. Therefore, it would be a pity to spoil the debate by bickering and wasting time. Like Deputy McCartan, I am sorry I did not get an opportunity to contribute on Second Stage. I did not expect it would end so quickly and I was involved in internal party business. By the time I was free, Second Stage had concluded. Nevertheless, it is important for us today to amend the Bill as best we can to ensure we have good legislation on the Statute Book.

The need for dog control is an emotive subject. An opportunity was lost in not having consultations with the relevant bodies, who made written submissions to the Minister before this debate. I know there is no point crying over spilt milk, but there was a campaign against muzzling. The Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Irish Veterinary Association, the Irish Kennel Club, etc., were willing to meet and discuss with the Minister how the Bill could be improved, but rather than put the cart before the horse, as we are doing now by meeting them afterwards, had the Minister met them initially the Bill would have been strengthened. Contrary to what one may read in the press, the dog has an important role in society, it is a pet and companion. That is not always emphasised because sensational attacks on children, especially in Britain, and one or two in Ireland have monopolised the headlines. We do not emphasise sufficiently the value of owning a dog. Everybody in this House agrees with the Minister that there is a need to eliminate vicious dogs. The breeding and training of such animals is dangerous to humans and cruel to the animals concerned. In this respect we would have gained more had the Minister taken time to meet the relevant bodies.

In his Second Stage speech the Minister said he took note of the points they made, but that is not good enough; had he met these groups personally, some of the ambiguities in the Bill, would have been eliminated. As Deputy Gilmore said, the language in this legislation should be more specific or new ambiguities will be introduced to the legislation. Perhaps the Minister would agree with the points which have been made.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Carey and Deputy Durkan are offering. When they have contributed, I will call the Minister to reply to this amendment.

Mr. Carey

I moved this amendment. I am disappointed the Minister did not indicate that he considered it necessary to have a definition of "guard dog" or that he would introduce a definition on Report Stage. As has been outlined by all other Deputies, there is a need for such a definition. The Minister talked about the regulations and how effective they are. In Section 5 of the current regulations there is a definition which states that the dog should be led. Anybody who owns or who has taken out a dog will understand that many dogs insist on leading their owners. A dog is easier to control and supervise when he is leading rather than being led.

The value of the regulations can be questioned. I am giving that as an example of defects which have been brought to my attention. Perhaps the Minister would address the real difficulty which was outlined by Deputy Gilmore concerning people who have domestic pets, for example, the widow living alone who has "guard dog" posted on the gate. That guard dog could be a little terrier which is strong-willed about who should be allowed to come to the door, and which certainly could not be described as dangerous. The Minister would make this legislation more effective by inserting a definition of "guard dog" because of the commercial aspect which requires to be met.

There are people who provide a professional service and by starting off with a clear definition we would isolate domestic pet owners and enable the people who will be charged by the Minister with the responsibility of administering the regulations to see to it that they are complied with. As other Deputies have pointed out only a limited amount of finance is available. I would like the Minister to tell us whether he intends to take another look at this matter and introduce a definition on Report Stage.

Mr. Durkan

I wish to refer to what Deputy Gilmore said some time ago. In relation to the requirements to be met under this section there is a vast difference in regard to the persons likely to use guard dogs and types of animals to be used. It is highly unlikely that a group of chihuahuas are going to create a security problem or attack the neighbours, but there are three categories and the definition is important in this respect. First, I see nothing wrong with an elderly person living alone on the ground floor of a building in either an urban or rural area owning a dog because there is a serious security problem with which they have to contend. It is not their fault that they have to keep an animal which could be decribed as a guard dog under the definition section.

Second, those who have to protect their own factories, premises and shops can say that the necessity they are responding to by keeping animals is not of their own making, that it has been forced upon them by the situation which prevails in this land at present. Whether we like it or not that is a fact. They can rightly say to us, as legislators, that there would be no need for them to have animals on the premises in the first place were it not for the fact that they have been forced to do so.

Third, there is the bunch of thugs who organise, breed, train, feed and bait animals for a specific purpose. They walk around streets in our cities, towns and villages at night with one purpose only in mind and that is to terrorise and intimidate other people to gain an advantage in some way. We need to separate the blanket description of all such animals. When I see someone with a pair of pitbull terriers walking down a street at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. I often wonder where they are going. It is very peculiar. Indeed, it is a peculiar time of the night to bring dogs for a walk. It is equally peculiar to see someone——

Mr. McCartan

What is the Deputy doing out at that time of the night?

Acting Chairman

That was also of interest to the Chair, Deputy McCartan.

Mr. Durkan

As the city Member may not realise, some of us have to drive home from here late at night and we see things happening on our way home. I will not go any further than that——

Acting Chairman

Keep to the Bill, if you can Deputy.

Mr. Durkan

In any event there are three categories which need to be identified and a different attitude needs to be adopted in relation to each of them. In regard to two of those categories, it could be said that they are the victims of circumstances outside their control. It is the third category which has generated the problem which we have now to respond to.

Mr. Smith

I will not be drawn into an acrimonious debate. It seems that is what Deputy Flanagan sought to do at an earlier stage. In that context, let me compliment Deputy Kemmy for his contribution. I am starting off a period of whatever length in the Department of the Environment and I have always tried in the past and will continue to try in the future to be as open and fair as I can to all my colleagues. I am not going to be drawn into an argument as to whether regulations were put in place in the past by other Ministers because we have a job to do here today and we are going to work at it, together if we can. It is also clear from what has been said, in particular by Deputy Gilmore and Deputy McCartan, that we have a problem on our hands. Let me suggest to those who say that we should leave things as they are that if anyone looks at the situation which prevails around the country, and particularly in parts of our cities, they will know that we cannot do this.

Deputy McCartan raised the question of whether the services and resources available to the dog warden services are adequate or inadequate. The figures that he has given for Dublin city and county are accurate. I understand that there are seven in total. One could put forward the argument that we should have more; one could put forward that type of argument in relation to every Bill that will ever be introduced in this House, but these resources have to be provided by the taxpayer or by society as a whole. Needless to say, we have to be conscious of the fact tht the services provided are the best that we can afford. In this instance we are seeking to increase the licence fees. This should enable use over time to provide an enhanced service.

Mr. McCartan

If they can be collected.

Mr. Smith

I will not suggest to the Deputy that we will always be able to meet needs everywhere but we have been able to improve the service. My Department provide 100 per cent grants for the purchase of vans and resources for the purchase of tranquillisers. I understand, however, that there is an ongoing debate on whether it is desirable to use this system. We also provide resources for the purchase of protective clothing. Therefore we have gone a fair distance down the road to meet this new need. We will consider the question of whether we should hold further consultations on the possibility of providing additional resources, either from my Department or the local authorities, in the light of our ability to meet those needs.

Deputy Gilmore raised the central question of whether each individual will be required to register with the local authority if they own a guard dog yet to be specified in the regulations. That is not my intention. Under the existing proposals any dog owner who owns more than five dogs will be required to register.

In regard to the regulations, the argument has been made by Deputy Kemmy and others that we should not proceed any further until we have an opportunity to meet all the interests concerned. The Bill was published last October. Therefore we have not been rushing to introduce it in the House. Furthermore, there has been the widest possible consultation nationally with the various associations. Fortunately, during the past ten days I have had the opportunity to meet representatives of the Irish Kennel Club and of various other interests. In some cases they came to my Department and in others they visited my clinics. Other people have, thankfully, taken the time to write detailed letters to me in regard to all these matters. There is no way that a Minister for the Environment could legislate to meet the needs outlined to me at these meetings because they vary enormously. Caring associations have their own agenda, a good and legitimate one, but, sometimes with the best will in the world, they are unable to take account of the concept of dog owners who do not treat owners in the way the association do. If we had to deal only with the Irish Kennel Club and a number of other important groups of dog lovers, there would be no need for this legislation. However, everybody does not treat a dog properly. That is the reality.

If Members disagree with the regulations which I will be introducing they will have an opportunity to raise the matter in the House. During a debate on a Bill it is most unusual to have all the aspects relating to regulations enshrined simultaneously. Deputies Gilmore and Carey referred to "pet" guard dogs. I do not see dogs which are protecting premises, businesses and so on being treated in the way suggested by the Deputies. However, I have had very strong representations from the ISPCA in relation to having a residual power to deal with certain situations. That is what I am hoping to have in this legislation. It will not be a wholesale intrusion, it will apply in a minority of cases where there is evidence to suggest that it should be so. I have tried to allay the fears expressed in the House.

I have had the opportunity, albeit brief, to listen to the views of various groups throughout the country who are interested in this. In the final analysis, in changes I propose in regard to muzzling regulations and in other areas, I hope to go a long way in meeting the legitimate desires of people throughout the country who love their dogs and who will not be threatened by the legislation. However, I must put sufficient controls in place to deal with the other problems outlined by many contributors.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section I agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, lines 9 to 14, to delete subsection (1), and substitute the following:

"(1) Section 1 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the definition of `general dog licence'.".

In the principal Bill there are two types of dog licences provided for, the first is an individual dog licence and the second is a general dog licence. The Bill endeavours to tighten up the definition of a general dog licence and to confine it to a number of dogs at a specific location so that it would not be possible to have a general dog licence for a number of dogs located in different kennels, premises or whatever.

The amendment which Deputy McCartan and I tabled seeks to remove the definition and concept of the general dog licence. The reasoning behind this is that we do not think there should be a bulk licence for numbers of dogs. There is a general problem with the licensing of dogs, something which Deputy McCartan mentioned earlier. At the moment about three-quarters of the dog population are not licensed. Only a minority of dogs are licensed and I suspect that the problem regarding the control of dogs has more to do with unlicensed than licensed dogs. It is fair to say that people who go to the trouble of licensing their dogs, generally speaking, take care of them. The problem in local communities and housing estates in regard to harassment of animals, by and large, come from the three-quarters of the dog population which are literally wild. They are wild in the sense that they are not licensed and are running wild.

We are talking about quite a large dog population. The Minister said there are 750,000 dogs in the country and about 600,000 are unlicensed. It is an enormous population of uncontrolled dogs. There should be a licence for every dog, that is the best way to identify the dog population and to control it. I cannot see the justification for a general dog licence or a reduction for numbers. Two situations have been suggested to me, one is where animal welfare organisations who take in dogs get a general dog licence to cover them. Unfortunately, in the Bill, the Minister will not allow for that because it will eliminate the possibility of a general dog licence for dogs kept in different premises. The second situation which arises is where dogs are kept for commercial reasons. It appears that the bulk of the general dog licences issued are for people in that category. The most recent figures I have relate to 1990 but I do not suppose they are greatly different in their general profile for 1991.

In most local authorities the numbers of general dog licences is in the order of three or four. In Dublin county there were three or four issued to security companies and commercial organisations who were keeping large numbers of dogs for commercial use. The big incidence of general dog licences is in Cork county, Limerick county and, to a lesser extent in Tipperary South-Riding and Kerry. I suspect that is because of the greyhound industry, for which I have great affection. However, there should not be class distinction in regard to dogs, whereby dogs owned for commercial purposes, either by security companies or by greyhound owners and breeders, have a reduced licence. The individual dog owner, for example, a householder, should not have to proportionately pay a larger licence fee.

The reason we tabled this amendment is to tease out why an advantage is being given to commercial interests who are making money out of their dogs. Security companies do quite well from keeping dogs for commercial reasons. The greyhound industry would probably argue very strongly — with some justification in recent years — that there is not much money to be made from their industry. Nevertheless, businesses which keep dogs for commercial purposes should not have an advantage when it comes to licensing. People should not be able to place a bulk order, so to speak, for licences so that 20 or 30 dogs could be licensed effectively at a reduced rate.

Mr. McCartan

I support the amendment for the reason outlined by Deputy Gilmore. I consider it unfair that commercial interests who own a large number of dogs may buy a bulk licence while individual dog owners will have to pay £10 for each dog. As Deputy Gilmore said, there can be three dogs on a premises in the city and four dogs in a premises in the county. Two of the largest security firms servicing the Dublin area, Swatzfall Security and Brentwood Security Ltd., have over 100 dogs each. There is a financial advantage for those companies who can buy a general dog licence for £100, which will be increased to £200 under this Bill. If the Minister holds hard on the concept of a general dog licence, Deputy Gilmore and I have put down an amendment which proposes a more realistic figure.

We include the greyhound industry in our amendment. I hope the Minister is referring to the greyhound track industry and not to the other wellknown Tipperary past-time where unfortunate live hares are chased by greyhounds.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The Deputy's colleague did not refer to that.

Mr. Smith

This sport is not confined to County Tipperary.

Mr. McCartan

Deputy Gilmore may have overlooked this point but I am distinguishing between the two. I support one sector of the greyhound industry but I have very grave reservations and am downright opposed to the other sector.

There is also the question of dog kennels. People maintain dog kennels to facilitate people who want their dogs looked after while they are abroad. Dog breeding is a very lucrative business. Pedigree dogs are bred in small units which sometimes may have litters of ten and 12 pups. As I said, there is an element of unfairness there.

The second point is linked to revenue. I referred earlier to the under resourcing of this industry. As I understand it, a proportion, if not all, of the revenue collected in licence fees is used to develop the service. If I am wrong I ask the Minister to clarify this point when he is replying. Dog wardens are able to identify organisations which keep a large number of dogs and can follow them up. Because these organisations earn substantial revenue from their enterprise they should be expected to make a contribution to the area of dog regulation generally. This would be of benefit to kennels, breeders and the security industry. It would also ensure that there was some regulation of the dog population, which clearly does not exist at present. While organisations which keep a large number of dogs are an easy target, so to speak, they have the resources to make a contribution to this area.

If the Minister is not prepared to take on board our proposal that there should be one licence for each dog, I ask him to indicate whether he is disposed to having a more realistic fee for a general licence. We have suggested £1,000 for a general licence but perhaps we can agree a lower figure. This would enable us to deal properly with this issue. The one dog, one licence concept will help to regulate this area. Together with computerisation, this should not prove to be a difficulty for a properly run service.

For these reasons I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to our amendment. There is a basic unfairness in the Bill and it would appear that it was the commercial lobby in the dog industry who made the case for a general dog licence in the first instance. I ask the Minister to take this amendment on board.

Mr. Kemmy

I support the general principle of the Minister's intention which is to strengthen and tighten up the licensing of dogs. Perhaps it is a reflection on us that after 70 years of self-government we are only now doing this. While there were other priorities to be met, nevertheless this should have been done long ago. Deputy Gilmore made a very telling point in support of his amendment. It is a known fact that most dogs are not licensed. Every day we see stray dogs roaming the streets of our cities and towns without any control whatsoever. It is a terrible indictment on us that we can treat animals like this.

I support the points made in regard to greyhound racing at tracks. Greyhound owners are not always free from blame in their treatment of animals. I grew up beside the greyhound racing track in Garryowen in Limerick and it was known that dogs which were brought there for trials and which did not measure up were turned loose on the streets. Sometimes greyhound owners dealt with the dogs in a more drastic way, something I will not go into today. Like Deputy McCartan, I believe greyhound racing in greyhound tracks where there is regulation is far preferable to coursing which I do not believe is a sport at all and which I should like to see outlawed. Some of those sports emerged in a more tribalistic society and today we have a more civilised attitude to animals.

This Bill seeks to deal with the issue of control of dogs in a fair and open way. We are trying to learn from our experiences of the past. I question whether a general licence would be open to abuse. Naturally, honest people will register every dog but perhaps the Minister is being too trusting of people who, as Deputy Gilmore said, are out to make money from dogs. I fear that this provision may be open to abuse and will be abused. While I understand the principle enshrined in the Bill, I believe it will be open to abuse by people who keep large numbers of dogs. The Minister will not have adequate staff to check whether the numbers submitted to his Department are correct.

I support the principle of registration for all dogs. However, this gives the Minister great powers over dog owners. Those powers must be exercised in a balanced way and consideration will have to be given to the civil liberties of people. In addition, the value of dogs and the companionship they give to their owners must be measured against the need for control. Does the Minister think that this provision will be open to abuse by people who own a large number of dogs and who may not necessarily give an accurate figure to his Department?

Mr. Smith

Deputies Gilmore, McCartan and Kemmy have pointed out some problems, but these matters are being addressed in the context of this legislation. The 1986 Act provided that a licensee may have any number of dogs at any number of premises for a general licence of £100. That was certainly open to abuse. It was likely in those circumstances that a security firm with dogs at a number of premises would pay much less on average in licensing their dogs than would the person with one or two dogs. It also presented an opportunity for groups to form an umbrella, keeping dogs at different premises at a general licence fee of £100, and there was no limit to the number of dogs that could be kept.

What we are proposing here is to increase from £100 to £200 the general dog licence, but it would cover only dogs kept at one premises. That provision will go a long way towards meeting the requirements of the three Deputies who have spoken in this debate. A general dog licence becomes an economic proposition only if a person keeps more than 20 dogs, and from experience, whether it is the greyhound industry or security firms, there is not a great number of people with more than 20 dogs on one premises. On that basis I cannot accept the amendment. The fears that have been expressed are largely covered by this provision, which is distinctly different from that contained in the 1986 Act.

Mr. McCartan

What about the increase in fee?

Mr. Smith

That is dealt with in the next amendment.

Mr. McCartan

Will the Minister be reviewing it?

Mr. Smith

With the permission of the House perhaps we can take amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. If, as suggested by Deputy Gilmore and Deputy McCartan, we increase to £1,000 the general dog licence, very few people could afford to have the numbers of dogs required at any one premises. In some cases when people go on holidays they leave their dogs with kennel owners. To expect these people to pay £1,000 for a general dog licence would be very unfair because they would have the dogs for only two or three weeks. Such a licence fee would be very expensive and unnecessary and would discourage people from providing that service.

While people sometimes suggest that everyone in the commercial sector fares extraordinarily well, we all know people in that business who are not doing as well as other. By providing for an increase in the licence fee to £200 and confining it to one premises while at the same time catering for individual kennel owners who provide a very good service at a reasonable fee, we are allowing for the necessary flexibility. I think therefore this provision will be acceptable to Deputies. The number of kennel owners with in excess of 100 dogs on one premises— the number necessary in one premises in order to justify a general dog licence — must be very few.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wyse)

Is it agreed that we discuss amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together?

Mr. Carey

The two amendments come under different sections.

Acting Chairman

Yes, but they may be discussed together. I take it that is agreed. Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

I am quite happy that the two amendments be discussed together because there is a number of amendments and we are anxious to get through them. There have been experiences in recent years where it appeared on the surface that relatively small charges or licences were being imposed but they ended up becoming nationally controversial issues. There was the case of the hospital charges and also the famous rod licences. The increase in dog licence fee from £5 to £10 is not huge and should not cause great difficulty. However I suspect it will cause considerably more difficulty than we realise. It is proposed to double the licence fee charged, but the problem is that three-quarters of all dogs in the country are not licensed. We must take account of the possibility that an increase in the licence fee may result in a reduction in the numbers of dog licensed. What we should concentrate on is increasing the number of dogs licensed rather than increasing the licence fee for those dogs that are already licensed. The Minister is tackling the wrong problem, which is not the level of the licence fee but the number of dogs unlicensed.

I wonder how the individual dog owner who licenses his or her dog will react to legislation that is already perceived by them as coming down on people who license their dogs in order to address the problem of people who do not license their dogs on the one hand, and at the same time has built into it an advantage for people who keep dogs for commercial reasons. It will be difficult for people to accept a doubling of the dog licence fee while security companies with 100 dogs will pay the same licence as they would if they had 20 dogs. That will not make sense to the public and it will have to be rectified.

I have not tabled a specific amendment on this matter but I want to put down a marker at this stage because it is a matter to which we should return on Report Stage. Before the Bill is passed we should give serious consideration to whether the dog licence fee should be increased at all. Even though the amount of money is small it could be the issue which would provoke an incredible backlash from lawabiding dog owners would see this legislation as impinging on their rights rather than addressing the real problem. Rather than have the House spend a long time debating the issue of the general dog licence and the fee attaching, when other Members have contributed I shall withdraw those amendments, with a view to returning on Report Stage with amendments to deal with the levels of general dog licence and individual dog licence fees.

Mr. Durkan

I should like to say a few words about the general principle of increasing the licence fees. I note the point made by Deputy Gilmore and I submit the measure could be a disincentive to those observing the rules and regulations to continue to do so.

If in the course of considering legislation it transpires that the provision should be used as a vehicle for raising revenue then the purpose of the legisation would be of no benefit. The legislation would be demeaned once it is used as a means of raising revenue. I realise a certain amount of revenue is required to police, control and administer our legislation with regard to dogs. However, now there is a tendency to use revenue generating aspects of legislation as a means of increasing revenue to a greater extent than is necessary. Once legislation is used in that way it loses its impact and is of no benefit. The outcome is that many people, for reasons of their own, have no regard for the law. Members of local authorities know what it means to increase charges imposed under legislation — whether that legislation make provision for penalties, licence fees or whatever — for no other purpose than to generate more revenue to the Exchequer. That practice does not work.

Mrs. Owen

I wish to support the general sentiment being expressed. There is a danger in perceiving dogs as some kind of luxury item, similar to cigarettes or drink, and increasing the cost of a dog licence regularly. For many people, particularly older people, their dog is their only companion. An increase in the licence fee from £5 to £10 would give pensioners a considerable jolt. I am particularly concerned that older people on being asked to pay an increase in licence fee, may either get rid of their dog or not pay the licence fee.

In the next section the Minister is given such wide powers that I fear he might, quietly and by stealth, increase dog licence fees year by year as if he were taxing some kind of a luxury item. The Minister knows that a dog is not a luxury for many people. On Report Stage the Minister should give the rationale behind increasing the licence fee.

By increasing the licence fee will the Minister collect twice as many dog licences? Will he use the money to increase the number of dog wardens? Dog wardens in Dublin county tell me that when this Bill is enacted there will be ample legislation but it will not be possible to implement some of the measures. At present there are four dog wardens to cover all of Dublin county and Dún Laoghaire — there are 3.5 dog wardens for the county and a half a dog warden for Dún Laoghaire — I do not know how one divides a dog warden in half. Those wardens say they are unable to implement existing legislation. If the increased charge for licence fees was used in a practical way to increase survey and patrol procedures there would be some reason for it. I will be pleased if the Minister will tell me that the extra money will be used for that purpose.

Mr. Smith

I should first point out that I do not have charge of the money. It is the responsibility of local authorities as to how they discharge their functions. The House is enacting the legislation and local authorities, in the exercise of their functions, will to the limit of their financial ability improve the services provided. The idea behind trying to raise increased resources and a self-sustaining operation is to improve the services so that the problems occurring throughout the country can be dealt with. There is no other reason for increasing the fees.

The licence fees were last increased in 1984. It is reasonable to expect that they be increased to the levels proposed. Having regard to the fact that this concerns a function devolved to local authorities, it is expected that the additional resources will go 100 per cent towards the provision of services. Many local authorities have had to provide additional finance to continue the services. No one should be in any doubt that the financial arrangements in the Bill are directed entirely and exclusively towards the improvement of warden services.

I have no wish to interfere with amendments Deputy Gilmore might put down on any other Stage, but I should like him to take into consideration a meeting I had with one of the national groups representing dog owners and caring people. At that meeting I was advised that the group had no objection to the proposed increase provided — as mentioned by Deputy Owen — it was used to enhance services. The group felt threatened by the measures in the Bill in relation to restrictions such as the muzzling of certain dogs and the destruction of dogs because, in their love of dogs, they did not want such conditions attached to the ownership of dogs. The Bill would not be before the House if the majority of dogs owners were in that league but, unfortunately, that is not the position.

Mrs. Owen

The majority is in that league; the minority cause the trouble.

Mr. Smith

The group is prepared to accept the proposal for increase licence fees on the basis that the extra revenue is used to improve services, identify problems and sort out the dangerous dogs and the careless owners. Once the group had been satisfied that the money will go in that direction they did not appear to me to have any great objection to the increase in fees.

I am sure the Deputy has, as we all do, an interest in ensuring that the services are improved. We all accept that seven dog wardens for Dublin city and county is insufficient. The wardens are stretched beyond the limit to meet the needs arising in some parts of the city that have special problems in parks and so on and also in areas that could be termed middle or upper-class, where the possibility of guard dogs breaking away presents considerable fear and risk to neighbours.

I give the best assurance I can to the House that the additional revenue raised under the Bill will go directly and exclusively towards the provision of services.

Mr. McCartan

I have several questions arising from the Minister's contribution. Lest the Minister gives the impression that the seven dog wardens in the city and county of Dublin are able to do their jobs at present and might be stretched to implement this legislation, I wish to point out that that is not the position. They cannot cope at present. As I explained, the dog wardens' activities in relation to dangerous and stray animals have been suspended because they cannot get the equipment or the resources to deal with those animals. Dog wardens through their union, have indicated that the industrial action upon which they embarked in the past week relates directly to their entitlements under health and safety regulations. On one occasion a ten stone-cross bred dog had to be taken on. Two of them, after a 20 minute struggle when they had been torn asunder by this animal, actually strangled it as the only way they could contain it, and the two wardens are now to be prosecuted for cruelty. The thing is in a shambles. We are certainly making legislative progress here today and I do not want to take away from what the Government are seeking to do because there is general support for it, but if we divorce ourselves from what is happening outside I will certainly continue to correct the record until something is done.

I want to come to the concept of the general dog licence. I am not convinced by the Minister that we should have such a licence at all. The Minister has stated that in the case of a temporary stop-over of a dog at a kennel while its owners are away on holidays, it would be unreasonable to expect the dog kennel proprietor to buy an extra licence to cover that. That is a practical problem of my approach to the situation, but an exception could be made of kennels. However, all other situations could be covered, particularly as two of the single largest dog security companies in Dublin own over 100 dogs each. Large commercial enterprises are being asked to pay £2 or less per dog for their licences while the law abiding citizen, if the Minister's proposals are passed into law today, will be expected to pay £10. There is a basic unfairness there. In regard to all the other areas, gun clubs, packs of fox hounds, beagles, they are very good commercial enterprises in their own way. They earn good revenue and there is good access to revenue resources. They should all, therefore, be expected to pay along the lines of what the private individual has to pay on the principal of one dog licence.

I am not fixed hard on £1,000 and I accept that only in the very large enterprises, with 100 or more dogs, would it be financially sensible. I am anxious, however, that the Minister would consider a figure somewhere between his own figure and that being suggested. I indicated £500 as being perhaps a more workable figure.

I want to put down a marker, since we intend to withdraw our amendments, that we will come back on Report Stage to the issues of whether the Minister is penalising the law abider and being too easy on commercial enterprises.

The final point I want to put is in regard to how the general dog licence works in the context of a dog escaping from the premises of a man running an enterprise with an unspecified number of dogs, as the licence allows. How does the general dog licence procedure help to trace that stray to the original owner if it is ultimately found? Can the Minister also give an assurance that it will not be open to an amalgam of people to designate a club premises, for example, or a single premises as the place where their dog is kept, thereby allowing an amalgam of private owners, a gun club or whatever, to get around the provision of the legislation with regard to the amendment proposed in respect of a specified premises?

Mr. Smith

I will deal first with Deputy McCartan's point as to whether we are being unfair to the good citizen who is continually paying for a licence as opposed to enterprises with a general dog licence and others who do not pay their licence. We need to set a realistic target for improving the percentage of dog owners throughout the country who are paying licences and are likely to pay them. I know that the local authorities can and do give powers to dog wardens to take up licences. This is something which we need to improve and I will be looking at whatever measures I can to ensure that the burden of payments is evenly spread. That is not currently the position.

Perhaps we will agree to differ on the question of the general dog licence. There are not more than three or four general dog licences in the whole city of Dublin so this is not a great problem in the context of Dublin city. I realise the Deputy may have been talking more in national terms. I realise there are other cities in the country where the numbers are greater, but it seems that once I confine it to a specific premises that the number of security companies and others that would keep more than 20 dogs at one premises are few and far between.

On the question of identifying a dog that escapes from a kennel for which there is a general dog licence, it is proposed to ultimately identify all dogs by tattooing or electronic means. It will take some time to put that into effect but that is the ultimate ambition and is, perhaps, the only way of tracing a dog back to its owner. At present the owner must come looking for the dog and will then be required to pay for its maintenance. If the owner does not turn up the dog will be ultimately put down. There was another matter the Deputy mentioned.

Mr. McCartan

I inquired about the possibility of a group or an amalgam of people designating a premises as being where a dog is being kept for the purposes of the legislation. I am thinking particularly of groups of people coming together for the purpose of getting a general licence.

Mr. Smith

The reason for the change was that under the 1986 regulations it was possible for an umbrella group to do that even though they kept the dogs at different premises. Henceforth the specification that they must be kept at one premises will fairly exclude that possibility because probably they would not be bothered endeavouring to meet that requirement. If one follows that argument to the point of finding the number of general dog licences in Dublin, the Deputy will discover that it is far from being a real problem.

Mr. Carey

Nobody has adverted to the duration of the licence, whether it should be for a year or whatever. I did not hear the Minister say he had considered issuing a licence for the lifetime of a dog. I contend that if such licence were issued it might well yield a great deal more revenue than has been the case to date. Some such licence should be considered, especially in the case of people with a particular interest in breeding dogs, whether they be greyhounds, beagles or any other type of special breed. I am thinking of people who specialise in breeding specific types of dogs. The Minister has not said whether he ever gave consideration to that matter. Indeed, I should say that view has been advanced by people in the business of breeding dogs.

I am a bit concerned also that the Minister has been somewhat flippant in his replies, referring to the question of equity and all the rest. After all, the Minister will not remain in office indefinitely. He will be there for only another 18 months. This means that we will have another cowboy, like one of the Minister's predecessors——

Mrs. Owen

The cowboy of the western world.

Mr. Carey

——who introduced regulations, who took his dog on to a beach in Mayo on Sunday and it bit another dog. He had no leash or muzzle on his dog yet it was he who introduced those regulations which led to an outcry on the part of dog owners nationwide. Surely the Minister will have heard the views of members of all parties, even those on his side of the House. I see Deputy Liam Fitzgerald sitting behind the Minister to listen to this debate. It is a rarity in this House to see a Fianna Fáil Deputy sit behind his Minister on a Committee Stage. I congratulate Deputy Fitzgerald for taking that initiative.

I should like to understand the Minister's thinking in regard to licensing because it would appear that he wants to travel the same tired, narrow old road which will mean that, where the Garda have failed to collect these dog licences, he will put the onus or responsibility on dog wardens, saying to local authorities, "Go out now, lads, with your nets and Hiace vans and do the collecting", in a live horse and you will get grass type of attitude.

I should like to hear from the Minister what were the considerations vis-á-vis licences within his Department in the drafting of this Bill. As the Minister has been prone to advert to the provisions of the 1986 Act, I might remind him that those provisions were not written on tablets of stone, they do not constitute a holy writ. What was done then was not necessarily absolutely right. I readily concede that whoever was Minister in 1986 made mistakes in regard to the regulations. I contend that the former Minister, Deputy Flynn, made substantial mistakes. I should not like the present Minister to compound them by inflicting real penalties on people willing to work at these provisions.

We must remember that there are other licences administered by the Minister's Department, such as driving licences, some of a year's duration, others of three years' duration and yet others of ten years' duration. Did the Minister consider such duration with regard to dog licences? We all know that some dogs live to be 20 years old. It would be much more advantageous and attractive to dog owners if the Minister were to consider the issue of licences for the lifetime of a dog, especially in the case of specific breeds such as labradors. For example, the Labrador owned by the former Minister, Deputy Flynn, might last that length if it is not stricken by arthritis——

Mrs. Owen

The Minister or the dog?

Mr. Carey

Since the Minister for Justice is exercising his Labrador there is no risk of it being overweight. Owners and breeders of such dogs know the dogs' average life expectancy. The Minister merely talking about dog licences costing £10 or £200 does not demonstrate much imagination.

On the basis of what we have heard the Minister say today I must give notice that my party will be tabling amendments on Report Stage about this matter.

Mr. Kemmy

I will not refer to the former Minister and/or his Labrador. I will confine myself to the amendments before us. On the basis of the figures the Minister has given for Dublin city, I was surprised at the small number of firms or companies holding a general dog licence. I should say I was not referring at all to companies when referring to possible abuses in that area. Rather I was referring to individual dog owners who grouped together to form a canine coursing club or some other type of dog club. Those dogs would be accommodated in peoples homes. For the purposes of technically evading the legislative provisions they would accommodate all the dogs at one address. That would be a way of circumventing the Bill's provisions. The Minister did not refer to that aspect of all.

I have to concede that the Minister answered me effectively, particularly about such licences in Dublin — perhaps there are more in Limerick or Cork but only a very small number in Dublin. Therefore it would be remiss of us to waste too much time discussing the provisions of this section if the figures the Minister quoted are accurate. I had been referring to dog clubs, as such, and about people who own individual dogs and who, instead of registering or paying a dog licence in respect of each dog would pay a licence of £100 and there could be up to 200 dogs in that club. This would totally defeat the legislative provisions. Perhaps the Minister would address that point.

Mrs. Fennell

May I make a brief comment before the Minister replies? I have a note here to the effect that the Minister said that the dog population is 750,000. Is that correct?

Mr. Smith

In or about.

Mrs. Fennell

Can the Minister give me an idea of how many current licences are held by dog owners?

Mr. Smith

One hundred and seventy thousand.

Mrs. Fennell

Which entails a very large deficit.

Mr. Smith

Exactly.

Mrs. Fennell

If the Minister's objective is to encourage all dog owners to take out licences for their animals has he considered giving them an incentive? For instance, if henceforth dog wardens are to be responsible for ensuring that people hold licences for their dogs, has the Minister considered giving them a commission on each dog licence taken out? Most people are well meaning, they would want to be above the law and hold licences but, very often, the matter slips their minds, they are too busy or whatever.

Mr. Smith

To deal with Deputy Kemmy's question first, I should say that henceforth the licence will be specifically tailored to the location where the dogs are kept as distinct from a coursing club or anybody else being able to form an umbrella group in order to evade their liabilities in this regard. The Deputy's fears are being fairly well met by confirming it absolutely to the premises on which the dogs are kept.

Mr. Kemmy

Does the Minister propose to monitor that position?

Mr. Smith

That brings us back to the service provided and how it is improved to meet those needs. We will try to make sure that the new resources that will be provided in this context can go down that road.

With regard to Deputy Fennell's question, I explained earlier that the administration of these schemes is devolved on the local authorities. There have been instances in other services which the council provide for which the public have an obligation to pay, where they use different systems to try to improve the percentage of payments. That is entirely a matter for local authorities, but one way or the other we have to find a means to improve the current position. That will be fairer all round and will enable us to have resources to improve services which are badly needed in this area.

Deputy Carey and I on numerous occasions in this House have found ourselves not just on different sides of the political fence, but diametrically opposed on principle. That has never daunted me nor changed our friendship. I often reach the conclusion that Deputy Carey is not really serious with me, that he actually wants to take me for a drive in Clare and seek to outmanoeuvre me. As Deputies know, it is easy to do that. I am totally amenable to the Deputy when he wants to take me on a straight course. I am unable to resist this one, except to say that if the proposal is that I should now become Solomon and decide not only some of the provisions we are trying to decide on here but also on the likely lifetime of dogs in order to decide on the licence fee and to bring in an incentive scheme on the basis of encouraging people to pay for the full expected life of a dog, the Deputy would be in real trouble with a number of his colleagues before he would be in trouble with me. One way or the other the Deputy is on a collision course with me.

Mrs. Owen

One could get a refund.

Mr. Smith

It has often been like that in the past and it looks like it will continue.

Mrs. Owen

Maybe an incentive would be a tin of C and D dog food.

Mr. Smith

I did not think we allowed commercials.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and I therefore suggest that we take those amendments together. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kemmy

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, lines 13 to 20, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:

"(c) the repeal of subsection (2).".

The sweeping powers in paragraph (c) are what concern me. Is it necessary to give the Minister power to use different classifications for dogs? We need to obtain a balance with regard to the need to control dogs and the rights of ordinary people to enjoy dogs where they are not doing any harm to society. In introducing breed-based measures the Minister could penalise responsible dog owners. The section is adequate without these powers. This paragraph is unusually pernickety and it could be vexatious and cause a lot of trouble for the Minister and legislators in the future. This paragraph should be deleted.

Mr. Carey

I join with Deputy Kemmy in supporting the amendment. The Minister started off on the wrong foot by not accepting the amendment with regard to the definition of guard dog. That is creating problems of interpretation all along the line. Under this section the Minister wants to have a wide variety of powers. The Minister wants to vary the rates and to identify different classes and species of dog. When replying the Minister should spell out what he has in mind here.

There is no doubt that a licence for a number of years would be very attractive to people who intend to keep a dog for five or ten years or whatever the lifetime of a pet is. A ten-year licence might not necessarily apply to one pet. It could cover a replacement pet if one died for instance. When replying will the Minister explain why he is taking such wide-ranging powers with regard to different breeds?

Mr. Smith

Trust me.

Mr. Carey

This is a difficult area. These powers do not really improve on the method of issuing dog licences. I appreciate that local authorities have been most efficient in collecting fees, but wardens who will be charged with this work will not have the time to collect licence fees. In my constituency, and I am sure in north Tipperary, there are frequent dog attacks on sheep. Wardens spend a lot of time picking up wild stray dogs which are roaming about in packs destroying young lambs and sheep. Where will they get the time to devote to the collection of licence fees? The Minister is giving them a job that they cannot do. Apart from the age problem with regard to dogs, it is possible to adopt our suggestion. If I take out a dog licence for ten years and my dog dies in the meantime, surely it should be valid for the replacement dog, as effectively my household has a licence for a dog for ten years. Would that not be a better way to approach this question?

Mrs. Owen

It would be similar to a driving licence for a car.

Mr. Carey

It could operate in the same way as a driving licence. What is wrong with that? We are operating in an old-fashioned bureaucratic manner, a similar system was probably introduced by the British and we are still holding on to it. Let me appeal to the Minister to withdraw that section because he is taking too much power unto himself.

I am sure that the Minister as a substantial farmer in north Tipperary may keep sheep from time to time, even though he may not have sheep at present. Some of his neighbours must have sheep yet they keep a dog. Indeed I am sure they take good care of their dogs. If the Minister should decide to specify the breed of dog, will he include sheep dogs, Labradors and all the different breeds one sees around the farm or will he insist that farmers should only have collies or sheep dogs and not other different breeds? This is implied in the legislation.

Mrs. Owen

I support my colleague Deputy Carey's viewpoint. I believe the Minister will be walking into a canine minefield if this section remains in the Bill. Does the Minister propose setting up a kennel section in the Department to arbitrate in disputes? For example should a dispute arise because a certain class of dog has a higher licence fee will there be a "dogs' Ombudsman" to decide on the classification of the dog. For example my own dog is a mixture of an Afghan hound and a cocker spaniel but I do not know how much of each is in the dog. She is a very nice dog but I do not know if she has an 80 per cent look of the Afghan or a 20 per cent cocker spaniel. If the Minister uses this power, just to collect money, he may decide, for instance, to increase the licence fee for the Labrador class. What happens in the case of mixed breeds, where a dog is part Labrador? As the Minister is new to this Department, the Minister may not be fully aware of what his predecessor had in mind.

The Minister should not take on too much power because the Minister may find he is pressured when there is a shortage of money to use this clause to increase the fees to an unrealistic figure. I believe the aim of this section should be to increase the number of licence holders from 170,000 to 750,000 and not to increase the amount of money paid by the 170,000 licence holders. We should aim to increase the number who buy a licence much in the same way as the idea is to broaden the tax base rather than increase the tax paid by a small number of people. The risk is that this section many provide a temptation for the officials to advise the Minister that, as the present dog licence fee cannot sustain the cost of the local authority dog warden scheme and the local authorities need more money, he should increase the licence fee to £20 or even up to £40.

Therefore I appeal to the Minister to be very cautious about taking these extra powers.

Mr. Gilmore

There is a widespread body of opinion that what is needed at this stage is not new legislation but the enforcement of the existing legislation. The inadequacy of the 1986 Control of Dogs Act in dealing with the problem of controlling dogs has less to do with its provisions than with its enforcement. Deputies have already referred to the small number of dog wardens employed. Seven dog wardens are employed to cover the Dublin area, one of whom serves half time in Dún Laoghaire. They are required to spend more of their time chasing owners to ensure they have licences rather than chasing dogs. This will increase under this arrangement. It seems that the Minister is providing for a self-financing system so that the law-abiding dog owners, through the payment of a licence fee, will pay for the dog warden service. The difficulty that has occurred repeatedly is that the local authorities do not have the money to hire dog wardens. Over the past number of years the local authority allocation has been cut back by the Minister's predecessors. The local authorities are required to implement the 1986 Act and hire a dog warden. All of the local authorities have complied with that and have appointed one dog warden, which is purely a token gesture.

The only way in which the local authorities can hire more dog wardens under the existing legislation is if they can collect more money in dog licence fees. This legislation is not directed at increasing the number who pay the licence fees but at increasing the fee for those who are already paying it. If the Minister finds that by doubling the fee the required amount of money is still not coming in he may increase the fee at will under the powers in this Bill. We have already seen examples where this has happened. For example, the fee for lodging an appeal to An Bord Pleanála was originally intended to be a token charge for the lodgment of an appeal but it has increased by over 300 per cent in the past seven or eight years. In cases where the Minister has given himself this power to vary fees it has been used to increase the level of fees.

The amendment which Deputy McCartan and I have tabled addresses a slightly different angle from this — that is the principle of whether the same licence fee should be charged for dogs of different sizes and uses. To some extent it relates back to the debate we had earlier. It is difficult of justify that the same fee should be paid for a tiny pet as is paid for a large guard dog, and this should be addressed. The principal matter that needs to be addressed is that it is not going to be possible to adequately provide for the control of dogs out of the licence fee moneys. If the Minister is heading down that road, I am afraid that all the legislation passed by the Oireachtas will not resolve the problem. There are 170,000 licence holders at present and the increase proposed by the Minister will raise less than £1 million. However if the 600,000 dogs which are unlicensed were to be licensed, we would raise in the order of £3 million without ever increasing the level of the licence fee. The legislation is headed in the wrong direction.

Mr. Garland

Unlike Deputy Gilmore I have no problem in principle about the financing of the dog warden service out of the licence fee. It is a very good principle. As we all want to make a genuine effort to reduce tax as well as reducing the burden on the taxpayer it behoves us all to look at all other areas. I believe that dog owners would accept that they have a responsibility to fund, if possible, the cost of the dog warden service. It would be interesting to see if the Minister has any figures.

There is no excuse whatever for the non-collection of licence fees. If there are 700,000 dogs there should be 700,000 licence fees collected, and if not, it is an absolute scandal.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.