Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 May 1992

Vol. 420 No. 1

Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Report and Final Stages.

Amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies Gilmore and McCartan.

What happened to amendment No. 1?

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order. That amendment, which is in the name of Deputy Garland, was negatived on Committee Stage.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, to delete lines 9 to 14, and substitute the following:

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

This amendment is self-explanatory. During the course of the debate on Committee Stage on 4 March last Deputy Gilmore and I proposed that the concept of a general dog licence should be removed from the legislation because it facilitated far too much the owners or controllers of a number of dogs. I also pointed out that a number of security companies in the city, involved in substantial business, could avail of this licence at little cost. I have tabled another amendment which deals with the rate that should be charged, if this amendment is not acceptable.

I note that during the course of the debate on 4 March last the Minister gave an undertaking to consider the issues that had been raised before Report Stage. The amendments, which proposed that the concept of a general dog licence should be deleted entirely and that the licence fee be increased from £200 to £1,000, were taken together for the purposes of debate. I suspect that the Minister is not disposed to accede to our proposal in this amendment. Nonetheless I would like to hear what consideration was given to the proposals and the points made during the course of the debate on Committee Stage and if he is prepared to accept the proposal at this stage.

I do not know whether this is relevant — perhaps you will let me know whether it is or not — but protection officers working for the inland fisheries have expressed concern to me——

The inland fisheries?

Yes, it has to do with dogs.

Fishing dogs.

These officers use dogs in order to protect themselves and to ensure they will be able to deal with law breakers and those who intend to engage in illegal activities such as poaching and netting. They have expressed concern that when the dogs are muzzled they are not of much use to them in that instance. They would like the Minister to indicate where they stand vis-à-vis the legislation. I hope we will be able to get an answer to that question this morning.

If the Minister wishes to advert to it, he may.

Clearly, Deputy Cotter has taken some inspiration from his Front Bench colleague, Deputy Noonan, who set the whole House on fire on Committee Stage when he made an unexpected contribution in which he referred to Siberian Tigers. However, I should say that the problem to which the Deputy has referred will have to be dealt with under the muzzling regulations. As I strongly indicated to the House during the debate on Committee Stage, I am looking at these regulations with a fresh mind and it should be possible to relax the general regulations in relation to the decisions that were taken early last year. I do not want to go any further than that because a wide range of issues will have to be taken into account and embraced in devising the regulations. However, we will take account of the point made by the Deputy. I cannot go any further than that at this stage.

During the course of the debate on Committee Stage I indicated to both Deputy McCartan and Gilmore that I considered the general dog licence to be a good one and that it was a must for anyone involved in breeding, training or minding dogs and where there was a constant turnover of animals. It enables the person concerned to preserve the legitimacy of this operation without having either to licence each individual dog to check that the owner of each dog has a licence for that dog. I referred in particular at that time to people going on holidays who make arrangements to have their dogs cared for while they are away.

The present general dog licence under the 1986 Act is too loose in that it covers dogs kept at different premises. The lighter form of general licence now proposed, which is confined to dogs kept at one premises, will mean that security firms and the like will no longer have a single umbrella licence for dogs kept at various premises. It will also eliminate the possibility of a group forming an umbrella organisation and having one general dog licence to cover its members dogs. With these defects eliminated the general dog licence will serve the purpose for which it was intended, that is, to enable genuine kennel owners to operate legitimately at a reasonable cost.

It would appear from the points made by Deputy McCartan on both Committee Stage and again this morning that he is of the opinion that this facility has been blatantly misused. So far as I know, and I am subject to correction on this, there are only seven general dog licences in Dublin city and county. I wish to assure the Deputy therefore that there is no need to be concerned, given the evidence available to me. I would like to keep the general licence for the purposes I have outlined.

I accept the Minister's approach. Obviously, we will not be pushed through the barricades or call a vote on the issue, but I am of the view that it should be "one dog, one licence" and that on occasion people in the business of breeding or minding dogs, in particular security companies, do get a licence and run their business on the cheap. That was unfair and inequitable to the ordinary person who owned more than one dog. It was also unfair to the general public. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the definition of "dogs kept at various premises". I know that security companies often deploy their dogs on factory premises and leave them there for a major part of the day. Will they be considered to be kept at those premises or the kennels in which the security company are based? However, I take the point that as so few people avail of the general licence, it is not a major problem. In those circumstances I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We now come to amendment No. 3 in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related. Amendment No. 6 is an alternative to amendment No. 5 and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—Section 7 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for the "the period of twelve months from the date of its issue" of ", at the option of the person to whom it is issued, for the period of twelve months from the date of its issue or for any longer period standing prescribed for the time being".

I am fulfilling an undertaking I gave on Committee Stage to consider proposals by Deputy Carey to provide for licences longer than one year. As the House knows, Deputy Carey represents a constituency in the mid-west——

The far west.

Deputy Carey is an extraordinarily difficult man to handle; I have to go so far as I can to meet his wishes, otherwise I will be under mortal threat. I have considered the proposal and acknowledge the merits of the case for having an optional longer licence. The effect of these amendments will enable me to specify in regulations the periods in respect of which a multi-annual licence may be issued. I have not considered in detail what these periods might be but I will consider the three, five and ten year options suggested on Committee Stage.

I relation to amendment No. 3, I undertook on Committee Stage to consider before Report Stage a suggestion by Deputy Carey that provision be made for a three, five or ten year licence — or even a licence for the lifetime of a dog. The main argument for a multi-annual licence is that it would remove the need of having to buy a new licence every year; it would thus offer dog owners the choice of opting for an ordinary dog licence or a general licence for the standard 12 months' period set out in the 1986 Act or for any longer period which may be prescribed by the Minister by regulations. Accordingly, it would be open to the Minister to provide for a three, five or ten year licence or for any other period deemed appropriate by the Minister. Although the amendment could, in theory, allow for a licence for the lifespan of a dog, it must be pointed out that there would be difficulties in assessing the lifespan of different types and classes of dogs. For that reason, such a licence might not be a practical proposition. However, this aspect can be looked at again when regulations are being made. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are consequential to amendment No. 3 which introduces the concept of multi-annual licences. They provide that increased fees of £10 for an ordinary dog licence and £200 for a general dog licence are applicable for each year of the validity of both types of licences.

Amendment No. 6 is not acceptable because a general dog licence fee of £1,000 is unrealistically high and would almost certainly mean that no one would buy such a licence. With the fee for an individual dog licence set to increase to £10 under this Bill, a person would need to own or keep 100 dogs or more before it would be economic to opt for a general licence. There is a place for a general dog licence for persons heavily involved in keeping dogs but it must be set at a reasonable and realistic level.

The fee for the general licence has been maintained at ten times the price of the ordinary dog licence since 1984 and there are compelling reasons, in present day circumstances, to alter this ratio. I hope Deputies will apppreciate that we have given some consideration to the proposals made on Committee Stage; Deputy McCartan will appreciate that, in the context of the number of general licences granted, it is unrealistic to expect any reasonable success in the future by an increase of the order he suggested.

I welcome the Minister's three amendments and I acknowledge that he has taken on board points made by Deputy Carey and others on this side of the House on Committee Stage. It is a step in the right direction. While the Minister should reserve power to himself to set, by regulation, the sort of periods for which licences can be granted, I am still worried about the use of the money raised by licence fees. Will the Minister clarify whether the money raised by dog licence fees will be given to local authorities to offset the cost of implementing this and other laws in relation to the control of dogs? It is important to make clear that the funds raised from dog licences will be used to offset their cost in implementing the legislation.

I have been in this House for 15 years and my experience has been that when we enact legislation, it is not enforced because there is inadequate provision in that regard. It is a harmful exercise to enact legislation and not to enforce it and it would be a great pity if that happened in this case. We all know that the money received for parking fees or in fines for transgression of traffic laws are not assigned to local authorities to help them to enforce traffic laws or to implement other traffic control measures. We must ensure that moneys raised in respect of legislation similar to this Bill by means of licence fees should be assigned to the local authorities concerned to help them to implement such legislation.

I welcome the Minister's amendments because it is good in principle that people are allowed to obtain a licence for longer than 12 months. I do not have any difficulty regarding the range of times available; the average life of a dog is not very long, nonetheless it is a good idea in principle.

The issue which causes me concern is the rejection out of hand by the Minister of amendment No. 6 which refers to the general dog licence. The figure of £200 is unrealistically low. The Minister suggested that there are only seven general dog licences in the city, he was very careful not to mention west Clare or other places and to say how many exist outside the city. When one considers the greyhound breeding industry and other dog breeding industries, I imagine there are many outside the city confines. Certainly in Dublin city the general dog licence is availed of primarily by security and there are at least two — I mentioned their names on Committee Stages but they are not relevant now — which each houses in excess of 100 dogs. It was because of my awareness and information in regard to these two companies that I pitched the figured at £1,000 because they would be paying something commensurate with their scale of business. If the Minister thinks the sum of £1,000 is excessive — he has a reasonably cogent argument in that regard — I would be happy to compromise, but £200 is extremely low. For a specific concept made available to the industries of breeding, minding or training, as the Minister explained, and also of security, which the Minister did not mention, we should arrive at a more realistic figure having regard to the profits that can be made. Deputy Mitchell has said that the dog control services are severely strapped in terms of their effectiveness. That is primarily because of an absence of funding. The licence fee is an important source of revenue in that regard. A more stringent approach should be taken in relation to the fee levied on large concerns whose objective is to make profit rather than keep dogs for pleasure.

I have talked about the domestic household that might have two, three or four dogs for pleasure or for home security. The general dog licence would be of no particular benefit there in that it would be more economic for that household to buy four single dog licences. The general dog licence is specifically designed to deal with a bigger commercial enterprise, in whatever way it is operated.

I should be happy if the Minister were prepared to consider a figure a little higher than the £200 provided for. In the interests of consensus this morning, I am certainly not going to insist on the suggested figure of £1,000 but it is my view that the Minister should reconsider the scale of the fee.

I also wish to acknowledge the Minister's goodwill in accepting the proposals made on Committee Stage. The availability of the multi-annual licence fee will be beneficial to the Exchequer, those involved in the control of dogs and the general public. Persistence seems to have worked with the Minister.

I should call it stubborness.

I acknowledge the Minister's goodwill.

I shall first reply briefly to the points raised by Deputy Mitchell. For the past few years there has clearly been a deficit between the amount raised from dog licence fees and the expenditure incurred by local authorities in the discharge of their duties under the provisions of the 1984 legislation. Last year approximately £1 million was spent by local authorities, yet the income received from dog licence fees approached only £750,000. It is clear that additional moneys are required even if local authorities ensure that the funds collected in dog licence fees are used exclusively for the purposes of the dog warden service. That is why I indicated on Committee Stage that I was extremely anxious that many more dog owners pay their licence fees. On Committee Stage I said that only a very little more than one-third of this country's dog owners actually paid for a dog licence. If people met their legitimate requirements under the legislation much greater resources would be available to enhance the warden service.

I do not know why Deputy McCartan chose to use County Clare as an example when talking about general dog licences. However, in 1989 there were no general dog licences in Clare and in 1990 there was one. Limerick had about 25 general dog licences and Cork had 47. Throughout the country there were between two and six general dog licences held in different areas. In 1989 there was a total of 143 general dog licences and in 1990 there was a total of 169.

The £5 fee for the ordinary dog licence and the £100 fee for the general dog licence were prescribed in 1984, almost ten years ago. It is now time for those fees to be reviewed. In the light of the experiences and the range to which the dog warden service now have to extend, increases of the order prescribed under the Bill should be acceptable.

In reply to Deputy McCartan's final point, I wish to say that in this regard, as with all provisions, we have to try to find a balance. The Deputy clearly has a very strong view about what might be termed the commercial aspects of keeping dogs for security businesses. I ask the Deputy to consider alongside his arguments the great many dog owners involved in showing dogs, perhaps in the international arena as well as here at home. The show life for those dogs is very short and many of the owners have a great love for and a great interest in caring for their dogs in a special way when they are old and need attention. A balance has to be found between the considerations of the more commercially orientated businesses and the genuine owners who are involved in caring for several dogs after their potentially commercial life is finished.

Perhaps the figures given indicate that if everyone who should do so applied for a general dog licence more general dog licences would issue. The Deputy might agree that if there were a chance of succeeding in that regard with the licence fees prescribed by legislation the possibility of success should be more enhanced by my proposals than the more expensive fees suggested by the Deputy.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, line 9, to delete "£10" and substitute "£10 for each year of the period of validity of the licence".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, line 11, to delete "£200" and substitute "£200 for each year of the period of validity of the licence".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.

One behalf of Deputy Gilmore and myself, I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, line 20, after "regulations" to insert "and in particular, shall have regard to the size, weight and breed of dog and to have regard to the use for which the dog is kept".

The purpose of the amendment is to add to the provision contained in the new section 3 (2) (c) proposed by the Minister. This provision gives the Minister a general power to vary the rates to be levied for a licence that can be charged by the Department or local authorities in respect of classes of dogs and classifications generally. I contend that the additional words should be added to make it incumbent on the Minister to have particular regard to the size, weight and breed of dog and to have regard to the use for which a dog is kept.

My reason for tabling this amendment is that the licence does not constitute merely a question of controlling individual dogs in particular circumstances. I contend the licence should be used by Government, if you like, in pursuance of a policy in the interests of the community at large. The weighting should be against breeds of dogs that are not generally welcome or that do not have any specific use within a community at any given time. The Government should be working to encourage people to avoid keeping oversized or large dogs as pets in domestic dwellings and, therefore, accommodated within the immediate community. If people living in urban areas are disposed to keeping dogs in their homes — I am not one of them — there should be some regard to the confinement of the overall area of the dwelling itself and/or back garden. I heard the proposition being advanced recently that one aspect of the Government's plan for social housing would not be suited to the Dublin region in that there is not much space provided with the standard local authority house for house extensions, that the design of rural dwellings and availability of land affords much greater overall space. That should have some impact on the size of animals kept by people in their homes, as should the urban landscape generally.

At times it is very disturbing to encounter very large breeds and cross-breeds of dogs that appear to serve no particular use or function. If people's objective in owning a dog is for enjoyment or pleasure size should not be a great consideration. I contend the Department should play a positive, active role in this respect. One way in which they could do so is by penalising the owner of a larger, heftier, more aggressive type dog but also be in a position to penalise people in respect of the purposes for which dogs are kept. That is one aspect that could be examined.

On Committee Stage it was proposed that the weighting might be in favour of elderly people who kept a dog for companionship or security purposes, that that is something that could be positively encouraged in the manner in which the fees are struck. I think the proposition was advanced — and I would certainly do so — that elderly people, of pensionable age should be entitled to hold a dog licence without paying a fee. That is something for which the Minister could provide under the provisions of section 3 (c).

After the enactment of this Bill the Minister will have available to him power to deal with the introduction of regulations. It is that in particular that has dog owners, to the extent that they are organised nationwide, extremely worried. They are extremely concerned at the extent to which the Minister can, for example, ban certain breeds from entering the country, demand or insist on the destruction of certain breeds already here and provide for the muzzling of certain breeds of dogs in specific circumstances. Perhaps one way of overcoming or addressing many of the problems that have manifested themselves through the arrival here of many very undesirable breeds of dogs would be for the Government to begin to use the licence as a type of penalty to discourage the acquisition of such breeds. In such circumstances the average person endeavouring to decide to acquire a domestic pet would also have to bear in mind that if and when they acquire a puppy that may ultimately grow into an animal of or over a certain size, or of a particular breed, it will be more costly. I do not contend that would resolve the problem fully but, in time, it would have some impact on the manner in which people would acquire certain breeds of dogs as opposed to others. These considerations should be borne in mind by the Minister when he seeks to vary the licence, as is being provided for here. I hope he will be agreeable to accept this amendment.

I take the point Deputy McCartan makes with regard to built-up areas, where there is much confinement in terms of freedom or allowing dogs enjoy themselves in the normal way. It is a consideration that should be borne in mind by people in such areas in terms of their acquisition of dogs as pets. Very often such circumstances can be very frustrating not alone for their owners but also for the dogs themselves if there is not a reasonable degree of freedom. It is part of the nature of a dog and something we must endeavour to bear in mind. I would be very reluctant to go beyond a suggestion of that kind. As I understand it, no more than in human life, size and/or ambition do not necessarily relate one to the other. Certainly in my hurling or football days I never had any less fear of a six footer or somebody of 6'5" than somebody who may have been a foot smaller who could impact in a more severe manner. If one carries that logic through in terms of dogs, a St. Bernard, say, would be regarded as a heavyweight but, in terms of viciousness, not much of a threat whereas a bull terrier would be much lighter but pose a much greater threat in terms of viciousness. As the House will know, in terms of reported accidents to children, facial injuries and so on, again size is not anything like the factor people might think. To that extent the Deputy will appreciate that the question of viciousness and dangerous dogs is a difficult one. It would be extremely difficult if I were obliged, in drawing up regulations, to take account of everything in regard to weight, size and so on. I happen to like dogs very much myself. I know of a number of elderly dog owners who have grown used to their pets, some quite large, which are in no way dangerous but rather form part of such people's daily lives. I would not like to introduce regulations which would create greater financial difficulty for such people. People's attachment to dogs is not something that can be related to size.

At the beginning I said I should like to cultivate a greater interest in smaller dogs more easily managed and maintained particularly in very built-up areas where there would not be the same degree of freedom for the larger type of breed. But to go beyond that in legislative terms I contend would be unacceptable and extremely difficult to determine in any fair or reasonable manner. I hope Deputy McCartan will appreciate that I have indicated on a number of occasions, when it comes to defining the regulations, I intend releasing from the muzzling regulations quite a number of categories but it will still be necessary to keep dogs on leads in public places. Therefore, there will be a flexible, measured way of dealing with this. After reconsideration I think Deputy McCartan will realise that, in legislative terms, to oblige me to take account of all the points he has made would be unnecessarily difficult and indeed would interfere with some of the people for whom he, like me, is endeavouring to cater.

The Deputy referred to the possibility of having a different scale of licence fees for dogs owned by elderly people. I looked closely at this matter to see if we could help these people in some way. However, I do not think such a system would be feasible. Unfortunately, we continually run into difficulties in respect of categories which have been exempted. I am sure the Deputy is familiar with the difficulties which can arise in regard to concessions which are given in other areas. At present young people do not own anything in the home; everything belongs to the elderly people. If we could reach some kind of consensus in respect of such concessions I would find it easier to commit myself to helping these people. Unfortunately, such concessions tend to be unnecessarily exploited. This means we are not able to cater for the genuine person in the way that we should.

The Bill as it stands will give me a fair degree of freedom in dealing with the various classes of dogs. I will take into account the points which have been made by the Deputy. I ask him not to make my tasks impossible by proposing that the different classes of dogs would be determined on the basis of weight. There is a big difference between a large dog who poses no threat to the public and a small dog who can be very vicious. The Deputy's amendment would make it almost impossible to determine the licence fee in any fair and reasonable way.

I thank the Minister for his eloquent response. I am not entirely convinced that there is not a close relationship between the size of a dog and the threat it poses to the public. As an urban dweller, I would not contemplate having a dog in my home. I was reared in a non-urban environment where there were many dogs. While it is possible to give a small dog a kick and thus solve many of the problems it is not possible to do this to large dogs, although I have often tried it. For that reason the Government should promote the keeping of smaller breeds of dogs in urban environments. I fully accept the points made by the Minister in his response. It is easy to see that he has had regard to the representation made to him by the dog owners' and dog breeders associations and others.

I accept the point that the elderly person in the home becomes the owner of everything. Nevertheless, I believe the Minister should address the issue of pensioners living alone. Under our social welfare code a free telephone allowance and a free electricity allowance is given to elderly people living alone. This system works reasonably well and is quite specific. In the context of this provision regard should be had to the fact that in many cases dogs become the friends of elderly persons and offer them security. Perhaps the Government should promote the keeping of dogs by elderly people so that they would have a companion and feel more secure in their homes. I appreciate the Minister has not been entirely deaf to the points which have been made. I do no intend to press my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"4.—Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution in subsection (1) of ‘on a lead or chain while in public places' for ‘under effectual control'.".

This is a very important amendment. The Minister in an earlier response indicated that the regulations would require people to keep dogs on a lead when in public places. The Principal Act provides that animals should be kept under effectual control while in public places. Wardens working in the service in Dublin have told me that they have major difficulties in implementing this provision in practice. If they confront dog owners in a public place and say that the dog should be kept on a lead the person may say that he can summon the dog to heel and he will come, that he is effectively under his control. There have been a number of confrontations between wardens and dog owners about what is and is not control. The word "control" needs to be specifically defined in the Bill. This amendment proposes that the Principal Act be amended to read that a dog should be kept on a lead or chain while in public places. That is what we mean by control in a public place.

Many dog owners bring their dogs into public parks, take off their leads and let them run about freely. This is wrong. Public parks are places to which people go for peace and quiet. Unfortunately, public parks are used time and again by dog owners as exercise tracks for their dogs. I understand that the larger the dog the more vigorous he can be. Even though a dog may be very quiet he can get so excited at the prospect of being able to run about he will take off heedlessly around a park. If there is a two or three year old child in his way he may knock him. This is not done out of any bad intent; it is done simply out of excitement.

I do not know what the position is in Limerick, west Clare or Dundalk but the Dublin Corporation by-laws covering public places make it an offence for people to exercise their dogs in public parks and open spaces. This is done for very good reasons. We all know that very friendly dogs of whatever size can run up to sunbathers on a beach, sniff around, give them a lick and run off again. However, this can scare many people. If people react quickly it is possible that the dog may misinterpret the reaction and a different scenario will develop. It is important that we enable wardens and park caretakers to deal properly with dog owners who say their dogs will come back when they are called. As I said, anything can happen while dogs are running about. Public parks and places of recreation are not dog exercise tracks. Therefore, it is important that dog owners are made aware that they have to keep their dogs on a lead or chain while in public places, and not just under effectual control.

Wardens in Dublin have spoken to me about the difficulties they have in dealing with people who have their dogs on extendable leads. I do not know whether the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or the Minister are aware that people walking with their dogs in public places carry contraptions whereby if they release a button the dog can run for a certain distance. If the owner wants to call the dog back closer he presses the button and the extendable lead contracts much the same as a measuring tape. These devices are very commonplace in Dublin. Occasionally dog owners walk on the outside of the footpath while the dog, although on a leash walks on the inside with the result that the leash gets tangled around pedestrians. Originally I intended suggesting that the length of the leash should be a matter for this legislation, but on balance I would be happy with the requirement that every person walking a dog in public should have the dog on a chain or a leash. That is a fundamental requirement in this day and age.

I do not want to sound entirely anti dog-owner. Dublin Corporation are attempting to address this problem at present. The regulations and by-laws that exists with regard to dog control in open spaces enjoys the support of all parties in the city council. It is an offence for dogs to be allowed run free in public parks. We are considering the reservations of spaces, compounds or fields where dog owners can bring their animals where they can have all the fun they want. This is a problem, particularly in urban areas. It does not apply to rural areas because there are many fields in these areas and on the outskirs of small towns where people can let their dogs run free.

I make this plea having spoken to the warden service in the city who say that they have difficulty in implementing this provision because much debate is put forward as to what is effectual control. I suggest that we omit this nebulous phrase and insert a specific requirement that a dog in a public place be on a chain or a lead.

While Deputy McCartan is undoubtedly one of the most accomplished and able Members of this House I think he is talking a lot of baloney in this regard. He has given a clue to the fact that he is not a dog lover and, from listening to what he said, he could not possibly have owned a dog. To impose regulations of the nature he suggested on the hundreds of thousands of dog owners in the country would be absolutely farcical, cruel and totally unrealistic. To say that there are fields on the outskirs of the city where people can let their dogs loose is farcical. While I accept that this is a city problem we have to legislate for the Twenty-Six Counties.

I am an animal lover, though maybe an unlikely one. I view with concern the regulations the Minister intends to bring in. While I accept that control of dogs is a necessity, this legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to hysterical reporting in the media, mainly the English media, of attacks by dogs on children. Children have been attacked by dogs throughout the centuries, and it will always happen. As an Irish citizen I would be more concerned with attacks by human "dogs" on the street. I would never be afraid of a dog but I would be afraid of the criminals who wander the cities and towns of Ireland. I fear that this measure would be an invasion on hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy the pleasure, loyalty, fidelity and affection of dogs. While I accept that there are dangerous breeds of dogs which have to be controlled, the Minister should take full cognisance of the submission of the Irish Kennel Club which is a very measured and balanced one. In future legislation he should involve the Kennel Club, a most responsible group who understand dogs, unlike Deputy McCartan who, from his contribution, obviously fears them.

The Minister should address himself to the problem of who will implement these regulations. The local authorities cannot and will not do so because they do not have the manpower. Neither will the Garda Síochána who in most cases do not have a humane dog killer in their stations should a dog be injured on the streets or the roads of Ireland. I view with concern this intrusion on the rights of people to own dogs. Obviously there are dogs which need control and there are dogs which need to be banned from this country. The importation of South American bred dogs purely for fighting should not be countenanced. The Minister should be much more concerned about the illegal activities of people who use dogs for dog baiting and dog fighting. There are reported incidents of an increase in that activity. Dogs are being bred specifically for that purpose in the Border area. There are reports of much cruelty, with dogs fighting to the death, which is unacceptable. The killing of badgers and foxes by vicious dogs is wrong, too, and is a matter in which the Garda Síochána should be involved.

I oppose Deputy McCartan's amendment. It is totally unrealistic to expect people to keep dogs in country areas on a lead, particularly dogs which have been companions for ten or 12 years and which are totally docile. That would be a retrograde step.

Every debate shows differences of opinion. There is a necessity for people to weigh up the balance between the conflicting positions taken by Opposition Deputies. I would not agree with Deputy McGahon in his remarks on Deputy McCartan. There are three or four Deputies in this House who are interested in this Bill and I am not going to decide who are dog lovers. However, I appreciate contributions, support and differences of opinion which will enable us to devise laws and, subsequently, regulations which will deal with the complexity of the matter before us. Deputies will appreciate that there is a wide range of views on this matter. I would like to think that the position in the city of Dublin is as Deputy McGahon seems to think. I regret that in some cases dangerous dogs are allowed too much freedom and there is a threat to children and people in public parks, which is not acceptable. That is why these laws are being introduced. I am delighted to hear from Dublin Corporation — this matter has also been emphasised by Deputy McCartan — that the by-laws that are presently being devised will require people to keep their dogs under effective control. The local authorities are considering special arrangements whereby facilities will be available to dog owners to exercise dogs.

The number of people who pay for dog licences would not be the best criteria in deciding who cares for dogs, because there are very caring people who for one reason or another do not have dog licences. Only one-third of dog owners pay their licences. There are a great number of people who neglect their dogs which become fierce for one reason or another. We would not introduce these laws and the regulations unless there was a problem. It is not fair to say that this is just a knee jerk reaction to highly publicised events relating to injuries inflicted on children and others by vicious dogs. We need the kind of laws and regulations which will enable people to use public parks, roads and streets without being placed under threat from dogs. At the same time we are having a flexible and measured approach which takes account of various situations.

I indicated on the last occasion that I am not in favour of having all dogs on leads. That is not necessary in a great number of cases. On the last occasion I also emphasised the difference between rural areas and cities and I instanced the case of a herd owner and a dog managing the herd on the public road. Such a dog would be worthless if he had to be kept on a lead. We cannot manage this in the terminology that would be required in a definition in law. This can be dealt with in the by-laws which can be implemented by each local authority, taking account of the circumstances and what is required in their area. In a highly built up area with little space there has to be more confinement but in the open areas there can be more freedom. Even within the built up areas there are loving dog owners who have small pets who roam about and are not a great threat to anybody. Taking all that into account it is not necessary to go down the road that Deputy McCartan and Deputy Gilmore's amendment suggests. Where such restrictions are necessary the local authorities can provide the necessary by-laws. I doubt if even in the most confined places such restriction would be an absolute requirement. For that reason and because of the wide considerations which I have to take into account in devising legislation I find the amendment unnecessary.

During the Committee Stage we referred to the matter of restraint. The Minister will probably recall that I said that it was ironic that the Minister, Deputy Flynn, who drew up this Bill had been involved in an incident in his own constitutency.

Play it fair.

There is a difficulty in enforcing regulations. I have some sympathy with what Deputy McCartan is trying to do. There are people who are absolutely careless about controlling their dogs. I am not saying that the Minister, Deputy Flynn, was absolutely careless that day on the strand in Mayo, but will there be some method of enforcing such regulations to ensure that these controls are effective in local authority areas? The Minister has not said that there will be inspectors to monitor the control of dogs. I would like a reassurance on that because, sad to say, the Minister's dog has been involved in another incident since I spoke here last on this.

Which Minister?

The Minister, Deputy Flynn. His labrador has been involved in another incident. I have a labrador too and I can understand that in some instances they do not make friends and that they are not very friendly to other dogs. That is a difficulty. Will the Minister give some sort of indication that the Department will have some power, although it may not meet what Deputy McCartan is seeking? Will there be some sort of supervision of control when the regulations are in force?

I thank the Minister and the Deputies for their useful contributions. In order to put the record straight, I owned my first dog when I was about six and in the course of my life I have owned four and have lived in a house at a time when there was a minimum of six dogs in it. It is because I am a dog lover that I refused to own a dog when I came to the city to live. It is entirely unnatural and unfair to dogs to keep them in confined spaces in urban surroundings. My approach to this issue comes directly from my experience of living for the past 25 years in the city and of representing a constituency where dogs are a problem. They roam in large numbers around working class estates where they are completely uncontrolled and where they are a menance much of the time. In this city we had a number of prosecutions of people who were keeping dogs for their own gratification for dog baiting and dog fighting. The House will recall the sad case of people in a van being pursued and the dog warden finding half mutilated and dying dogs in the back of it. It is unbelieveable to think that this goes on, but it does. I recall a Dublin Deputy coming in here to complain on the Adjournment about gardaí not being able to get into a barracaded flat to deal with drug dealers because they were using dogs to keep the gardaí back, and the gardaí had no way of dealing with them. This is the problem. I have no fears of dogs and anyone who has canvassed the Dublin constituencies with me will vouch for that. When we come to a house with a dog in the garden they send in McCartan. I have survived it so far and hope I will continue to do so. Nevertheless, I understand the difficulties.

I had intended in resubmitting this amendment to deal with the urban-rural divide. I have the fullest regard for the drover on the road or the man with a good sheepdog. It is preposterous to suggest that these animals could work on a leash. Deputy McGahon made the point that this legislation will apply over the Twenty-six Counties. We have to get some kind of order in the control of dogs because of the phenomenon of dangerous dogs running wild in communities and the menace they can represent to people lawfully enjoying public spaces. The bad case makes it tough for everyone and it is the law-abiding person with the well-behaved dog who is most aggrieved by these kinds of provisions. The dog warden can only work effectively from a single standard. He or she may identify a dog which should be on a lead and seek to find the owner. The wardens find it very difficult on occasion to operate under the existing legislation which refers to effectual control. There are rows with dog owners who are aggrieved by being challenged because their dogs, while not on a leash, are close at heel or running about under close surveillance.

Dublin Corporation have adopted by-laws under the 1986 Act for the Dublin city area which have received support on all sides of the city council. It is provided that a person in charge of a dog in a specified area shall keep the dog on a leash while in that area. The areas referred to include a park, garden, open space, fields, stadium and other places used for outdoor recreation and sporting activities which are under the control of the corporation. We are making it an absolute standard in any area of public recourse over which we have control that a dog be on a leash. That is an illustration of how we have reacted to everyday experiences in the city.

I kept my amendment specific. I am happy the Minister has said it will be a matter under regulation for each local authority to deal with the phenomenon. I hope the local authorities will address the issue from a realistic standpoint. The reality to be borne in mind is the difficult job that wardens are being asked to do and the need to move from the bad case to the general. That is the way the law is forcing us. This debate has been very useful and I am glad to have had the opportunity to put on record my own experience and history of dogownership.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 3, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"4.—Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion in subsection (2) of ‘without a warrant' after ‘dwelling'.".

This arises from specific difficulties experienced by the dog warden service. I propose that section 11 of the Principal Act should be amended by including the right of wardens to enter a dwelling without a warrant. Under existing law all premises other than a dwelling may be entered without a warrant by a warden in pursuit of his or her duties. If he or she observes or receives a report of an attack by a dog on a person or if he or she is pursuing a dog without a licence with a view to apprehending it, having the authority to impound such animals, he or she can follow the animal and enter upon any premises other than a dwelling. That is the advice they have received from their legal advisers. It seems an unnecessary restriction. The Minister should have regard to this proposal that we give authority to wardens to enter premises, including a dwelling where necessary, with a view to apprehending a dog that is wild or a threat or is without a licence.

My advice is that this amendment is unnecessary. Section 11 of the 1986 Act allows a member of the Garda Síochána to enter any premises other than a dwelling to seize and detain a stray dog. The insertion of the words proposed is therefore deemed not necessary. The Department's legal adviser has confirmed that having regard to the powers of dog wardens and the gardaí to enter premises under section 11, putting in the words "without a warrant" would have no practical effect. The Department have also confirmed with the dog warden services of the ISPCA that they are not aware of particular difficulties or problems experienced by dog wardens in the operation of section 11 of the 1986 Act.

This is a regrettable scenario. The specific advice that the dog wardens in Dublin have received from their independent legal advisers is to the effect that wardens do not have the power to enter dwellings. The document prepared by counsel for the service states in relation to a dog warden's powers as follows:

He may enter any premises (other than a dwelling):

A. In order to prevent or end an attack by a dog upon a person or the worrying of livestock;

B. Which are registered with the relevant local authority pursuant to regulations made by the Minister for the Environment in respect of premises where more than five dogs over the age of four months are kept;

C. Where he has reasonable grounds for believing that more than five dogs aged over four months are kept, and therein examine the dogs and their quarters.

That is in respect of kennels and such places. The document continues:

The powers referred to in the previous paragraph may be regarded as exhaustive. A dog warden should not regard himself as having, in addition to these powers, any greater power of arrest, search, seizure or indeed, investigation than any other citizen. Should he presume to do so, he leaves himself and his employer open to civil court action, judicial review and possibly even criminal prosecution.

That is the advice given by a barrister to dog wardens in the Dublin area. The very fact that they have sought that independent legal advice is symptomatic of another problem which Dublin Corporation are attempting to address. There seems to be a regrettable divergence of interests and views emerging between the dog warden service on the one hand and, on the other hand, the association the Minister sought to consult, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The society acts as the agent for most local authorities in the operation of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986.

To illustrate my point, the Minister will be aware that, as Deputy McGahon has mentioned already, no dog warden service in the country has a humane killer or any device for putting down vicious or dangerous animals. On Committee Stage I recounted an incident where two dog wardens had to grapple with a crossbreed American bull terrier which was totally out of control for upwards of 20 minutes and their only means of destroying the animal was to strangle it with rope. The two wardens are to be prosecuted for cruelty by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. A dog warden may on occasion have to take pre-emptive action which a dog lover or a member of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals might consider inappropriate. There is a divergence of views developing between dog wardens and the ISPCA, whose charter is designed to meet a different function. At present, Dublin Corporation are investigating this matter and will report further on it. One of the features of this unfortunate emergence of divergent views is that legal advice can vary. When the Minister consulted the various bodies he may have got the views of the ISPCA, but not of the dog wardens whose views are different. They have had legal advice to the effect that they do not have the power to enter a dwelling under the provisions of the 1986 Act. However, a warden if accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána may have the right to enter either at the request of or accompanied by a garda. However a lawyer's interpretation of the 1986 Act is that this power does not extend to wardens themselves.

If the Minister responds to this point by telling me the law is adequate as it stands because the warden can rely on a garda to enter a particular dwelling, that is a nonsense. In Dublin we have only three wardens to cover the entire city and two full-time and one part-time warden to cover the county, as the part-time warden also works part-time for Dún Laoghaire Corporation. One can imagine the amount of work they have to do. Can you imagine the reception a dog warden will get if he walks into a busy Dublin city Garda station and asks for a garda to accompany him to a particular house in pursuit of a dog. I do not need to tell you what the sergeant in charge, who is probably trying to deal with far more important problems, would say and I think the warden would be leaving the station without a garda.

The natural instinct of a dog when pursued is to make for home, but home is out of bounds for the warden. In effect, what the wardens are saying is that if they are to have real powers of pursuit they should be entitled to enter the home of the animal. The wardens have obtained independent legal advice and have been told in no uncertain terms that the powers provided under the 1986 Act do not cover entering the dwelling.

If I have not convinced the Minister of the necessity of amending section 11 of the Principal Act I would ask him to bear this point in mind when the Bill is taken in the Seanad. I will certainly be investigating this matter further. I would ask the Minister to take this amendment on board. If he thinks the wording will not take away from what is already in the Bill he should take it on board as it will certainly make the wardens' life easier.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 11.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 3, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

5.—Section 15 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion in subsections (2) and (3) of ‘, with the consent of the Minister,'.".

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the requirement that the local authority must obtain the consent of the Minister before they can make arrangements for the carrying out of their functions. It is in line with the general approach now being adopted of giving local authorities more discretion and removing unnecessary ministerial involvement in local affairs.

Subsection (2) of section 15 of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, allows local authorities, with the consent of the Minister, to enter into arrangements with any person for the provision and maintenance of dog shelters and for the exercise of the functions of the local authority under the Act in respect of the acceptance, detention, disposal and destruction of stray and unwanted dogs. Subsection (3) provides that a local authority may enter into arrangements with any other local authority or with the ISPCA or with a person connected with animal welfare for the exercise of any or all of their functions under the Act other than those under sections 17 and 30. The consent of the Minister is required in relation to entering into such an arrangement with a person connected with animal welfare, but not otherwise. There is no need for the consent of the Minister in these two instances. The local authority will always be in a better position than the Minister to judge the best approach at local level and the Minister should therefore not be involved.

I am concerned about involving local authorities in this legislation as I have no confidence that they will regard its enforcement as a priority. From my experience in my own area there are a great many problems requiring urgent attention which would therefore have a higher priority. The legislation may sound all right but it will be very difficult to have it implemented throughout Ireland.

While the Bill is probably necessary, it is very weak in addressing the problem of cruelty to animals. As Deputy McCartan said, it does not address the problem of dog baiting or the incident when a mutilated dog was discovered in a van driven by barbarians. I would like to see the emphasis being placed on the people engaged in the nefarious activity of dog baiting. It is all very nice to introduce legislation in the general sense, but there are aspects of the dog world that demand a measure of involvement by the Minister to ensure that the cruelty that takes place in many areas is stamped out. Those who engage in dog baiting and dog fighting should be sent to prison rather than putting down the dogs as if the dogs were at fault. The Minister should focus his attention on dog owners whose dogs get out of control — this happens if they are ill-treated — rather than, in a general sense, the hundreds of thousands of inoffensive dogs who give more pleasure to their owners than almost anything. The Minister should focus his attention on stamping our cruelty. Cruelty turns dogs savage. Very often young children can be responsible for hurting a dog and it is very difficult to legislate for that.

The Minister should concentrate on the people who are engaged in extreme acts of cruelty to dogs. No local authority will rate the implementation of the provisions of this Bill as a priority and there will be no real progress unless the Minister insists that they implement the provisions. Will the Minister address the problem and tell me how highly he rates ill-treatment and cruelty to dogs and whether he intends to stamp out the awful practice of dog baiting here?

Because my experiences are based in Dublin I will be taking a different approach to this issue than Deputy McGahon. I would go much further than is provided for in the Bill. The amendment, per se, is an extremely welcome one — I say this not as a member of a local authority but as someone who believes in local democracy — in that it seeks in a Bill to dispense with the need for the Department of the Environment, or the Minister, to give his consent. This is a red letter day and; it should go down in the annals of local democracy that the Department of the Environment are backing out of something.

I would be very suspicious of that.

I say well done to the Minister for the Environment. I wonder whether he realises the precedent he is creating and how many of us will be screaming at him in a short time asking whether local authorities can build their own roads, build their own houses or provide their own facilities without his Department's consent. Recently, in my constituency we managed to complete four houses to end a black spot of trouble which had been used by youths to congregate. It took three years to secure the consent of the Department to do that work. That is the level to which local democracy has been reduced.

In principle, it is very welcome to see a Minister for the Environment abandoning some small element of control over local authorities and I congratulate him. It makes absolute sense and that is the reason he is doing it. The concept of a Department, or a Minister's office, taking direct control and responsibility for the control of dogs in a local authority area was ludicrous. Clearly this is the responsibility primarily and exclusively of the local authorities. They should make their arrangements and their contracts without the necessity of submitting their scheme to the Department of the Environment for examination resulting in a number of officials being engaged for days or weeks investigating it, sending queries, receiving answers and, ultimately, the consent issuing in due course.

The amendment raises a more fundamental problem from my point of view which I touched on earlier, that is the provision in section 15 that allows for the contracting out of the service. I believe the warden service should be the direct employ of the local authority. That is not provided for in the legislation because of the embargo and because of the lack of funds to maintain a proper service. Consequently, local authorities in Dublin, and the majority of other local authorities have contracted out to the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This society are laudable in their own way and I would not wish to take away from the way they operate as a voluntary non-structured organisation that have as their objective the prevention of cruelty of animals generally. However, I consider them singularly unsuited and inappropriate for the provision, maintenance and control of the service dealing with stray and worrisome dogs because there can be a conflict of interest in the work of a warden. To use a phrase from another context a warden often has to be cruel to be kind and often has to take pre-emptive action to deal with a dog that has gone out of control and is threatening not only other farm animals but people in a public place.

I illustrated the example of the two wardens who spent up to 20 minutes trying to subdue a 9 st. cross bred American bull terrier in a public park in Dublin recently. They did not have available to them a stun gun or a hypodermic gun and they had to strangle the animal with the result that now they are in conflict with their employers because this is considered an act of cruelty to an animal. In fact, a major debate is taking place within the ISPCA as to whether wardens should be allowed use a stun gun or a hypodermic gun in the course of their duties. There are problems from the point of view of the ISPCA in terms of such weapons being made available to their wardens. They have said they were not happy that wardens should have what amounts to an imitation firearm in one context or a particularly dangerous weapon on the other. They are concerned about the capacity of wardens to use them. If they are used in a public park to deal with a dangerous animal and the warden misses or the shot goes futher than intended, there may be a risk of injury. I consider this to be offensive to the wardens who do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances.

The end result of all of this is that the wardens in Dublin are given two implements to deal with animals of all sizes in all circumstances — a net and a long pole with a loop at the bottom of it. Armed with these two weapons and their hands they have to go into any situation and deal with some of the most incredibly vicious animals, animals that can keep the Garda Síochána at bay and prevent them from entering particular premises. You can imagine a warden attempting to deal with a dog as big as a rottweiler who has lost reason and sense with nothing but a loop at the bottom of a stick. It is ridiculous in the extreme, but this is what has emerged from the difference between the objectives and duties of a warden and the time honoured objectives and principles of a society whose purpose is to prevent cruelty to animals.

That is a problem that was never anticipated when the Control of Dogs Bill was being debated in 1986 and section 15 was included to encourage local authorities to employ the ISPCA. This has happened. However, there are a a small number of local authorities who have not employed the association and who are employing wardens directly.

The warden service in Dublin, which is the largest in the country, unequivocally want an end to the arrangement with the association and to be employed directly by the local authority. They are doing a job for the local authority as statutorily required under the Act and they want to be employed under the general purposes department directly by the authority, to whom they would then be answerable. In turn, councillors and local representatives would have a much more direct involvement in the way the service is managed, run and delivered to the public.

This is something we can resolve, if not at local level then in the context of legislation. I concede that the problem is most acute in the Dublin area, although I am bemused to know, for example, how counties as large as County Wexford can manage to implement the provisions of the 1986 Act with one dog warden for the entire county, which contains five large provincial towns and numerous villages.

There are other problems with regard to the ISPCA. It plays an extremely laudable and honourable role as a loosely structured voluntary organisation. However, when they were given the duties contracted out under the 1986 Act they found themselves in a scenario that they had not been accustomed to before this. For the first time they came under the strict provisions of statutory legislation. For the first time they were employing people with a specific function laid down in statute law. It has not been easy and it is something that needs to be reviewed by the Minister. Hopefully, it is something that can be resolved at local level by negotiation between the manager, the councillors and the warden service.

I am happy that the Minister has done a sensible and reasonable thing in loosening his hands from the administrative responsibilities of overseeing all of the arrangements made by local authorities. This will give us at local authority level an opportunity to deal directly with the manager and management generally on how the service is developed and maintained.

I could not help thinking when Deputy McCartan spoke about that nine stone dog that perhaps the person was dealing with a lion and did not know it. A labrador weighs about 70 pounds and a nine stone dog 126 pounds. It must have been bigger even that a St. Bernard. It must have had a mane before he came into possession of it.

I would be against giving stun guns or anything of that nature to dog wardens for the reasons outlined by Deputy McCartan. There is a possibility that these might be stolen and used in a way that could be very dangerous to ordinary people. If proper clothing and proper dog catching equipment were made available this would go a long way to solving the problems.

It is also very important that dog wardens should be well trained. Perhaps the Minister would consider setting up a small unit of our top people who could be trained abroad and brought back to pass on that knowledge to our own people here. Obviously, before anyone is allowed out to apprehend dogs that are out of control they would have to be well trained in how to manage such dogs. Can the Minister tell us if he knows of any country where stun guns are supplied to dog wardens? I doubt very much if this is so. If they were distributed I imagine they would be under the control of the police rather than part of the equipment of a dog warden.

I have no preference in regard to whom employs the dog wardens, whether it be the Department of the Environment or the local authority. Traffic wardens are employed by the Department of Justice and that seems to work reasonably satisfactorily, although I am sure there are many traffic wardens who might not agree with that.

The more control that can be given to the local authorities the better. Those of us on Dublin Corporation, of all political shades, are very much at one in our opinions on the handling of a dog service. There is no question but that there is a particular problem in Dublin. Because of the increase in vandalism people have got dogs to protect their homes and themselves from physical abuse and we have to contend with the problem when some of these dogs get out of control. There is the problem of youngsters going around with dogs such as alsatians and these dogs getting out and breeding with other dogs, so that one does not know what kind of dog one is dealing with and whether or not it has a vicious streak. That is all I wanted to say.

I would like to join with the other Deputies in welcoming this move by the Minister. It is good to see him dispense with powers which were preventing the immediate operation of legislation. In inserting this amendment in response to the points made during the course of the debate in this House — I do not know whether he has received representations from the parties outside the House — the Minister is acknowledging the part played by the local authorities and in particular by those who enforce the dog regulations as they stand. I wish to pay tribute to our dog wardens, who operate with a small budget. In this amendment the Minister is giving the local authorities scope to develop their role.

While I acknowledge this is a positive move, I have some reservations. I would like to know if there will be an annual assessment of the activities engaged in and if the Minister will retain control through some section in the Department? I am a bit suspicious; I cannot believe that they are going to divest this power. I have heard the Minister when on this side of the House protest that North Tipperary County Council, of which he was chairman, were having difficulty in obtaining approval from the Department of the Environment for even the smallest of jobs. I think he knows from his own experience that the local authorities can be trusted.

As Deputy McCartan said, some local authorities may be a bit slack and react to events. I hope that will not be the case under this legislation. Since the Minister is granting this power he should consult the local authorities and encourage the people concerned to improve and develop this service. I have met the dog warden in my constituency in County Clare. He does his job well. I would like to acknowledge that the number of serious accidents in my constituency has been reduced dramatically.

I thank Deputies for their support for this amendment. Indeed, I think we will see more powers being devolved. While I am a believer in local democracy I would not like anyone to think that the solution from a public representative's point of view will always be to give local authorities new responsibilities. I should say in all honesty to Deputy Carey, who taunts me now and again, that there have been times when it was a great relief for local representatives to be able to place the blame on somebody else.

In a case which has arisen this week, even though I had devolved authority there is a problem and I am being asked to adjudicate. It should be borne in mind that new powers and authority go hand in hand with the obligation to make decisions. Very often these are made in the context of priorities. In general however the way to proceed in relation to local matters is to grant local representatives new responsibilities and hope that a more dynamic effort will be made through the local authorities.

The local authorities are responsible for enforcing the dog control legislation. What we are trying to do here is to make it easier for them to do this more efficiently without there being the necessity on all occasions to seek the consent of the Minister. Deputy McCartan suggested that the dog control services should be run directly by the local authorities. In an ideal world that is the way it would be run, but we are not living in an ideal world. I should say that we were quite fortunate in 1986 to have a body available to take on this responsibility, the ISPCA, who have played a very distinct role. It will be open to the local authorities to make a different choice in the future if they deem this to be necessary.

Deputies McGahon and Carey were anxious to know if there would be a supervisory role and expressed some doubts about where we go from here. I should tell the House that according to the 1990 report there are 61 wardens throughout the country, both permanent and temporary. In the same year there were 6,809 on the spot fines, 660 prosecutions and 281 convictions. The number of dogs seized in 1990 was 15,468, while 11,644 were surrendered and 25,321 destroyed. In addition, 1,781 dogs were reclaimed or rehomed. In response to Deputy McGahon, who said that we should concentrate on one aspect only — the problem of dog fighting — it is clear from those figures that we are addressing real problems. In the light of our experience in relation to the provision of new regulations, we will adopt the most flexible and best approach to resolve any problems that may arise.

It was remiss of me not to deal with Deputy McGahon's question earlier, but in relation to the unnatural and barbaric practice of dog baiting, while this matter is covered by the animal protection legislation which is enforced by the Department of Agriculture and Food, it is clear that the new powers being granted under this Bill will have an effect on this obnoxious, dangerous and unacceptable practice. First, I will have the new power to ban the importation of certain breeds of dog. Deputies will be familiar with the fact that in many cases the dogs involved have been imported. We can therefore make the task of importing dogs for this purpose considerably more difficult by exercising these powers. This Bill also gives the Minister power to order the destruction or neutering of classes of dogs. All in all therefore, we will have the power to ban the importation of and order the destruction of dogs used in dog fighting.

While the other aspects are not covered by this Bill, this is a most objectionable and horrific practice. The Minister for Justice, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and I will take whatever action is necessary to stamp it out. In the first instance we will try to make it impossible for people to engage in this practice by either banning the importation or ordering the destruction of dogs. However, should it continue, the Department of Justice will apply the law rigorously to put an end to this unpalatable and unacceptable practice.

Deputy McCartan referred to the question of the responsibility of organisations like the ISPCA which may be used by local authorities in the future. The devolution of authority to local councils means they will be in the best position, in the light of their own resources and experience, to make these decisions. I have made it easier and more flexible in that regard. I know that difficulties can arise from time to time in particular areas between the dog warden service and the ISPCA, but since 1986 a lot of good, solid work has been done. It is inevitable that differences will emerge, but the dog warden service is essential in putting the provisions of this Bill into effect. I know they can cause concern, but life is not that simple. We would love to facilitate all views but it is not possible. The example given shows where these conflicts can arise, but if something even more horrific happened as a result of the failure of the dog warden service to take action — however inappropriate that action might seem to some people — we would be even more concerned. What were their options in that case? In given and definite circumstances where action must be taken to safeguard human life one must have regard for them and deal with them in a way which leaves the local authorities in the best position to make long term arrangements in their own areas.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 3, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"5.—Section 13 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the addition in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of ‘or Garda Síochána'.".

This is a very simple addition to the 1986 Act. Section 13 of that Act deals with the power of citizens generally in regard to stray dogs. It means that they can return the dog to its owner or deliver it to a dog warden. Because there are so few dog wardens a person who apprehends a stray dog should be able to return it not just to the dog warden but to a member of the Garda Síochána. It is a very practical suggestion as it means that a garda will transport the dog to the pound, where it will be disposed of. It is incredible to think that in one year 25,000 dogs are destroyed. I wonder if people will ever come to their senses in regard to these animals. It is a remarkable figure. If a person apprehends a stray dog he or she might spend a long time trying to find a warden in County Clare or anywhere else——

The poor warden in County Clare is getting a terrible time.

Deputy Carey paid tribute to the dog warden in Clare and I am sure it is well deserved. However, it is hard to understand how one warden can do the job effectively in such a huge area as County Clare, because the three wardens in Dublin cannot do the job expected of them. A person finding a stray dog should be able to hand it in at the local Garda barracks.

This amendment poses a problem for me as it places an undue burden on the Garda Síochána——

What does it place on the dog?

——in relation to the public finding stray dogs. Under the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, the dog wardens and local authorities have the lead role in relation to seizures, detention, disposal and destruction of stray dogs, including the acceptance of stray or unwanted dogs from members of the public. In this respect the Garda Síochána may deliver any stray dog seized or detained by them to the local authority in whose functional area the dog was found. Given these arrangements, it is not proposed to place a further burden on the Garda Síochána. It would be nice to think that we had all the resources which would facilitate Deputy McCartan's amendment, but we must be realistic. We have had experience of the existing service which does not seem to have presented problems of the order which would require an amendment of this kind. I am sure Deputy McGahon would say that the Garda should devote 100 per cent of their time to other matters and that they should not be involved in a matter of this kind. Indeed, I support that view.

I am disappointed at the Minister's response. It would not be difficult for the Garda Síochána to cope with this matter if there was a small kennel or box provided at each police station into which a dog could be deposited for the period of time it would take for the warden to come for it. It is useful to talk about the distances wardens in rural locations must travel. If a person finds a stray dog in Ennistymon and the dog warden is in Ennis, is the citizen supposed to put the dog in the boot of a car and try to contact the warden somewhere in the county?

In the Dublin area the situation was brought home to me in a letter from the administrative officer of the community and environment department of the corporation, who have responsibility for the dog warden service. In writing to the ISPCA he outlined how they would employ the services of the three dog wardens employed to cover the whole city. The letter, which was written in February of this year, included a suggestion that wardens should concentrate on licence follow-up while the third could handle day to day calls. The legislation clearly recognised that a citizen — any person other than a dog warden or a member of the Garda Síochána — who finds or takes possession of a stray dog shall forthwith do one of a number of things, including returning the dog to its owner. If it is a stray dog it will not have a collar with the name, address and telephone number on it. The citizen may also deliver the dog to a dog warden. However, there are only three dog wardens and two will be employed in knocking on doors asking people if they have a dog and, if so, whether they have a licence. The third thing the citizen can do is to detain the dog and give notice in writing containing a description of the dog, the address of the place at which it was found and the address of the location where it is detained to a member in charge at the nearest Garda station or to a dog warden. When the citizen begins to write a description about the "mutt" found straying, the description can be delivered to the Garda station. However, the dog cannot be delivered because the Minister says it would put too great a strain on the resources of the station and the Garda.

If the legislation is to work this small extension must be made to it. When a citizen finds a dog straying normally he or she will not also find the owner; it is a straying dog. Someone who finds such a dog is not about to hold the stray dog with one hand and search for pen and paper with the other hand in order to draw a general description of the animal and then proceed to look for a dog warden or a garda. Someone who finds a stray dog will try to hand it over to someone, preferably a warden if one can be found. Another option would be to take the dog to the Cats and Dogs Home here in Dublin, as the warden service is located there. The clear and realistic option that someone finding a stray animal should have is to hand it in to the local Garda Síochána station. All that would be required is some kind of corral, and a dog corral does not need to be a massive, sturdy, expensive structure. A garda would then contact the ISPCA, who run the dog warden service, and that organisation would collect the dog in a van and take it away.

This is a reasonable proposal. It is particularly reasonable in the context of Dublin, where there is a very worrying development. In addition to the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Aninmals, there exists in Dublin another organisation called the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There is no link between the two organisations — they are separate and independent of each other. However, the main pound used by the ISPCA, and by definition the dog warden services, for the detention of stray dogs is the Dogs and Cats Home in Ringsend. which is owned by the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. A facility is provided there for anyone who comes along with a stray animal. Recently the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or their administrative officers, have realised the value of the site of the Cats and Dogs Home for development purposes and now propose to close the home. They do not propose to replace it. A major problem would them emerge.

Of the quoted figure of 25,000 dogs disposed of, I would say that a very substantial proportion was disposed of through the Dublin Dogs and Cats Home. At present the local authority are trying to find several independent contractors in the kennels business who would be interested in taking on the service provided at the Dogs and Cats Home. It is certain that none of those contractors, if they were to take on the work, would be located in the city centre. Those in the kennels business tend to be located in the suburbs and some of the satellite towns such a Swords. There is a major logistical problem developing that any person as contemplated by section 13 who found a stray dog would not be able to put that dog into the boot of a car and quickly shoot down to Dogs and Cats Home in Grand Canal Street. Someone finding a stray dog would have difficulty in getting out to the suburbs to some of the outlying facilities, if the local authority were able to provide them. There is no guarantee that Dublin Corporation will be able to find contractors willing to take on that job. The warden service argue very strongly that Dublin Corporation should provide a central city dog compound themselves as part of their duties under the 1986 legislation. The Dublin Corporation do not have the resources to do so. The point I make is that the duty, responsibility and opportunity of the citizen to do something about stray animals will be severely hampered by reason of developments occurring in Dublin in the coming months. That is all the more reason for citizens to have the right of recourse to deposit the animal for a short time at the local Garda Síochána station before collection by the warden service and delivery to whatever outlying location might be found.

My final point is that the citizen must play a fairly central role in the operation of this legislation if it is to continue to work. Because there are so few wardens throughout the country it is clear that the dog warden service cannot be the primary apprehender and depositor of the stray dog. That shortage makes it even more important for the Minister to extend the provision in the practical way I suggest in my amendment. I know that because the House is on Report Stage the Minister cannot come back to me on that issue. I should accept a welcome nod of the head, or perhaps a shake of the head, as an indication of the Minister's views — or perhaps the Chair would allow the Minister to make a very quick response. This issue requires very serious consideration and it is an issue that the Minister may be disposed to carry with him into the Seanad debate for further consideration.

There are certain aspects of Deputy McCartan's contribution in relation to the possible disappearance of facilities hitherto available in Dublin for the keeping of stray dogs for a short period of time that merit examination. This is a matter that can be considered. Of course, it is the responsibility of the local authority to provide such facilities but I am certainly of the view, in the context of all of the other obligations faced by local authorities anywhere in the country and particularly in parts of Dublin city, that we should not add another layer to their work. Between now and the putting of the Bill to the Seanad I should like to further consider some aspects of the Deputy's contribution.

On a point of information, I wish to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the imminent closure of the Cats and Dogs Home in Dublin, referred to by Deputy Pat McCartan, and the implications that would have for the unfortunate stray dogs. Does he know about the horrific number of dogs that are put to death? There would be absolute chaos if the Cats and Dogs Home were to close without alternative facilities being provided. Does the Minister not consider it to be part of his function or part of the Government's function to provide an alternative facility and to meet those who run the Cats and Dogs Home in order to determine what can be done to replace that much-needed facility? There is no city in the world that does not make provision for abandoned animals. The terrible figures identified by Deputy McCartan illustrate the need for a service here in Dublin. In all sincerity, I ask the Minister to consider the issue and find a way to alleviate this horrific problem. I urge him to meet those who run the Cats and Dogs Home in order to determine whether an alternative home might be provided. The Cats and Dogs Home is obviously located in a very lucrative area and I have no doubt that the recent developments in that region have upped the ante in the financial stakes, but if it is to close an alternative location should be found for the facility, possibly on the outskirts of the city.

There is no precedent that would allow me to permit further debate on this amendment, as Deputy McCartan has made his final contribution and resumed his seat. However, I have sympathy with the issue raised by Deputy McCartan in relation to the imminent closure of the Cats and Dogs Home. I shall allow the Minister a brief reply.

I said earlier in reply to Deputy McCartan that there were aspects of his contribution I needed further time to examine. Clearly, the question of the disappearance of facilities so essential in this area would be a worry if there were not, in tandem with that. alternative facilities provided elsewhere. Of course, that will be my ambition. As I have said, responsibility for the implementation of these provisions rests with the local authorities. But all of us together, wherever the direct responsibility lies, must ensure that facilities of that kind are available in this city on a continuous basis in the future.

Acting Chairman

Is amendment No. 12 withdrawn?

In view of the Minister's undertaking to consider this matter further, in particular in the light of the very useful contributions of yourself, Sir, and Deputy McGahon, I am prepared to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

We progress to amendment No. 13 in the name of Deputy Kemmy. I observe that amendment No. 14 is an alternative amendment. Is the House agreeable to debating amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 4, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"(b) (i) Destruction shall not apply to a dog which has been tattooed, implanted, or otherwise identified under a national dog identification and registration scheme, unless ordered by a District Court.

(ii) Where a tattoo or other means of identification is not visible on a dog, the dog shall be scanned for the presence of a microchip implant.".

I spoke in the House this morning about the prohibition or banning of a newspaper of world renown and repute, namely, The Guardian. In passing I should say to the Minister that one cannot treat a newspaper of such renown as one would treat a mad or dangerous dog or a mad breed of dogs. I hope the Minister will place that viewpoint before the Cabinet when they come to consider this matter. It is a matter of grave personal concern to me, particularly since that paper has had the reputation of being a true friend of Ireland at different times and taken up unpopular principled stands on many issues.

Acting Chairman

I cannot allow the Deputy to elaborate on that issue.

I contend that its banning is intolerable and does not make sense.

I did not become involved in the difference of opinion between Deputies McGahon and McCartan for the reason that both made very good points on this Bill. Indeed, it is an illustration of the complexity of the provisions of the Bill that both Members could disagree with one another while making very valid points. They reflected different viewpoints not only in relation to different classes of dogs but also different categories of owners in addition to the different circumstances prevailing in cities and counties and, at times, even the different circumstances obtaining between different sizes of cities themselves. All the points they made were valuable and adequately demonstrate the minefield we must all cross in endeavouring to legislate for all circumstances. That is why I did not become involved because I felt it would be wrong to come down on one or other side.

Generally this has been a very good debate. As you yourself said, Sir, being experienced in terms of handling dogs, I might make the point that we here are all experienced in this respect. If one is as long in politics as I have been and campaigned in many general elections one will have had many close encounters with various kinds and breeds of dogs, some pleasant and others not so pleasant. I recall on one occasion having been twice bitten by a dog. That was in the November 1982 General Election campaign——

A Fianna Fáil dog?

To make matters worse I had to pay a fee of £5 at Barrington's Hospital, now closed, for an injection. I was a large target for an injection. Certainly the nurse relished giving me the injection. Perhaps she was a Fianna Fáil nurse. To boot, I then lost my seat, in addition to having been bitten twice.

It could happen to a bishop.

Like the Minister himself, I would not be afraid of any breed of dog. I am well used to dogs and rather like them. But that is not the issue here.

I contend that to some degree the Minister has lost his way in some of the provisions of this Bill. I appreciate that its drafting was well intentioned and that much work went into it on the part of the Minister and his officials, but they have not tackled some of the nitty gritty issues. For example, the Minister has made no mention of dog fights, the people who organise them or their owners. These are the people we should be chasing. I contend that the provisions of the Bill do not go far enough in tackling the activities of those people.

To contend that all dogs of a certain breed are dangerous and must be controlled lest they attack someone is not a logical response. One cannot legislate in that fashion because certain types of dogs are perverted and will have been trained for the purposes Deputy McGahon mentioned. To ban them in a general or global fashion does not constitute an adequate way of dealing with this matter.

There was mention also of the legislative power to require the destruction or sterilisation of dogs in a humane manner under the provisions of section 6 (2) (h). There was no mention at all of the humane killer, the so-called humane killer. There is the contention on the part of owners of dogs and organisations comprised of dog owners that the so-called humane killer is not at all humane, contending that other methods of termination of dog life should be used — for example, the use of injections. That is something the Minister might well examine also.

Section 6 (2) paragraphs (j), (k) and (l) all deal with the matter of identification of dogs but are too vague and should be tightened up, strengthened and consolidated into one subsection.

Acting Chairman

I must remind the Deputy that he is talking about the Bill in general and not the amendment before the House.

I am speaking specifically on section 6 (2) of the Bill. I could not be more specific. Perhaps you have lost your way somewhat, Sir. My amendment requires the insertion, in page 4, between lines 13 and 14, of the following:

(b) (i) Destruction shall not apply to a dog which has been tattooed, implanted, or otherwise identified under a national dog identification and registration scheme, unless ordered by a District Court.

(ii) Where a tattoo or other means of identification is not visible on a dog, the dog shall be scanned for the presence of a microchip implant.".

There are two aspects to this. I am very clear in what I am saying. I think the Minister understands that also. There are two parts to my amendment whereas there are four parts to the Minister's subsection. One of mine deals with the matter of destruction and the other with the means of identification. Indeed, my amendment deals with both aspects within the one subsection, as does the following amendment, No. 14.

I contend that the Minister's subsection are too vague. I would contend that many legislative provisions cannot be implemented because there are not sufficient dog wardens nationwide, so that in many cases we must rely on the goodwill of voluntary bodies to undertake that work. That is something the Minister should re-examine also. There is need for a tightening and strengthening of the provisions and structures on the ground to ensure that the legislature provisions can be implemented.

I join Deputy Kemmy in requesting consolidation of the legislative provisions. In particular I support his plea that all dogs of a particular breed should not be condemned. To so ensure would necessitate the initiation of a national identification code or system.

When the Bill was first published many Members received representations from various bodies. For example, grave concern was expressed by the Irish Kennel Club about the following list of dogs; American Pit Bull Terrier; Bulldog; Bull Mastiff; Dobermann Pinscher; English Bull Terrier; German Shepherd-Alsation; Japanese Akita; Japanese Tosa; Rhodesian Ridgeback; Rothweiler and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, an extensive list. There are people who have particular affection for dogs of those breeds. The Irish Kennel Club sought the inclusion of the provisions of this amendment in the Bill, pointing out that already the Irish Coursing Club operate a registration/ identification system for all greyhounds. As the Minister will be aware, there is the tattoo on the ear which has been in place since 1926. Therefore, the Irish Coursing Club believed that all such difficulties had been ironed out. The registration system is totally computerised, all dogs having identification numbers tattooed onto their ears. For example, technicians are available on demand through Bord na gCon. Dog owners with litters contact the board and technicians for a minimum charge call to homes directly. The Irish Kennel Club are prepared to act as an agency for any such registration, as proposed by us in these two amendments. If the Minister wishes, this register could cover both pedigree and non-pedigree dogs. They suggest that some consideration should be given to the setting up of a joint venture with the Irish Coursing Club, given their overall experience in this area to date. It is important that any agency would set up as a company in their own right, perhaps under the auspices of the Irish Kennel Club.

The directors estimate a start up pool of approximately 250,000 pedigree dogs and 60,000 greyhounds as an initial registration database. Tattooing and identification would be undertaken by the agency and carried out by stewards employed by them in appropriate locations throughout the country. This register could be used as a basis for following up the payment of dog licences. The Irish Kennel Club are correct in making that point. This system would be of great assistance to dog wardens and make life easier for them. In addition, they would be properly employed in supervising the system and getting rid of stray dogs and other dogs which cause destruction. They propose that dog wardens should be responsible for collecting licence fees. Such a venture would require funding. However, I believe the Minister would be able to set up such a system.

It should be pointed out that the introduction of an identification system here would be in line with current European systems. It would enable the movement of dogs between countries to be monitored and eliminate the need for multiple identification numbering. The Minister needs to address this issue urgently, given the requirements of the Single European Act, the elimination of borders post-1992 and the difficulties which will arise in the movement of livestock and dogs. This point was made at the very end of the Committee Stage debate. As, unfortunately, we did not have adequate time to deal with it properly at that stage, we did not find out how the Minister proposes to deal with the movement of dogs between countries. As Deputy McGahon rightly pointed out, we also need to legislate against the use of dogs for cruel sports. How will the entry of dogs into this country be controlled? As we will not be able to ban dogs, there is a possibility that dogs which have rabies may be brought into the country. We need an identification system. If we do not include a provision in this legislation for such a system, we may have to introduce further legislation in the autumn to cover this matter.

The Irish Kennel Club believe that an effective control system should be put in place. Use must be made of the new technology available in setting up such a system. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the setting up of a registration system. I am very disappointed that he did not put down an amendment to this effect on Report Stage. I should like him to outline how he proposes to deal with the difficulties I see arising in this area in the future.

I support the amendments put down by Deputy Carey and Deputy Kemmy. If we lived in a perfect society I believe it would be possible to have an identification system, but I do not know how it can be implemented in the society in which we live. Deputy Carey referred to the effective identification system used by the coursing club. Of course, this is a totally different matter — coursing is a commercial industry which bears no relationship to the conventional keeping of animals as pets. I am sorry to have to disagree with Deputy Carey on this point. In the context of cruelty to animals, I ask the Minister to address the barbaric sport of coursing. I must confess that I supported this sport during my youth. However, I now believe it is a most barbaric sport which needs to be banned. Even though it is a very thorny and difficult political issue, I ask the Minister to address it during his term of office.

As I said, I believe it would be very difficult to implement an identification system. I know it is part of the legislation but I do not know how it can be implemented. Who will implement the system? Will it be the local authority or the Garda Síochána? Deputy McCartan suggested earlier that every Garda station should have a dog kennel. The Garda have to deal with such a high level of crime that they would laugh at such a proposal. As I said, I do not know how such a system could be implemented. I should like the Minister to refer to this point in his reply.

I should like to add my voice to that of Deputy McGahon in calling for the absolutely disgraceful sport of hare coursing to be banned. Apart from a hyphen and comma here and there, amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are almost identical. Therefore, it does not matter which one is accepted. I have listened to the points made by Deputy Kemmy and Deputy Carey and I have nothing to add to what they have said. I support these amendments.

This is the most extraordinary debate I have ever heard on an amendment. It began with reference to the potential banning of a newspaper and the problems faced by Deputy Kemmy in an election — he thought a Fianna Fáil nurse might have taken advantage of his vulnerability in 1982. Reference was also made to the banning of hare coursing, tattooing and a registration scheme for dogs. I know I am good, but I am not so good that I can deal with all these issues in the context of this amendment.

The effect of paragraph (i) of both amendments would be that the power to destroy a dog detained in connection with an offence, unless someone undertook to pay for its keep, would not be exercisable in relation to a dog which had been tattooed, implanted or otherwise identified under a national identification and registration scheme, if such were in operation. Such a proposal would hardly be acceptable. The fact that a dog could be identified would make it easier to establish contact with its owner and to secure an undertaking to pay for its keep. The objective of this section is to ensure that local authorities will not be out of pocket for keeping a dog and that they will not have to resort to the courts to recover money except in exceptional circumstances. The amendment would negative this and cannot be accepted. Paragraph (ii) of the amendment also lacks clarity and cannot, therefore, be accepted.

In any event the amendment is unnecessary. Section 10 (4) of the 1986 Act requires the Garda superintendent or the local authority to give notice in relation to the dog to the owner or other person in charge of the dog seized as a stray if the name of such owner or other person is known to him or can be readily ascertained. This reference to readily ascertainable identification would obviously include scanning for microchip implantation if such an identification system were in operation in relation to the particular type of dog. At present the only requirement for microchip implantation is in the case of guard dogs. It would therefore be unreasonable to require that every dog seized be scanned for such an implant.

Deputy McGahon asked about my attitude towards registration and the question of tattooing or electronic identification of dogs. As I said on Committee Stage, I am extremely anxious that we gradually move down the road of having a proper tattooing or other identification method for the registration of dogs. I indicated that there are a number of associations or organisations who could help in terms of existing registration and tattooing or other identification marking schemes. This is a matter that will have to be considered in the context of the regulations which will put this legislation into effect. We could consider starting with the most dangerous dogs so that the dog warden service, limited as it is in terms of the demands and the resources that are available, could be committed to doing the most essential work first and as the service develops and more people pay their licences there will be a more comprehensive system to deal with the other aspects. We could thereby gradually improve on and ultimately have a more comprehensive registration system.

Deputy Kemmy referred to the powers of the Minister in relation to the banning and importation of certain breeds of dogs. I emphasised this matter in answer to Deputy McGahon, who was anxious that we do more to eliminate the very unacceptable and barbaric aspects of dog baiting. I recognise the point made by Deputy Kemmy in regard to absolute powers for particular breeds of dogs. It is possible in certain circumstances for some owners to manage certain breeds of dogs in a gentle way and to train them to be acceptable in every way. My difficulty is that there are special nominated breeds that are bred particularly for baiting and fighting and there is worldwide acceptance with regard to that aspect of these breeds.

In a more general way, I take the point made by the Deputy. It will always be the case, just as it is in many other walks of life, that with proper treatment and management and a proper relationship between man or woman and dog, even dogs that are seen internationally as a threat can find a home in certain places. I do not know how we can be so flexible in terms of legislation and regulations as to take account of these matters, but it is important to understand the position and then we can see to what extent we can meet the various considerations.

I will not press my amendment in view of the fact that the Minister has given a commitment that he will work to establish a comprehensive national identification system for dogs. It is something of which we would approve as long as it is accurate and reliable I hope the Minister has not lost his sense of humour. The only reason I made a comparison with a newspaper and breeds of dogs was to show how ludicrous the position is. I did not mean to upset the Minister in any way.

I recognise that.

I responded to some prompting from behind me about bites from dogs but I was being a little facetious. However, I understand how serious this matter is and how important it is to legislate properly for the future and to deal in a caring and compassionate way not only with the problem of ridding the country of vicious dogs but also with the whole problem of stray animals which roam the streets and the countryside. That is the intention of the Bill, the thrust of which I support.

While I accept the bona fides of what the Minister has said in his reply, he did not indicate whether in future there would be participation by this country in a Euro-identification system or whether preparations would be made for that. Section 6 (2) (k) of the Bill makes provision for other means of identification of dogs or of specified classes of dogs and of their ownership. I appreciate what the Minister said in his reply in that he proposes to introduce a system of identification and to tackle the problem of banned dogs and other dangerous dogs, the activities of which resulted in the necessity for this legislation.

I am not totally happy that the Minister has reassured the people who asked us to make representations on their behalf, people who own valuable animals whose breeding and commercial potential should be recognised. That is the reason we put down this amendment. However, I will take what the Minister has said in good faith. He introduced some amendments which were put down on Committee Stage. Perhaps by the time the Bill goes to the Seanad he will also have changed his mind about identification and microchips.

I will retire from public life the day I make the Deputy entirely happy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.

We will move on to amendment No. 15 in the names of Deputies Mitchell, Carey and Allen. As amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are alternatives, I propose that they be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 4, line 18, after "jurisdiction." to insert "The identification of a dog under a Registration Scheme shall be taken to constitute such an undertaking'.".

This amendment is similar to the previous amendment. The Minister said nothing about participation in a Euro-system or what would happen when regulations come from Europe. Are we participating in any discussions about the matter?

I have had a brief look at what is happening in other countries in Europe, but that should not concern us in the context of these amendments.

The point raised by Deputy Carey is a valuable one. We should look at everything in the European context. We have no alternative than to do so. I have been reading some American legislation and while it is outside our brief we can learn from countries where these problems surfaced. There is no reason we should not bring our legislation into line with European legislation. It is in order for Deputies on this side of the House to ask how we are faring with regard to European legislation and if we are working towards common European standards. Other countries with greater populations than us control dogs better than we do. One does not see dogs roaming the streets of European cities as one does in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and other cities. The Minister can learn from the European and American experience. The Minister might reply in that context although we intend to withdraw these amendments in the interests of speeding up the process.

In the interest of speeding up the debate, the general concensus on this side of the House seems to be to withdraw these amendments so I will not speak to mine.

I thank Deputies for facilitating the move on to other amendments by withdrawing these amendments. There is not a common arrangement within the Community with regard to legislation of this kind. I have looked at the position in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany and there definitely is a move towards the registration of animals and other ways of identifying the owners of dogs. We are gradually moving in that direction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman

We now move on to amendment No. 21. Amendments No. 22 to 25 are related and we will take amendments Nos. 21 to 25, inclusive, together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 21.

In page 4, lines 22 and 23, to delete "more than 5 dogs aged over 4 months" and substitute "a number, specified in the regulations, of dogs aged over four months, but such number being not less than six".

This is a minor amendment. The Minister has not been too keen to take on board our amendments, but we hope the points we are making will find some expression in future legislation. We are not trying to put obstacles in the way of the Minister. We are trying to improve legislation which is difficult to frame. Although I will not be pressing my amendment I would be glad to hear the Minister's reply because my amendment does not differ too much from what is in the Bill.

I support Deputy Kemmy's amendment as the intention in it is the same as ours. Representations have been made to us that this formula would give more latitude to people in the industry. I too would like to hear from the Minister.

My amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are identical except that the word "six" is in figures in one and numbers in the other. We are getting down to small print when it comes to that. This is a minor matter on which I do not want to speak.

The effect of these amendments would be to allow regulations specifying standards for premises to be made in respect of premises where more than five dogs are kept. The reference to five dogs has been in the Act since 1986. It was felt then that that was the right point at which to draw the line. Nothing has happened since to change that view. It is not unreasonable to take the view that a premises with more than five dogs constitutes a kennel and should conform with standards set down for kennels. Certainly it is in the interests of dogs that their welfare be subject to control where more than five are kept in one place. For this reason the amendments cannot be accepted. I know that Deputies can argue about numbers, but it is really a small area of disagreement in terms of this legislation.

I do not want to get into an argument as to who is right on numbers. This was the way it was developed in 1986. It has not presented any great problems and it should be left alone. Where we are talking about keeping premises for dogs and making sure they are properly kept, the consensus view up to now has been that we should keep fairly close to the lines that existed since 1986. That is what we are doing here. We are not saying that the Deputies are wrong in what they are seeking to achieve. We are just holding on to the balance that has worked well and has seemed to be a fairly proper one up to now.

It is a request of the industry, the greyhound breeders in particular.

I know I do not have the right to come back on this, but the Deputy will appreciate, and it will emerge in other amendments, that I cannot accept the position that the Minister for the Environment, in the discharge of his functions, must represent a particular view. I have to take all aspects into account and I am mindful of those representations. To respond 100 per cent in terms of legislation to such a view would not be the way to legislate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendment Nos. 26 and 27, in the name of Deputy Kemmy are related so we will take amendments Nos. 26 and 27 together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 26.

In page 4, lines 34 and 35, after "authority" to insert "or animal welfare organisation".

I submitted these amendments in the interests of animal owners associations. One association wrote to me about this. They feel that not all local authorities are so constituted as to be able to devote much of their time, attention and finance to dog control, they feel they have stepped into the breach many times and are in effect doing the work of local authorities in this context. That should be recognised and acknowledged by the Minister by inserting the words "animal welfare organisation" into the legislation. Not all animal welfare groups are of the one mind but the Minister should nevertheless acknowledge the contribution of some of these groups who have a good track record.

I am not sure if Deputy Kemmy was in the House when I was debating with Deputy McCartan and others the question of devolving more authority from my Department to the local authorities.

I specified that the Control of Dogs Act and the responsibility for the administration of that Act lies with the local authorities but that since 1986 local authorities, because of their resources, have entered into contracts with welfare organisations of the kind to which Deputy Kemmy refers. A considerable amount of good work has been achieved. There is no great argument between us except that the legal remit resides with the local authority. It would not be desirable if that was not absolutely clear and there was a variation in terms of who should shoulder that responsibility. The existing arrangements which allow local authorities to decide how to exercise their functions are the best. Where the local authority are in a position to discharge these functions through their own resources they have freedom to do so; where the local authority want to contract the function to the ISPCA that facility is available. There may be other organisations in a position to help and support.

During the preparation of the Bill and while it was being debated on Second and Committee Stages I met a great number of organisations associated with dog welfare who had an interest in the legislation. That was very helpful in understanding the interest, the care and the concern of a great many people for their dogs. The organisations representing these people are extremely helpful and educational. They are associated with local authorities in the introduction of by-laws, the allocating in public parks or elsewhere of areas for exercising dogs, and a whole range of activities. The ultimate control with regard to the exercise of the law resides with the local authority. They have the right to exercise these functions by working with welfare organisations in the discharge of their responsibility. The Deputy should feel in those circumstances that we have the best of all worlds.

That is a lengthy reply to the point I made. Co-operation exists in theory in some areas but it is not uniform or as good as the Minister might think.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 4, line 44, after "premises" to insert "subject to advice by veterinary experts".

The formula of words in the Bill is not tight enough. The wording would be strengthened by the addition of the proposed words. All sorts of buildings and sheds can be called kennels. We have an obligation to ensure the proper construction and operation of kennels. The formulation of words in the Bill is too loose.

The guidelines for the construction and operation of guard dog kennels are set out in the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, and the Guard Dog Regulations, 1988 and 1989. These were drawn up in consultation with the ISPCA, among others, and have been found to be satisfactory. I do not know what this House would expect me to do in these circumstances. I would, of course, have recourse to advice in relation to technical matters or specialist areas. Ministers require support systems and advice on detailed matters of this kind. In the context of primary legislation the absolute requirement in all cases is to do what is eminently sensible. It is achievable without being included in legislation.

I moved that amendment in the context of European legislation concerning abattoirs and other such buildings. It is necessary to have a uniform application of standards, not only nationally but in the European context. In the interests of brevity I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 29 is in the name of Deputy Kemmy. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are alternatives and amendment No. 32 is related. By agreement, we will discuss together amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32. If amendment No. 29 is negatived, amendments Nos. 30 and 31 cannot be moved.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 5, lines 3 to 5, to delete "or of specified classes of dogs either generally or in specified circumstances".

People who have read the Bill and organisations of dog owners are concerned that these words are unnecessary. The Bill makes provision for the muzzling of specified classes of dogs either generally or in specified circumstances. Members and officers of dog owners' associations feel that the words proposed to be deleted are superfluous and unnecessary and that the Bill would be just as strong without them. Can the Minister justify retaining these extra words which people feel are redundant and unnecessary?

Our amendment is more specific in that if the Minister was seeking the power generally or in specified circumstances in this section it would be more particularly illustrated. In our amendment we have outlined the circumstances in which the Minister would require powers to regulate dogs as:

in the event of an outbreak of rabies anywhere in Ireland or make provision for the muzzling of dogs, not being of a breed registered by the Irish Kennel Club on January 1st, 1992, in specified circumstances or in specific cases.

In particular we are anxious that the Minister would take advantage of this legislation to formalise some of the expert facilities available — for example, the Irish Kennel Club provide a very good service and have an expert knowledge of dogs. The Minister has yet to explain why he sought such extensive powers as the words "make provision for the muzzling of dogs or of specified classes of dogs either generally or in specified circumstances" seem to convey. I ask the Minster to reconsider his position.

These are very important amendments, probably the most important amendments we have discussed this morning, as they deal with the right of the Minster to make regulations.

We are wasting our time discussing the provisions of this Bill because practically everything in the Bill as drafted is enabling legislation, enabling the Minister to do this, that and the other without coming back to the House for approval or having to consult with various bodies such as the Irish Kennel Club, the campaign against dog muzzling and the other responsible organisations who are concerned about the welfare of dogs but who are only too anxious to protect the public from the menace of unruly, unsafe and dangerous dogs.

The Minister and his Department seem to believe that they are the only people of wisdom in this matter. While they may listen occasionally in a rather gratuitously patronising fashion to the various dog owner organisations, nevertheless they reserve the right to ride roughshod over everybody. This is the problem with this Bill generally.

Subsection (d) states:

make provision for the muzzling of dogs or of specified classes of dogs either generally or in specified circumstances;

Deputy Kemmy is possibly right in seeking to shorten it and simply make provision for the muzzling of dogs. With respect to Deputy Kemmy, his amendment is a mere tidying up exercise by saving two lines of the Bill, but it still leaves the Minister with untrammelled powers as there is no general direction as to how the Minister should proceed.

In my amendment No. 31 I seek to delete "or of specified classes of dogs either generally or in specified circumstances" and substitute "who have displayed certain behavioural characteristics." The idea that certain breeds of dogs can be categorised as dangerous is nonsense and simply does not stand up; also the idea that big dogs are more dangerous than smaller dogs is not true; because we must not forget that a small dog like a little Jack Russell can inflict a very serious bite on a child of three or four years. In fact, when I was campaigning in the local elections in June last year I was collared by a person who showed me a very severe scar on his face which he said he got from a small dog like a Jack Russell or Pekinese when he was three or four years of age. It is the behavioural characteristics of dogs that count and I believe there has to be a certain amount of give and take.

Up to a point dogs and their owners have to be trusted and we have to assume that dog owners are responsible until proven otherwise. What we are concerned about are those irresponsible dog owners who do not have identity tags on their dogs or who do not license their dogs and who allow their dogs to run around freely. The Minister specifies certain breeds of dogs, but there are all sorts of mongrel varieties that are cross breeds with 49 other types of dogs. I do not know how you would define a dog which is a quarter German Shepherd, a quarter Rothweiler and half of something else. The Minister is being far too specific.

Amendment No. 32 in my name is very similar to amendment No. 30 because I specifically mention the Irish Kennel Club, which is a typical example of a very responsible group of dog owners. We should write into the Bill a specific commitment from the Minister to try to reach agreement with the Irish Kennel Club.

Deputy Carey makes a very interesting point about the outbreak of rabies anywhere in Ireland. We should be very concerned about this. Perhaps this is a point we should consider in the context of the Maastricht Treaty referendum because, as I understand it, under the Treaty powers will be taken away from this country to control the introduction of such diseases as rabies into our country. This is a very serious matter and is another very good reason for voting against the Maastricht Treaty. We have been very lucky that we have managed to keep out rabid dogs over the years and it is very important that we continue to do so.

First, I wish to reject out of hand the allegation that I have been patronising towards dog welfare organisations or that I am trying to ride roughshod over anybody in this legislation. I ask Deputy Garland to choose his battleground a little more carefully if he wishes to make statements which I believe are totally out of character with the way the debate has evolved from the very beginning.

Having debated this Bill with my colleagues over the past few months I am extremely confident that we are going to put in place effective legislation and provide regulations that will be very measured and flexible. They should help us to solve the problem of controlling dangerous dogs and also facilitate those individuals and groups who have taken proper care of man's best friend.

May I deal first with Deputy Kemmy's amendment where he seeks to delete "or of specified classes of dogs either generally or in specified circumstances". I realise that a Minister has more access to support and advice on drafting and this enables us to put into law something which is worthwhile and effective. I regret to say that the effect of the Deputy's amendment would require me to muzzle all dogs all the time or no dogs at all. The effect of stating "of specified classes of dogs either generally or in specified circumstances" gives us the flexibility to muzzle certain dogs for certain periods of time, but to delete those words would create the totally opposite result from what Deputies are genuinely seeking to achieve. I find it very difficult to accept an accusation levelled directly at me from Deputy Garland in circumstances where I believe what I am providing is infinitely more flexible and more capable of meeting the need than the proposals before me.

In relation to responsibility for rabies control, Deputies will be aware that this comes under the aegis of my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food. However, in the event of such an occurrence, and if I were required to do so, it would be open to me under the Bill as it stands to introduce muzzling for all or specified classes of dogs to combat the spread of rabies. There is not need to specifically provide for that contingency under the Bill.

Secondly, to confine muzzling to dogs of a breed not registered by the Irish Kennel Club on a specified date does not seem to make much sense unless it is the intention to confine muzzling to mongrel dogs only and pitbull terriers, which are not registered by the Irish Kennel Club. I could not under any circumstances accept such an approach. My overall responsibility is to protect the public so far as is practicable from dogs which have the potential to inflict serious injury. Such dogs would include types of breeds of dogs registered with the Irish Kennel Club. The majority of mongrel dogs would be made up of strains or crosses of the dog breeds registered with the Irish Kennel Club. Apart from any other consideration, it would be difficult in the eyes of the public to justify legislating for mongrel but not pedigree dogs when either type can inflict serious injuries.

Amendment No. 31 from Deputy Garland introduces the concept of behaviour based legislation. The difficulties with this concept were dealt with at some length in the opening speech on Second Stage. It is difficult to accept the argument that a dog must be proven to be a public menace before taking action. Such a concept would have the inevitable result of dog attacks being made before the particular dog could be dealt with — in other words, the dog would have to bite somebody before he could be muzzled. The first bite principle is an outdated one. How would you explain to a distraught parent that their child had to be savaged before his or her assailant could be required to wear a muzzle?

Apart from these points of principle there are a number of drafting defects in amendment No. 31 which make it unacceptable. For example, what does "certain behavioural characteristics" mean? There is a major problem with amendment No. 32 and indeed with a number of similar amendments which crop up later. It is well to state the position now in relation to the basic principle. It is wholly inappropriate that any private organisation or individual would be given the power of veto over any action which the Minister proposes to take in relation to the control of dogs or specified classes of dogs.

In relation to the particular body referred to, the Irish Kennel Club is no doubt a very fine and worthy body which performs a useful function. It must be borne in mind however that it is a body which represents certain dog owners and, as such, would have a vested interest in the issues we are dealing with here. Under no circumstances could any such vested interest group be given special status under the Bill. This must be stated very firmly and clearly. This will be the position also in relation to various other amendments which have been put down and which would seek to give special status to the Irish Kennel Club.

I had a meeting with the Irish Kennel Club shortly after my appointment and I would consider it a very successful meeting. In no way was I patronising to the work they do. I think Deputies will appreciate we cannot reach a stage where particular interests of that kind, however genuine, however strong their arguments might be in particular cases, can actually have a veto over proposals of this kind. How, for instance, would you argue with somebody who was not a member of the Irish Kennel Club, who was not registered with that organisation and who had a particular dog that the only reason he had a different regime was because he was not registered with the Irish Kennel Club?

Deputies will realise, in the context of the amendments here, that I have a better solution and one which is infinitely more flexible. When addressing this question Deputies asked why I was seeking this power. There was a view that I was seeking too much power. In effect, what is being granted to me, in terms of the amendments, is considerably more power than I want and considerably more than any Minister would want in helping to solve these problems. I do not want to be critical of individual Deputies because, as I said at the beginning, in view of the support in my own Department and that of the Attorney General, I have access to advice in terms of the drafting of law which, I know from my own time in Opposition, is infinitely tougher to deal with. I want to say——

Acting Chairman

I have to interrupt the Minister. As it is now 2.15 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day.

I thought the question was to be put at 2.30 p.m.

Acting Chairman

No, it was 2.15 p.m.

I am not going to challenge you, but it is a pity we do not have a chance to reply to the Minister's point because it was the kernel of the whole Bill. I understood the question was being put at 2.30 p.m.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry, Deputy, but it is clearly stated here that the question is to be put at 2.15 p.m.

From my memory of the Order of Business this morning the time was 2.15 p.m. and the Chair is correct. I do not anticipate there will be a division of the House in answer to the question being put. If the House were agreeable could we continue until 2.30 p.m.?

Acting Chairman

I am sorry, Deputy. I have to take the Order as it is before. me. Even if the Deputies did agree to continue until 2.30 p.m., the Chair does not have that discretion. I will put the question.

Deputy Kemmy rose.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry I cannot allow a discussion on the matter. I have to follow the Order.

Common sense must prevail and we have some say in the matter here. There is no point in coming into the House unless we can speak our mind. We are not going to press it to a vote. As far as I understand, 15 minutes was allocated for the voting procedure. We are informing the House that we will not call a vote so we propose to use the 15 minutes to make other points. Half the amendments have not been reached. The last point the Minister made is extremely important, it is the kernel of the whole debate and I wanted the opportunity to reply to him. I see nothing wrong with that.

Acting Chairman

I understand and I appreciate what the Deputy is saying, but the Chair has no discretion to extend the time allowed for this debate. It is a long standing rule of the Chair that the debate cannot be continued, even by agreement, when the time specified in the Order has expired. I assume the Whips have agreed to this and I have to proceed accordingly.

Commonsense and intelligence must prevail here. You cannot run this establishment on a lack of understanding.

On a point of order——

Acting Chairman

I will take the point of order.

In respect of the question to be put, my understanding was that the amendments in the name of the Minister not reached and those other amendments in our own names that were acceptable to the Minister would be agreed. Can that be clarified?

Acting Chairman

I have no indication of what the agreement was other than the Order Paper I have in front of me. If there is a complication or a misunderstanding, it must rest with the people who made the Order.

Question: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed" put and agreed to.
Top
Share