Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 2 Jul 2010

Vol. 714 No. 3

Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009 [Seanad]: Second Stage

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

I am pleased to bring the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009 before the Dáil today. As the House is well aware, the topic of regulating dog breeding establishments has been on the agenda for some years now. In 2005, my predecessor established a working group to review the management of dog breeding establishments and make recommendations on the matter. This followed some well-publicised incidents of abuse, where dogs reared in Ireland were sold in a very poor condition. This was highlighted, in particular, on "Prime Time" and as Minister I was determined to deal with this very important animal welfare issue. That is why the Bill is before us today. The working group made a number of recommendations, the majority of which I intend to implement through this legislation, thereby providing for the first time in Ireland regulation of dog breeding establishments. The Bill will also increase the general level of the dog licence fee which has not changed since 1998.

At the outset, let me point out that no one with a premises, house or farm with less than six breeding bitches need worry about this Bill as they would not come within the definition of a dog breeding establishment. I want to assure the House that the preparation of this Bill has involved a large amount of ongoing consultation with a variety of interested parties, including Government Departments, voluntary bodies and sectoral interests. The draft Bill has been informed by these consultations with, among others, the Hunting Association of Ireland, the Irish Greyhound Board, which was represented on the working group, and the Dogs Trust. My officials and I have engaged intensively in particular with the Irish Greyhound Board, to re-assure it regarding its concerns relating to the Bill. To that end I will introduce amendments on Committee Stage. In addition, over 650 submissions where made in connection with the report of the working group, the majority of which were in favour of the regulation of dog breeding establishments. I wish to thank all of those for their participation and I am confident that the Bill is stronger for their input.

I have indicated to all concerned that there can be no exemptions for any breed of dog from the animal welfare provisions of this Bill and that we must ensure that we have adequate traceability. In this regard, it is my firm intention that we move towards microchipping for all dogs as quickly as possible. I have also stated that I understand the legitimate concerns of certain industry sectors, such as the Irish Greyhound Board, and I am prepared to accommodate them as best I can. For that reason it is proposed that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would amend the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 to legislate for welfare provisions for members of the Irish Greyhound Board. Once amended, the welfare of Irish Greyhound Board registered greyhounds would be addressed through the amended 1958 Act which would then replace, for Irish Greyhound Board registered greyhound breeders and trainers only, the provisions of the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009.

I must stress that before these provisions can be introduced, I, as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, must be satisfied that the animal welfare standards in the amended 1958 Act are of the same high standard as those in the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009. In particular, the amended legislation must provide for adequate traceability, the same level of enforcement and the involvement of local authority veterinary inspectors in inspection of facilities. There can be no diminution of standards whatsoever. We are following this course of action to ensure there is no unnecessary duplication, something which was highlighted.

As part of this proposal, until such time as the provisions listed above are incorporated into the 1958 Act the regulation of dog breeding establishments containing greyhounds will continue under my Department as provided for under the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009. Separately, the concerns of hunt clubs, as defined in the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009, will be addressed through the addition of a subsection to section 15 to allow for the continuation for the time being of the practice of tattooing of dogs in dog breeding establishments operated by hunt clubs as an alternative option to micro-chipping and the addition of a subsection to section 15 to require such tattoos to be registered on a database for traceability purposes.

I understand the difficulties for this sector in moving to a different form of traceability but I must point out that the international evidence shows that microchipping is superior and indeed cheaper. The adequacy of tattooing as a form of traceability will be assessed as part of a review of the legislation, to take place a year after its coming into force. If this review shows that tattooing is not proving adequate, we will have to move towards microchipping of all dogs. With the exception of these two amendments, hunt clubs would be subject to all of the remaining provisions of the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009.

Regulations will be developed upon the enactment of this Bill. These are intended as a reasonable and practical approach to give effect to the act. The regulations will be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the needs of specific groupings such as, for example, hunt dogs, for whom it is recognised that communal sleeping facilities are considered most appropriate. I would like to scotch the rumours that have been put out by RISE! and others that I am insisting on central heating for kennels; it is simply not true.

My Department will retain responsibility for dog control for the very practical reason that the dog control service is operated through the local authorities, while the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility for animal welfare. Deputies will be aware that my colleague the Minister, Deputy Smith, is also preparing an animal welfare Bill which will deal comprehensively with animal welfare issues. It will also deal with banning fur farming and I hope we can introduce it in the autumn.

I want to pay tribute to the many dog control staff and veterinary staff who work tirelessly to re-home strays, pick up abandoned dogs and keep residential areas and farms free from uncontrolled dogs. It can be a thankless job and should be acknowledged. I am confident that the measures in this Bill will assist them in their duties. As I have already mentioned, the basis for this Bill is the report of the working group on the review the management of dog breeding establishments. It should be noted that the terms of reference in 2005 of that group did not exclude greyhounds and the Irish Greyhound Board was represented on the working group. The following is a summary of the majority recommendations of that group and the actions I intend to take in regard to each.

The working group recommended that a State regulated registration system for dog breeding establishments be put in place and that these regulations should be enforced through the existing local authority dog control structures. The group also recommended that the regulations should include a comprehensive set of statutory enforceable standards for the operation of dog breeding establishments and provision for inspections by local authority officers. There are a number of separate issues within this recommendation. The first, that a regulation system be put in place, is one we can all agree with if only for the simple reasons of the welfare of dogs and for the good of this country's reputation in respect to care of dogs.

It is only proper that in a modern caring society legal remedies be put in place to deal with a minority of breeding establishments that rear pups in appalling conditions and sell malnourished and ill pups onto an unsuspecting public. I am heartened that the Hunting Association of Ireland and the Irish Greyhound Board have agreed with the need for such regulations. It is appropriate that regulation should be carried out by the local authorities whose dog control staff and veterinary staff have built up a considerable level of experience in dealing with dog control issues and would have a local knowledge of existing dog breeding establishments, albeit without the powers to regulate such premises until now. In regard to inspections, the Bill provides for inspection of dog breeding establishments, where necessary. Inspections are not mandatory but after initial registration are likely to arise in response to specific welfare issues.

I want this Bill to form the basis of a co-operative relationship between the local authorities and well run dog breeding establishments. The provisions in the Bill need not cause concern for those establishments who, over the years, have built up good premises and practices in co-operation with their local veterinary practice. As part of this relationship the local authority will be required to inform a dog breeding establishment of any grounds on which it would refuse to register a premises. The local authority will be statutorily obliged to pay heed to any reply from the establishment in regard to a potential refusal or conditions attached to a registration certificate. This will encourage a co-operative relationship between the local authority and any dog breeders in its administrative area.

The working group recommended that dog breeding establishments be defined based on the number of female dogs with breeding potential present on the premises. Therefore, a dog breeding establishment would be defined as "a premises containing more than 5 female dogs, aged over 4 months, with breeding potential".

Furthermore, the group emphasised in its report that the legal definition of a dog breeding establishment must be clear and unambiguous to ensure that regulations are enforceable and to avoid the experience in the UK where legal argument over whether a dog is one breed or another has rendered dog control legislation difficult to implement. Such a problem would invariably arise in Ireland if we made exemptions for breeds of dogs.

The Bill defines a dog breeding establishment as a premises at which not less than six bitches are kept, each of which is more than four months old and capable of being used for breeding purposes. I have signalled that I am willing to change the minimum age from four to six months in response to calls in the Seanad but this does not invalidate the sensible reason for the four month minimum, which was to ensure that every dog with breeding potential is included. It does not mean I am setting down a marker for when breeding should start.

The working group rejected the idea that the number of litters produced should form the basis for definition because the constant monitoring required would make the regulations difficult and potentially expensive to enforce. It is my belief that the limit of not less than six bitches will exclude the majority of people who keep dogs as pets. While there might be instances, such as on farms, where the number of bitches might exceed six, the stipulation that they have to be capable of breeding will ensure retired animals are excluded from the count provided they are sterilised. Pups under six months would also be excluded.

The working group recommended that the new regulatory regime be self-financing and funded by varying the existing general dog licence fee. I originally proposed that the cost of regulation and inspection of these establishments will not fall on the general population but will be borne by the dog breeding establishments through a registration fee. However, having regard to concerns of the Hunting Association of Ireland and the Irish Greyhound Board, I have agreed registration fee exemptions for HAI registered members and greyhound trainers. I have also agreed to widen the fee bands so that a dog breeding establishment with six to 18 bitches capable of breeding and over six months old will pay a fee of €400. I reiterate that someone with less than six breeding bitches will not be brought under the Act, the regulations or the fees. These concessions on fees will mean that the cost of regulation of such establishments will be borne by fee paying registered breeders and the regular dog licence fee.

The new fees will vary in accordance with the number of breeding bitches so as to reflect the size and scale of the operation, as recommended by the working group. To that end the appropriate fee bands will be as follows: in the case of a dog breeding establishment at which six to 18 eligible bitches are kept, €400; for 19 to 30 bitches, €800; for 31 to 100 bitches, €1,600; for 101 to 200 bitches, €3,000; and a further €1,600 for each 100 bitches thereafter. The fee will be payable to the local authority and the moneys raised are intended to cover the costs of regulation and inspection. Any remaining balance will be spent on dog control in general.

The fees can be hardly considered excessive when set against the income stream from the number of breeding bitches. For example, a premises with 12 breeding bitches might conservatively be expected to produce nine litters per annum of six pups each, resulting in 54 pups. A search on the Internet will show a healthy range of prices for pedigree dogs. Akitas and bulldogs sell from €800 to €1,500 each, Kerry blues are a more modest €250 to €350 each and the popular but apparently plentiful Jack Russell sells for up to €120. These average prices appear to have come down in the past year. The proposed registration fee of €400 for a puppy farm of 12 bitches producing a modest 54 pups would equate to a cost of only €7.40 per pup. If the breeder has three times that number of bitches, and consequently three times as many pups, the registration fee would be less than €3 per pup. Such a charge could be hardly considered excessive if it ensures that the country has properly run and reputable dog breeding establishments.

The cost of owning a dog is as nothing to most people compared to the immeasurable joy and health benefits to be gained from the companionship of a dog. It follows that people should be careful and responsible when purchasing dogs by making sure they know its source. The ISPCA guidelines regarding care of pets should be followed. The ISPCA also advises new owners to bear in mind the financial implications of owning a dog. Vaccinations, flea and worm treatments and veterinary expenses such as nail cutting and teeth-cleaning soon mount up. The cost of boarding kennels whilst one is on holidays should be also considered.

The working group recommended that all dogs kept in breeding establishments, including their offspring, be electronically microchipped to ensure traceability and assist the enforcement of the registration system. It is a requirement of the Bill that each dog in a breeding establishment shall be microchipped. This provision builds on existing practice whereby any dog registered with a breed association is microchipped for the purpose of registration and verifying bloodlines. A number of companies provide microchipping services at present. The microchip, which is approximately the size of a grain of rice, is implanted under the skin of a dog's neck. It serves a useful purpose in helping dog control staff reunite stray dogs with their owners. It is my intention on Committee Stage to provide that dogs in dog breeding establishments will be microchipped at 12 weeks for the first year of the operation of the Act. This will reduce the burden on breeders from the original requirement of eight weeks. After a transitional period the provision will require all dogs to be microchipped before leaving the establishment.

The working group recommended that the new dog breeding regulation system be introduced on a phased basis using an improvement notice model to avoid the creation of a surplus of dogs as a result of the closure of substandard dog breeding establishments. It is my intention to provide for as smooth a transition as possible. The Bill provides for a period of up to three months for a lead-in time and I propose to extend this to six months in response to calls made in the Seanad. The lead-in time will be provided from the commencement of the Act. It shall be lawful for an existing dog breeding establishment to operate during this period, thereby facilitating a smooth transition to full registration. At this stage, there cannot be a dog breeder in the country who is unaware of the pending legislation. The six month lead in period will allow all stakeholders to familiarise themselves with the requirements of the legislation and for liaison to occur between local authorities and dog breeders.

In line with best practice in regulatory regimes, there is an appropriate scale of regulatory actions which can be taken to gain compliance. I envisage a liaison between local authorities and dog breeding establishments. If agreement is not reached between the local authority and the establishment, the authority will be empowered under section 18 to issue an improvement notice. This improvement notice can be issued only by a local authority veterinary practitioner and not a dog warden. The notice will state the measures to be taken in a specified timeframe. This is in line with the recommendations of the working group.

The working group also stressed that the provisions of the Bill be meaningful, relevant and implementable. As a logical next step to the improvement notice, the Bill provides local authorities with the power to close a premises where standards present a significant health risk. It is envisaged that such a closure notice under section 19 of the Bill would be used only in the event of a significant and immediate threat to public health. This provision will provide re-assurance to the public that quick action can be taken in response to threats to public health from dog breeding establishments. While the dog warden can carry out the initial inspection, I will provide by an amendment on Committee Stage that an improvement order can be issued only after a visit by a local authority veterinary officer.

Other provisions are included to ensure the correct functioning of a regulatory regime for dog breeding establishments. It is important that provision is made for an appeals mechanism where conditions are imposed on a registration. Each successful applicant will receive a registration certificate after submitting the appropriate fee and completing an application form. The Bill provides that where a local authority proposes to impose conditions on the issuance of a registration certificate, it shall notify the applicant and must consider the applicant's response. Furthermore, the applicant can appeal the decision of the local authority to the District Court.

It is important that the Bill allows me, as Minister, to issue mandatory guidelines relating to minimum standards for dog breeding establishments. For the regulations to be successful and receive broad acceptance, I place great importance on full consultation. In excess of 650 individual submissions were received by my Department at the consultation phase after the working group report. While in general there was support for regulation, there was no consensus on the way forward. I assure the House that I will finalise the guidelines only after consultation with interested parties, including the Hunting Association of Ireland, the Irish Greyhound Board, the Dogs Trust and local authority veterinary officers.

A provision is necessary requiring the owner of an establishment to give reasonable co-operation with dog wardens. This is needed in general but in particular where an establishment operates from the home of the owner. In such cases there are constitutional entry restrictions to a private dwelling on the warden, which are provided for in the Bill.

The current dog licence fee of €12.70 for a single licence and €254 for a general dog licence was set in the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act 1992 and activated in February 1999 under the Control of Dogs (Commencement) Regulations 1998. Licences are generally issued through An Post which has increased its administrative charge to €3.50 per licence, leaving €9.20 to the local authority. Local authorities need this income to pay towards the provision and maintenance of a dog control service. In most cases the local authority subsidises the service, in some instances to a significant degree. This position is not sustainable. It is considered that a dog licence fee of €20 would not place an undue burden on dog owners when set against the other costs of responsible dog ownership such as veterinary costs and food. The €20 fee only reflects the rise over the years of the consumer price index to September 2009, notwithstanding recent falls in the CPI.

Figures for 2009 show that the cost of the dog control function countrywide is €5.6 million, with the revenue raised from existing licences being €2.5million. The increase in the licence fee should generate at further €1.6 million revenue which will help better resource the local authorities to check licences, operate pounds and pick up strays. A better resourced dog control function should help combat attacks on sheep by stray dogs which is a serious cause for concern and income loss to sheep farmers.

My Department gave some consideration to allowing pensioners apply for dog licences for free. This aim is laudable and the Government has made every effort to protect the incomes of pensioners. Again, in the context of the cost of properly maintaining a dog, €20 for a licence is not considered excessive and encourages responsible dog ownership. It should be remembered that the money raised from the licence fees goes towards the cost of the local authority dog control services, rescue of dogs, operation of dog pounds and safeguarding of children and adults against dangerous dogs. It would not be feasible to reduce this income stream. In addition, there is an administrative fee of €3.50 per licence charged by An Post which would still have to be paid by the local authorities for every free licence. Bearing all this in mind, it is not considered feasible to provide for free dog licences.

I take this opportunity to run through the main provisions of the Bill. Part 1, sections 1 to 5, inclusive, contains the usual provisions of a general nature dealing with such matters as Short Title, collective citations and commencement, definitions regulations, expenses of the Minister and service of documents. The key element within this Part is the definition of a dog breeding establishment as a premises at which are kept not less than six bitches, each of which is more than four months old and capable of being used for breeding purposes. This definition reflects that recommended by the recommendations of the working group. As stated, I am willing to change the four months old to six months in response to concerns expressed in the Seanad.

Section 6 provides for fines not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment up to six months on summary conviction for certain offences, including providing false information, non-display of registration certificate or obstruction of authorised personnel. The same penalties can be applied to summary conviction for forgery and contravening a closure order for a dog breeding establishment. Increased penalties can be applied on indictment. Fines shall be paid to the relevant local authority. I emphasise that fines are regarded as a last resort. It is expected that the breeders and local authority can engage in a constructive dialogue to improve facilities without recourse to court action.

Section 7 on fixed payment notices provides that a fixed notice fine can be issued for non-display of a registration certificate for up to €2,000, that will fall due within 21 days. Moneys so raised will be payable to the relevant local authority. I place a great deal of importance to the public display of a registration certificate as this will contribute to the transparency of and help build confidence in the standards of dog breeding establishments.

Part 2 contains sections 8 to 21, inclusive, which deal with the regulation of dog breeding establishments. Section 8 instructs local authorities to have a register of dog breeding establishments and requires operators of such establishments to register in the manner required and pay an annual fee. Section 8(3) provides that existing dog breeding establishments can continue to operate for three months after the commencement of the Act. I have committed to change this period to six months.

Under section 8(6), a local authority shall not register a premises if the application is not in order, the applicant is in breach of the Act or the local authority is of the opinion that the premises is not suitable for the operation of a dog breeding establishment. Each premises which receives a registration certificate must, under subsection (12), have that certificate prominently displayed. Under subsection (18), hunt clubs, commercial boarding kennels and charitable dog operations, for example, mountain rescue, will be exempt from paying fees but must register and be subject to possible inspection. Commercial boarding kennels will also be exempt from paying registration fees. I emphasise that while there will be exemptions from the payment of fees, exemptions from inspections and animal welfare provisions will not be made.

Section 9 provides 14 days for applicants to make representations against the local authority's intent to refuse registration. This section also provides that a local authority will notify each applicant whether it is to be registered.

Section 10 sets out the circumstances whereby an applicant may appeal the decision of the local authority to the relevant District Court against a refusal to register the dog breeding establishment or conditions that the local authority has set for registration. In the case of a refusal the District Court can order that the establishment be registered, set conditions for registration or affirm the refusal.

Section 11 provides for removal of dog breeding establishments from the register by order of the District Court and conditions which the District Court may impose. Reasons for removing an establishment from the register include where the operator has been convicted of cruelty to animals, has been convicted of an offence under this Act or the 1986 Control of Dogs Act or has breached an improvement order or a court order. A person who contravenes an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 12 sets out the appropriate fees in relation to a dog breeding establishment. The Minister may, by regulation, vary these charges in line with the consumer price index. It should be noted that the threshold is six bitches, four months old and capable of breeding. I intend to change the four month period to six months. Those with fewer than the number stipulated need not worry as they do not come within the Bill. Mr. Adrian Neilan, chief executive officer of the Irish Greyhound Board, stated at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 23 June that 91% of breeding establishments are small. If, by "small" he means fewer than six bitches, 91% of breeders do not fall within the Act. The matter is as simple as that.

The fees are in bands as follows: €400 for an establishment with six to 18 bitches, six months old and capable of breeding; €800 for 19 to 30 bitches; €1,600 for 31 to 100 bitches; €3,000 for 101 to 200 bitches and a further €1,600 for every 100 bitches thereafter.

Section 13 sets the registration charges as an annual charge payable to relevant local authority and provides that certain types of dog breeding establishments shall not have registration charges applied, including hunt clubs, charitable organisations and commercial boarding kennels.

Section 14 describes in general terms the duties of operators regarding the conditions in dog-breeding establishments which operators must provide and that records must be kept and be available for inspection. Section 14(5) provides for the Minister to invite representations on draft guidelines, consider representations received and publish guidelines on dog-breeding establishments. I will commence that process as soon as the legislation passes all stages.

Section 15 provides for all dogs in a dog-breeding establishment to be micro chipped and for updating of the database. As I have said already, micro chipping will be prior to 12 weeks old for the first year and prior to eight weeks old thereafter. This section will be amended for hunt clubs as signalled earlier. I want to emphasise that the international evidence shows that we must move to micro-chipping.

Section 16 allows a local authority to appoint certain persons including veterinary practitioners and those connected with animal welfare to act as authorised persons to assist the local authorities in its duties under the Act. While dog wardens will be allowed to carry out the initial inspection for registration purposes, I have provided by amendment that only veterinary officers can issue an improvement order.

Section 17 enumerates the powers of authorised persons including the power to enter and inspect any premises, other than a dwelling, suspected of being a dog-breeding establishment. The authorised person can inspect and take copies of records kept on the premises and can require the owner, operator or those employed in the establishment to answer relevant questions. Section 17(2) provides that an authorised person may be accompanied by other authorised persons or gardaí. It will be an offence to obstruct or refuse to comply with the authorised persons under section 17. An authorised person cannot enter a dwelling without the consent of the occupier or, failing consent, without a warrant issued by the District Court. I propose to provide that an authorised person can be accompanied by a stipendiary steward or a veterinary officer nominated by the IGB or ICC where the premises are operated by an IGB registered greyhound trainer or breeder. That is something I am happy to do and I hope it allays some of the concerns of those involved.

Section 18 provides for the local authority to serve an improvement notice on the establishment if the establishment is believed to be in breach of the Act or there is a threat to public health or animal welfare. The improvement notice will contain details of specific measures which are required to be taken within a specified timeframe and will inform the operator of the option to appeal to the District Court. Section 18(4) provides that notice may be appealed to the District Court.

Section 19 provides for a local authority to issue a closure notice requiring a dog-breeding establishment to cease breeding or keeping dogs at the establishment on the basis of stated grounds. Provision is made for appeal to the District Court which shall affirm the notice, revoke it or give direction to the establishment. It will be an offence to contravene a closure notice.

Section 20 makes it an offence to operate an unregistered dog-breeding establishment except in specified circumstances where there is an application submitted or where it is subject to appeal. Section 21 makes it an offence to forge registration material or knowingly provide forged documentation or alter registration material with intent to defraud or deceive.

Part 3 contains a number of amendments to the Control of Dogs Act 1986. Section 22 provides for the addition of a new form of dog licence to cover the lifetime of a dog by varying the duration of the dog licence. Section 23 sets out the new licence fees as €20 for an individual dog licence, €400 for a general dog licence for numerous dogs and €140 for the lifetime of a dog licence. This section also allows the Minister to vary fees payable in line with the consumer price index. Section 24 provides for the establishment and maintenance of a database or databases and the information to be held therein.

The provisions increasing the dog licence fees will only reduce the present loss that local authorities incur in providing a dog control service. The new charges for licence fees would raise an estimated €4.3 million compared with the €2.6 million raised in 2009. However, the cost of the service in 2009 was €5.7 million.

I look forward to continued engagement on these provisions and on Government and Opposition amendments, which I expect will be constructive and helpful, on the Committee Stage. I believe this is important legislation that would improve the quality of life of animals in our puppy farms, something which has needed to be remedied for some time. I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I wish to share my time with Deputies Bannon and Deenihan.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has given us a confused picture in matters relating to dog breeding in his contribution today. It is very different from what he intended and from what he was highlighting over a period of time. The principle of regulating puppy farms is a long-established political requirement which all sides of the House want to see resolved once and for all. The working group mentioned by the Minister, which was established by his predecessor in 2005, was set up for the purpose of regulating puppy farms. However, in his zealousness in dealing with matters concerning rural pursuits, the Minister strayed a little, as most dogs do from time to time, into areas that are none of his business, including into the working group's recommendations. He could not leave a sleeping dog lie.

Deputy John Gormley

The Deputy should not push the puns too far.

Deputy Phil Hogan

He had to give it a good kick in order to include the greyhound industry, which was already regulated under the 1958 Act, of which the Minister was unaware based on his contributions in the Seanad. He could not leave another sleeping dog lie in that in the Green Party's zealousness to get at the hunt clubs, the Minister used, in sporting terms, a backdoor system through the Dog Breeding (Establishment) Bill, by regulating them and in some way putting them out of business if at all possible because of his attitude to rural pursuits.

Deputy John Gormley

On a point of order, I wish to excuse myself because I need to go to the Seanad. I hope the Deputy opposite understands. I will be back and I want to listen to his contribution.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The Minister has many things on his mind at the moment.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan

There is a good doggy man left now.

Deputy James Bannon

The Minister has gone with his tail between his legs.

An Ceann Comhairle

We have limited time for this Bill and we want Deputy Hogan to finish his contribution.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I have not left the House, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister's motivation in straying as far as he did outside the recommendations of the working group has brought an unnecessary political problem to his Government. The effort he has made to create confusion indicating that he has solved the problem for the Government shows he regards the Members of this House as quite foolish. He has postponed his effort to regulate the greyhound industry until 1 January 2011. He is waving a big stick above the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, suggesting that if he does not do what the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government wants done by amending the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, he will do it for him with a commencement order on 1 January 2011, in line with his original proposals.

Deputy Máire Hoctor

That is not true.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

What about the IGB?

Deputy Phil Hogan

I will not interrupt the Deputies when they speak. I am sure they have much to contribute. They should know the facts regarding these matters. The Government is asking us to buy a pig in a poke here. It is asking us to postpone the evil day until 1 January 2011 based on concerns Fianna Fáil backbenchers have expressed to the Minister, Deputy Gormley.

In other words, he is giving the Fianna Fáil backbenchers an opportunity to convince the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that animal welfare in their terms is what is important in the 1958 Act, subject to amendment, and not this Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009. It is a political compromise to kick the issue to touch for six months. The commencement order will not come back to the House so we will not know what it will mean when the Minister, Deputy Gormley, signs it on 1 January 2011 if the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, has a difficulty in implementing the necessary amendments in the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, subject to the approval and agreement of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Green Party. It is a nice move in order to get us over the summer but the winter is coming and these issues will return to haunt us again.

The political decision has been indicated to us and for that reason we cannot expect the House to do anything other than oppose this sort of sham.

Deputy Joe Carey

Hear, hear.

Deputy Phil Hogan

This political move will do nothing other than put off the evil day. There is no reason for dual regulations and two inspections. The hunt clubs are well regulated and do not breed for commercial breeding purposes but to retain dogs for the pack. As a former greyhound owner and somebody who knows the industry well, I realise the veterinary inspections, system of markings and the manner in which the greyhound industry is run is second to none in terms of animal welfare.

Deputy John Cregan

It will remain like that.

Deputy Phil Hogan

There is no need for any Green Party obsession to change it where animal welfare matters are quite well regulated. The industry might be self-regulated but it is governed by law sufficiently well under the 1958 greyhound Act.

The references made by the Minister in the legislation to the breeding programme show he is completely out of touch with the normal breeding pattern of the greyhound industry. For example, he mentions certain months where bitches will be exempt for breeding purposes under the Act. There is much new information for the House that must be examined carefully. The powers being given by the Minister for access to premises are quite draconian, notwithstanding the fact that he has genuflected to the appropriate property rights under the Constitution. Power of access and entry are proposed to be entered into law that would certainly conspire to undermining an individual's property rights.

We should know the definition of the people allowed access to premises. Notwithstanding that a veterinary officer is the only person who can sign off on an improvement notice, people in charitable organisations and dog wardens are mentioned as being allowed on property, with support given in various sections of the Bill. That worries people and there must be clarity in that section to allay the concern of people involved in the dog breeding industry that a personal agenda would not come into play. The ultimate objective and responsibility of the Bill is to ensure dogs are looked after in a proper environment.

People are going over the top with regard to inspection and regulation and not concentrating their full attention on what the objective of the Bill should have been, which is to outlaw the irresponsible patterns which have emerged with puppy farms. It is interesting to note that in the export of dogs, the person in the cab of the lorry must submit documentation to satisfy regulations and the inspection regime for dogs in the back of the lorry is not subject to any regulation when dogs are exported to the UK, Spain and wherever the animals are exported.

Concerns have been expressed by no less a person than Mr. Dick O'Sullivan, chairman of the greyhound board, who has made his opinion clear on the implications of this legislation. He has gone beyond what one would expect a chairman of a State board to do and this has clearly had some effect on the Minister. He has now come to terms with the fact that the 1958 greyhound Act exists — which he did not know when speaking on the matter in the Seanad — and he has probably learned a little about the manner in which the greyhound industry is regulated. He is still seeking to wave a big stick from his Department by threatening the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that if it is not done his way, he will sign a commencement order on 1 January 2011.

Much new material has emerged in this Bill in the same way as it did on Report Stage for legislation this week on planning and development. It seems to be a tactic to introduce extraneous materials in order to rush legislation through the House at the 11th hour without proper examination. Rushed legislation always ends up in difficulty.

I ask the House to consider carefully many of the issues raised today and the implications of the legislation, particularly the matters still on the agenda and which, contrary to the spin of recent days, have not gone away. Powers of entry, those relating to breeding programmes and the powers given to people outside the State veterinary inspection system are excessive. Penalties of up to €5,000 to be imposed on people for very minor offences are onerous. I look forward to hearing the clarifications we need on so many matters before we consider how to vote on the matter.

Deputy James Bannon

There is a sense of futility in the outcome that makes it almost a waste of time to speak on this Bill. We are here for the second time this week to speak about animal matters and I am haunted by the thought of the human population in this country who, through the actions of this Government, are suffering untold hardship. The Green Party Minister has an agenda that will be extended to another Bill concerning greyhounds in the next Dáil term which no amount of human suffering will deflect.

We should make no mistake that this is an anti-rural agenda. I love animals and dogs in particular but there is a time and place for the discussion of everything. Given rising unemployment figures, cutbacks in health and other services and the despair we see around us in the final days of the Dáil session before the summer recess, we should be addressing pressing social and economic issues. Yesterday, news emerged that more than 100 jobs are under threat in my constituency. This should be debated. I tried to raise the matter and the Ceann Comhairle is well aware of that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am but I advise the Deputy he should address what is reasonably expected to be in the Bill.

Deputy James Bannon

All I got from Fianna Fáil and the Tánaiste yesterday were sniggers when I tried to raise the issue. We should have sympathy for the families in Longford which will suffer if this firm goes out of business.

Given the phrase "the Minister dismissed claims that the latest piece of animal welfare legislation has not been altered" used by the media yesterday to describe the Minister's reluctance to meet the greyhound and hunting lobby half-way, we do not so much see bureaucracy as dictatorship. In some strange legacy-building exercise, the Minister is determined to alienate the rural population and push through "anti-country pursuits" legislation. While doing so he is immune to the destruction of the rural way of life and traditions, tourism and business ventures.

In another blow to the sport, hunting packs will not be exempt in the new legislation. A small concession has been made in so far as hunt masters will not have to pay fees and the timescale during which bitches can breed will be spread over three years rather than one. There is no denying that this legislation will prevent further horrific stories of the abuses of "puppy farms", designer puppies or other animal cruelty. However, as in all these matters, the legislation before the House is excessive and, in providing protection, works against ordinary, decent dog breeders and dog owners.

Some common sense would go a long way towards tempering the more glaring problems relating to the Bill. It may be desirable, in the interests of consistency with other legislation relating to animals — particularly that which deals with the sex classification of farm animals — to note that where the status or classification of a female bovine is of importance in the context of the administration or enforcement of provisions in the relevant regulation, a cow is defined as a female bovine that has calved at least once. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with reference to the carcass classification rules and the suckler cow scheme, will be able to confirm this.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

The Deputy is referring to bovines, we are discussing canines.

Deputy James Bannon

The Deputy will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate in due course.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Bannon address his remarks through the Chair?

Deputy James Bannon

I hope he will use his vote and will not, as was the case last week, be hypocritical.

Where the status or classification of a female pig — Deputy Ned O'Keeffe knows a great deal about pigs — is of importance in respect of the administration or enforcement of provisions in the relevant regulation, a sow is defined as a female pig after its first farrowing.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

The Deputy has moved on to swine. However, we are still discussing canines.

Deputy James Bannon

Against this background, a good and unambiguous definition of a "breeding bitch", which should be considered for inclusion in the Bill, would be "a female dog after its first litter".

With regard to the definition of a "breeding unit", in respect of pigs, such a unit is defined as a place where pigs are bred and reared until they reach 30 kg in weight. A possible suitable adaptation of that definition to the Bill before the House might be that a breeding unit "means a place where dogs are bred and born". The legislation would apply only to breeding units with more than the threshold number of breeding bitches or dogs. Selection criteria based on a combination of the suggested definitions I have outlined could remove the unnecessary "big bite" from the Bill and would focus it instead on the small number of dog breeding establishments that give rise to real problems. This would, in turn, allay the concerns of most ordinary, decent dog lovers and pet owners.

As a farmer who has dealt with animals all his life, I am concerned with regard to the long-term implications of the legislation. This week, we have witnessed traditions which developed over centuries being destroyed in a couple of days. In such circumstances, we should mourn the destruction of our unique heritage and wonder about what will take its place. The Minster must not — as always appears to be the case — forget the heritage aspect of his portfolio. The fact that this aspect tends to be forgotten was evidenced by the funding provided in respect of heritage in recent budgets. In light of the legislation the Minister has put before the House this week, it is obvious that the judgment of Solomon would be required to ensure the heritage to which I refer — also our animals — will be protected. In view of the evidence with which we have been presented, I am concerned that the Minister does not come anywhere near to possessing the type of judgment to which I refer.

One matter I would have liked the legislation to address — perhaps it might be dealt with in the other legislation the Minister will bring forward — is that relating to retired greyhounds. In light of the adverse publicity on this matter worldwide, it is essential that it should be addressed. While the majority of owners have a finely-honed sense of the duty of care they owe to their animals, it is obvious that abuses are also taking place. Under the general measure relating to cruelty, watertight provision must be made for the protection of these greyhounds. These animals, like all human beings and my colleague on the rearmost benches on the Government side — who was muttering and mumbling earlier and who will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate later — are deserving of care in their retirement.

Fine Gael has concerns about the Bill. The party has been very much to the fore in highlighting the issue of puppy farms. Its calls for regulation in this area date back six or seven years. As in respect of all these matters, however, the Minister, much though he would prefer it to be otherwise, does not have his finger on the pulse with regard to rural lifestyles and traditions. This legislation could prove counter-productive, particularly if a large number of regulations are imposed and puppy farms are driven underground as a result. This could give rise to a situation where those who are already running above-board establishments will continue to do so and those whom the legislation should be targeting will, as already stated, go underground.

I support the provision relating to the micro-chipping of all dogs in dog breeding establishments. This provides necessary safeguards for dogs and owners and is an example of what is positive about the Bill. However, the Bill goes way beyond the positive in its scope. The additional costs and the duplication of inspection structures to which it will give rise will impact on rural industries beyond that relating to the breeding of greyhounds. Fine Gael proposed amendments in the Seanad that would exclude these areas and direct the focus of the Bill towards puppy farms. However, with his usual lack of flexibility — the hallmark of the dictatorship to which I referred earlier — the Minister refused all of these proposals and has brought an unchanged Bill before the Dáil.

As everyone is aware, Fine Gael is not alone in challenging the legislation. Fianna Fáil Deputies and Senators have been vocal in criticising what they also perceive as an attack on rural Ireland. Last week, many Fianna Fáil Deputies were extremely hypocritical when the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill was debated.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is exhausted. He should not move off on a tangent at this stage.

Deputy James Bannon

Approximately seven to ten of them opposed the Bill to which I refer.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is impinging upon Deputy Deenihan's time.

Deputy James Bannon

They voted in favour of that Bill by electronic means in the first instance and they then passed through the lobbies in support of it. They betrayed the principles in which they believe, which is both a shame and a disgrace. I hope they do not do the same in respect of the legislation before the House.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan

As previous speakers indicated, the original aim of this Bill was to establish a level of control in respect of the abuses of puppy farming. Everyone agrees that the standards which obtain in other countries do not apply in Ireland, ensuring that unscrupulous breeders are able to take full advantage of our lax controls. This has led to widely-reported incidents of over-breeding, animals living in poor welfare conditions and this country having bestowed upon it the unwelcome title of the "puppy farm capital of Europe".

The intensive dog breeding industry has acknowledged that approximately 90,000 puppies are bred here annually and that, of these, 45,000 are exported overseas, primarily to the United Kingdom. This trade in puppies is valued at €29 million. Permanent identification of these pups before they leave the premises where they were bred is essential in order that their origins might later be identified. Microchips are a practical means of permanently identifying dogs. All industry experts agree that they are the most effective means of ensuring traceability. The latter is essential to protect the consumer, breeding integrity, etc. In 1995, when I was serving as a Minister of State, I introduced what became the Control of Horses Act, which brought forward the concept of using microchips to identify horses. This concept has worked extremely well in the interim.

I understand that in the draft memorandum to Government in respect of this matter, it was clearly stated that greyhounds would be exempted from microchipping. However, the Bill does not indicate that this will be the case. As several speakers stated, greyhounds are tattooed in order that they can be identified. I accept that I risk being repetitive but I wish to place on record the fact since the inception of the stud book, greyhounds have been tattooed. This method of identification has served the industry well. The tattoo earmark is applied by control stewards, who are jointly appointed by the Irish Coursing Club, ICC, and the Irish Greyhound Board, IGB. Control stewards conduct inspections of breeders' premises on each occasion on which a litter is born. They also conduct inspections of brood bitches prior to the latter giving birth. This level of inspection ensures standards are maintained and the early detection of any welfare issues. The Irish greyhound stud book is recognised worldwide for its integrity. It achieves an additional layer of control by ensuring the DNA profiling of all stud dogs and brood bitches. This is not replicated by any other dog breed in Ireland. The significant costs associated with maintaining this service are largely met by greyhound owners and breeders through the payment of registration fees.

My original impression of the Bill was that the basis it sets out for determining a greyhound breeding establishment is open to question. I accept it may have changed on foot of discussions in the Seanad. The Irish Coursing Club has confirmed that a trainer may have a number of bitches on his or her premises for the sole purposes of racing. He or she will be licensed by the Irish Greyhound Board. On the conclusion of its racing career, the owner takes charge of his or her greyhound. Trainers do not manage greyhounds for the purposes of breeding. A person rearing greyhounds will not be engaged in the activity of breeding and will return each greyhound when the greyhound reaches adult stage. Such a person is clearly not running a breeding establishment. An owner may have a number of greyhounds for the purposes of racing or coursing. The number of greyhounds he or she owns will fluctuate over time, due to the normal practices of selling and purchasing. The greyhound board operates a licensed trainer register for public and private trainers, who are subject to inspection by stipendiary stewards prior to approval by the board. They are inspected on a continuous basis thereafter. The coursing club operates a comprehensive register of all activities associated with breeding — matings, litters born, adult greyhounds named and transfers of ownership completed. All greyhounds are tattoo earmarked for identification purposes. If a greyhound is found straying, the club can be contacted immediately to determine its ownership details. As far as I am concerned, it is unrealistic to equate greyhounds with puppies in this manner. It has no foundation.

The proposed limit of six litters per bitch is neither reasonable nor practical. The industry depends on stakeholders breeding brood bitches, particularly successful brood bitches. It is only the very successful broods that will be bred on more than six occasions. The responsible approach, which exists currently, is for the owner and his or her vet to decide on the appropriateness or otherwise of breeding from a bitch at a certain stage of her life cycle. This decision is based on the health status of the bitch and can be signed off on by the vet. The requirement that a bitch may not be mated within 12 months of her previous litter is not workable. The season cycle of a bitch may vary. From a practical perspective, one may only be able to mate a bitch every two years if one falls inside the 12 month stipulation. This will have an impact on the breeder as he or she operates a breeding regime, based on the brood bitch's season cycle and the advice of his or her vet.

I am glad the Minister recognised that some of the provisions he wants to introduce for the greyhound business can be achieved by amending the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, section 26(2) of which explicitly recognises that the Irish Coursing Club is "the controlling authority for the breeding and coursing of greyhounds". The club's constitution states that it "shall be the controlling authority over matters relating to the breeding .... of thoroughbred greyhounds and greyhound coursing in Ireland". No other bodies or legislation are identified. The 1958 Act exists as a document ready and waiting for the insertion of legislatively approved welfare amendments. That has been promised and can be done immediately. I understand the Minister has been in contact with the greyhound organisations to that end. The welfare groups have also agreed to this practical approach. Welfare amendments for the Act, which go far beyond the strictures of the Bill itself, have been drawn up, developed and distributed to all relevant parties and have met the approval of the welfare group coalition.

While the Bill's definition of a dog breeding establishment is appropriate to the type of dog generally taken in by puppy farms, it does not apply to greyhounds, which are physiologically different from other dogs and mature much later. I ask the Department officials to take into consideration the fact that a greyhound develops much more slowly than a puppy. The Bill's threshold age of six months for a bitch as being capable of breeding does not apply to greyhounds, which are generally 12 months of age or more by the time their oestrus cycle commences. Perhaps the Minister can address the important issue of age in his reply. The point I am making has been confirmed by the Society of Greyhound Veterinarians and is corroborated in many contemporary and historical sources. It has been suggested that a welfare amendment could be made to the 1958 Act immediately, to prohibit the registration of any mating or litter of a bitch less than 15 months old, given that most bitches are not bred before two years of age. That change could be made to the 1958 Act without having to be included in this legislation.

The Bill before the House does not reflect the ongoing and continuous fluctuations in greyhound breeding. One breeder might own three bitches, two of which he has decided not to breed from this year and one of which has recently had a litter with three bitch puppies in it. Under the current Bill, importantly, such a person is considered to be a "breeding establishment". When those puppies are sold three or four months later, however, he will no longer be considered as such an establishment. This change of status is not accounted for in the Bill. Likewise, someone might own three elderly retired brood bitches and three young bitches in training, none of which is intended for breeding. Such an owner would also be considered to be a "breeding establishment". I would like the officials to address the last two points, in particular, because they are the kernel of this whole debate. The aim of the Bill was to establish some level of control over the abuses of puppy farming, which tarnishes Ireland's reputation and is a separate and distinct problem in itself. By widening the scope of the Bill to include greyhounds, coursing dogs, track dogs and hunting dogs, the Minister has lost sight of the original intent of the Bill.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I wish to share time with Deputy Ferris.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

The initial core intention of this Bill was to address the scandal of puppy farming in Ireland. For many years, Ireland has had an unfortunate but deserved reputation as the capital of the European puppy farming industry. It is estimated that the industry, if I can use that term, is trading in pups to the value of €29 million per annum. The intensive dog breeding industry is estimated to produce approximately 90,000 pups per annum, half of which are exported overseas, predominantly to the UK puppy market. For too long in Ireland, this intensive industry has remained unregulated. The standards that are in place in other European countries have yet to be put in place here. Ultimately, we are playing a game of catch-up that should have been played long ago. It could have been done two or three years ago, when the working group completed its reports. For some reason, the Bill has been taken in a direction that has slowed long-overdue legislative measures to deal with Ireland's puppy farming scandal.

Over the years, lax controls have led to legitimate allegations of the over-breeding of dogs in very poor conditions. It has been suggested that many of the dogs held in puppy farms can be compared to battery hens whose value is solely measured in terms of how many pups they can give birth to, and how often they can produce each litter. When it comes to dealing with puppy farming, there is unanimous support across all parties. The broad and widespread cross-party agreement on this issue has been demonstrated eloquently and will be again over the course of this afternoon's debate. Everyone is looking for legislation to be introduced in this House to deal with the scandalous practices that have existed in Irish puppy farming for a significant period of time. Like other political parties, the Labour Party believes measures to deal with this scandal are long overdue. In supporting the introduction of measures to deal with the scandal, our approach, as the Bill passes through the House, will be based on the following five principles.

First, the Labour Party supports measures to ensure the proper regulation of puppy farms, as was the original intention of the Bill. Second, the Labour Party believes there is already existing legislation on the regulation of the greyhound sector, arising from the Greyhound Industry Act, and that matters and concerns relating to the sector would be best dealt with by amending and updating the 1958 Act. In this regard, I welcome what the Minister has said this afternoon, although his statement will require further perusal. I note the change of direction he indicated. I am not a coursing person, but Deputy Sherlock has informed me that the hare has been truly and surely "turned" on this matter and that there has been a climbdown on the issue.

Third, the Labour Party recognises that hunt clubs are not commercial dog-breeding establishments and that groups affiliated to the Hunting Association of Ireland, HAI, should be seen in that context and not be defined in the Bill as subject to the same definitions and regulatory regimes as puppy farms. I will expand on this issue later when we have heard the Minister's reply and will show that a number of anomalies, flaws and difficulties arise in Bill as a result of the Minister's lack of understanding of this area of canine care. Fourth, the Labour Party seeks to avoid a regulatory regime that could be exploited by opponents of legitimate dog hunting clubs. We want the Bill to put in place an inspection model that will address these concerns. Fifth, the Labour Party's focus with regard to this Bill will be on legitimate animal welfare matters and those relating to good canine care, which was and should be the core purpose of the Bill. The Labour Party will bring forward amendments to this Bill to address areas in which the Bill falls short in delivering or enhancing proper canine care. We will also bring forward amendments to deal with aspects that may lead to negative consequences in dog welfare as a result of how the Bill is drafted.

Like other Members, I listened intently to the Minister, Deputy John Gormley's speech earlier. It requires further reading and the devil may well be in the detail with regard to his intent. He determines that a house or farm with fewer than six breeding bitches need have no concern about this Bill as they will not come under the definition of a dog breeding establishment. The difficulty in this regard is that a number of dog hunting clubs do not keep all their dogs in one kennel, but they are dispersed throughout various kennels, mostly on the owner's property. How does the Minister define a dog breeding establishment in the context of them being dispersed and not in one location? How does he count the breeding bitches? Will breeding bitches be counted per club or per individual club member or owner? The certification process required in the legislation requires that a dog breeding establishment must display a certificate outside it. A well-known song in Cork, "The Boys of Fair Hill", is based around a famous hunting club. Is it possible that as a result of this Bill a person walking up Fair Hill will see dog breeding establishment certificates displayed outside many of the houses on the street? The Minister must consider seriously how this will be administered at local level. The Bill will create a mass of bureaucracy for clubs that hunt legitimately, whether drag hunting or fox hunting. These are clubs that take great care of the their hounds.

The Minister said that micro-chipping dogs was cheaper than tattooing them. What evidence has he got for that? There may be a strong argument for micro-chipping dogs bred for commercial purposes, because of what is involved in moving, exporting and importing them. However, hounds owned by a club do not move about as much and tattooing is simple and has worked to date. If, for example, a hound goes missing after a hunt, the club members will spend days, if necessary, looking for that dog. If a hound turns up anywhere in the country, the dog inspector lifts its ear and finds its tattoo and calls the hunt club. One does not find hounds in pounds. These are not the type of dog found in a pounds. As soon as a hound goes missing, the club begins searching for it. The Minister needs to revisit the section requiring across the board micro-chipping.

The Minister spoke about the two amendments he intends to bring forward and I would like to hear more about them. This Bill spent an extensive period of time in the Seanad, but, unfortunately, the Dáil will have less time on it. The Bill will go through every Stage in the Dáil in less than the equivalent of a working day. Second Stage of the Bill will not be completed this evening which means we will not hear the Minister's response until next Thursday afternoon, the day the Dáil will rise for the summer recess. On completion of Second Stage, the debate will go to Committee and Remaining Stages. This process makes for bad legislation. In recent years we have seen that such legislation gives rise to problems further down the line. What is the motivation behind this? Does the Minister think he has the monopoly on the best thinking on animal welfare? He does not. All Members share that.

I fail to understand why the Bill is being rushed through the House and will be guillotined next week, given the extensive period of time given to it in the Seanad. Why has the Minister decided it must be rushed through this House, particularly in view of the fact that he has put a stay on its commencement until 1 January because he needs to deal with some issue relating to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We are all aware that this method of dealing with the Bill makes for bad legislation and I could mention some examples of other legislation handled by the Minister's office which has given rise to similar difficulties.

I welcome the Minister's proviso that bitches must be four months old before being used for breeding. When this was debated in the Seanad, my colleague, Senator Dominic Hannigan, brought this issue to the Minister's attention. A number of times during that debate, it seemed the Minister was unfamiliar with the broad issue. That is regrettable and is ironic in that it was he who broadened the extent of the Bill from puppy farming. It seems he did so without an understanding of the direction he was taking with the Bill.

There are contradictions in the Bill, one of which relates to the how charges are being applied. Hunting clubs are not commercial breeding establishments and their costs cannot be seen in the same context as costs arising in puppy farms or dog breeding establishments, where thousands of euro are made each year. Such clubs are "not for profit" clubs that provide access to an activity or pursuit. However, there appear to be contradictions in what the Minister said in this regard. Fees to be imposed on hunting clubs are similar to those being imposed on dog breeding establishments, without regard to the fact that hunting clubs do not derive an income from breeding. The logic behind the fee seems to be based on an income from breeding.

I would dispute some of the figures the Minister gave regarding the cost of buying a dog from a dog breeding establishment. He seems to have underestimated the cost of some of those dogs. On the open market a bull dog costs in the region of €5,000 because of the Caesarean birth the breed requires and the expense of the veterinary treatment needed to manage this. That reinforces my earlier point that the type of moneys involved in these establishments and to be gained from certain breeds is significant. I reiterate this is a multi-million euro industry. One must compare like with like, however, because there are dogs which are not kept for commercial purpose and are not bred continually. A female hound may not be bred for several years, but as defined in this legislation, the situation of that hound is seen as equivalent to that of a dog breeding establishment.

There is another matter I wish to raise. Given that some clubs keep their dogs in dispersed mode, how will the new inspection regime operate and how will clubs register? If club members hold dogs in different locations, for example, in two different local authority regions, how will the Bill address that? How will those clubs register with an individual local authority? Which will they choose? If a club is in Cork, for example, will it register with Cork City Council? Will the club count its hounds and note that it has more hounds in the Cork city area than in the area covered by Cork County Council? If so, it should register with Cork City Council. How then, will the inspection regime work? Who will do the inspection if multiple local authorities are involved? Clarity must be supplied on this by the Minister.

Furthermore, the non-displaying of a certificate will bring a fine of €2,000. If club member has half a dozen or a dozen dogs on his or her property, will he or she be compelled to display the same type of certification outside the house as a commercial breeding establishment does? Will the person be open to the same type of fines as a commercial breeding establishment if he or she does not comply? There are significant differences between both situations.

I do not wish to miss out on the puns that have issued this afternoon. The Minister indicated that the charges involved will be related to the consumer price index. We will have a consumer watch dog as a result because if clubs have to pay money on the basis of the consumer price index there will be a challenge at some stage or other as to whether fees should go up or down due to that linkage.

As I stated, the Minister' s speech will require some in-depth reading. I am not entirely sure what he means. The decision to take the greyhound industry out of the legislation and to amend the 1958 Act is one the Labour Party has proposed for some time. I welcome the indication the Minister gave that this has been done. However, issues regarding inspections must still be worked out. The Minister stated today that only a vet can make a final report following an inspection. In my reading of the Bill, as laid out at present, it is unclear who is allowed to do the initial inspection. It is implied in the memorandum and, to some extent, in the Bill that the initial inspections can be contracted out by local authorities to different groups or individuals. In regard to what the Minister has stated, and given that he has given recognition to the greyhound industry and the Hunting Association of Ireland, does he now acknowledge that the type of inspection regimes to be put in place also need to be adapted to the nuances of those two areas? Will he tighten up the area regarding those permitted to carry out inspections? If local authorities begin to engage in subcontracting out the inspection regime, it will be open to different stakeholders with different interests to come in and put a particular determination as to how inspections are carried out.

I came to the Dáil three years ago. I do not claim the Labour Party has a monopoly of either good or bad ideas. The Green Party has had both good and bad ideas. What I have learned most of all during that period is that it is not having a good idea in Government that counts but legislating for and implementing a good idea. To date, what we have witnessed from the Green Party are some good and bad ideas being very poorly legislated. Yesterday, the House witnessed the passage of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill. The Tánaiste went on record to say the Government had mismanaged it and did not deal properly with the implementation of that legislation in this House. The Green Party's track record on this in the past three years is appalling. Legislation is pulled into the quagmire unnecessarily by that party, as happened with the current Bill until the Minister cleared up certain aspects.

One can take the example of the tax on second homes where last year "Liveline" more or less determined the course of legislation in the Seanad when this matter was being discussed. There was a debacle over caravans, second homes and granny flats and all the rest. There was the introduction of a new vehicle registration tax in the middle of the car sales year which brought an already under pressure car commercial sales industry to its knees and brought sales to a dead stop. Legislation that should have been introduced at the start of the car sales years was brought in at the mid point of the year.

A car park levy was announced but is yet to implemented. However, my favourite of all the Green Party measures introduced in recent years was the Minister, Deputy Gormley's nuclear test ban Bill. A person found guilty of detonating a nuclear bomb would be jailed for 12 months or given a €5,000 fine. That is a classic.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are drifting somewhat from the legislation.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

There have been some brilliant measures. One could not make this stuff up.

I do not say the Green Party is bringing in bad legislation; it has the potential to introduce good material and we all share good ideas. As long this Dáil lasts I hope to see that only will the Green Party learn the style of office to which it may become accustomed but that it will become accustomed to managing legislation as it comes before the House. A lesson was learned here today by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, who came into the Chamber with his tail between his legs because he had to do a U-turn on legislation.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I thank the Labour Party for allowing me time. When this Bill was published the Minister said his aim was to shut down back street operations. There is no doubt there are abuses in the area of dog breeding and the sale of pups, including the sale of pups bred in this country to become pets in Britain. Some of the main culprits are well known and have been named in the press. It is also true that the people in question are regarded with hostility and embarrassment by genuine dog breeders.

Therefore, I can appreciate there is a need to police and, ultimately, put these people out of business if they do not treat their animals in a responsible and fair manner. It has been suggested that as well as being well known personally, these people are also clearly identifiable because of the numbers of dogs they sell. It might be a matter, therefore, for the Irish Kennel Club to refuse to register dogs it knows to be kept in or sold from these premises.

The problem is that although their operations are illegal these people are able to operate under the radar. However, they still must sell and register their dogs which means that self regulating bodies are able to ostracise them. It is also up to people who buy dogs to ensure they buy them from legitimate breeders and see the premises where the animals are kept.

Given that the sector has such a high level of exports it should be licensed and regulated by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the same way as other sectors that breed animals for sale and export. The Welsh Assembly, for example, has encouraged farmers to move into dog breeding as an alternative to traditional farming and the regulatory system in Wales appears to be satisfactory. If the people engaged in the export of dogs were subject to the same export regulations as other sectors that might be another way to enforce rules and regulations and allow inspections to ensure that the dogs have been treated properly. Breeders would also require licences and this would help ensure the proper treatment of animals.

Many emotions have been raised on all sides about this Bill. There is an implication on one side that breeding and selling dogs for profit is immoral. Unfortunately, as with every other domestic or farm animal in this country, the reason most of them exist is that someone breeds and sells them to make money. Other people buy those dogs because they want them as pets or for racing or coursing. The relationship between human and dog is not equal. That is a fact of life and people have to accept it. The issue then is to ensure that those animals are treated well.

There is also an undoubted hostility on the part of many people to greyhound coursing, racing and indeed to horse racing. People are obviously entitled to their views, but the claim made that there is an agenda ultimately to ban a wide range of sports including those I referred to are not too wide of the mark. There are people who see this legislation and the stag hunting ban as part of that agenda and there is no doubt that they will pressure the Minister to extend bans to other sports involving animals. I am not sure whether the Minister subscribes to that agenda but it is clear that his party is identified with an anti-rural sports lobby. In a situation where the Green Party has demonstrated itself to be unwilling or unable to restrain current right-wing economic policies, it makes political sense for the party to attempt to deliver something substantial to its ideological constituency.

There was also a belief among people involved in the greyhound sector that this Bill, if it was extended to greyhound owners and breeders, was a backdoor way to damage the sector. Let there be no mistake about it. Legislation to ban coursing or track racing would clearly not be acceptable to Sinn Féin. The case for the exclusion of the greyhound sector has been well made, and it obviously made an impact politically and perhaps on the Minister's approach to the legislation.

Greyhound enthusiasts have a legitimate case on the grounds that if the Bill as initially drafted was applied to them, it would mean that they would be subject to a further layer of regulation, fees and inspections, given that their greyhounds are already registered and identified through the Irish Coursing Club and that the sector enforces a rigorous set of criteria on all aspects of the keeping, breeding, identification and use of greyhounds in coursing and on the track.

There is also an issue with the level of fees being charged. It has been argued that these are too high. If the amount of money collected after the first year shows a surplus, as was the case with the Taxi Regulator, then perhaps the fees could be reduced in line with that surplus. The fees should only cover the costs of administration rather than being seen as another revenue gathering exercise.

There has also been some disquiet over who exactly conducts inspections. No legitimate breeder objects to inspections to ensure that dogs are being properly cared for. However, those inspections should only be carried out by certified vets attached either to the local authority or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was encouraged by certain aspects of the Minister's statement which alluded to that.

It has also been suggested that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could compile a register of breeding establishments and conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance. That procedure is followed in other countries where annual fees are much lower than those proposed here, and which cover the administrative costs of inspections and so on. Given the importance of the breeding of dogs for commercial export, it would place the sector on the same level as the breeding and sale of other animals.

I know that the Minister met with people in the North about the concept of animal welfare legislation being introduced on both sides of the Border. There should be a convergence of legislation to the greatest extent possible, and that applies to this issue as much as to any other. We all recall the success of the cross-Border approach that was taken in recent years to the foot and mouth crisis and the more recent crisis with contaminated pig feed. Common sense alone would dictate that where animals can be moved over a land border, it is important that those with ulterior motives should not be able to do so in order to avoid sanctions in one jurisdiction that do not apply in another. It is unfortunate that more cognisance was not taken of the animal welfare legislation currently going through Stormont. The Government here might have drafted a more comprehensive Bill rather than concentrating for political reasons on particular sectors such as hunting and greyhounds. For example, the Northern Ireland Bill specifically outlines cruelty offences, including the use of dogs for fighting, that would allow the prosecution of people involved in such practices. It also proposes to make it an offence to abandon animals, which seems to happen in certain cases where people dump unwanted or old animals.

There are other issues including some to which I have referred that need to be addressed through further amendments. I hope that the suggested changes will be accepted when we return to this next week. I am encouraged that the Minister and his officials have engaged with the Irish Greyhound Board to reassure its members about their concerns with the Bill. I am also encouraged by the Minister's commitment that he intends to introduce amendments to that effect on Committee Stage.

We in Sinn Féin abhor any cruelty to animals and the misuse or mistreatment of animals, and we want to approach this Bill positively. Until such time as we see the amendments, we will be reserving our judgment. We have concerns and we will be tabling amendments about which we feel very strongly. Hopefully the Minister will be able to incorporate them into the Bill and we might have consensus across the House. I will await the outcome.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009. The Bill is a necessary piece of legislation. Unfortunately, we have all seen on our screens the severe cruelty inflicted on dogs on so-called puppy farms and this Bill will ensure that Ireland will no longer be a haven for unscrupulous breeders. In 2008, over 10,000 stray or unwanted dogs were put to sleep in Ireland's dog pounds. Ireland currently does not have the standards in place that are present in other countries, thus ensuring that unscrupulous breeders are able to take full advantage of our existing controls.

Breeding establishments are currently inspected by dog wardens and county vets from the local councils. In most instances a good job is done, but unfortunately there are problems. We need new guidelines to protect our dogs and our puppies. The number of dogs destroyed each year is totally abhorrent. We must put an end to the abuse of animals for profit.

This Bill was drafted in accordance with the recommendations of the working group to review the management of dog breeding establishments which reported in June 2005. A dog breeding establishment is defined in the bill as a premises with no fewer than six bitches of four months old capable of breeding. The limit of no fewer than six bitches will exclude the vast majority of cases where people rear dogs as pets.

In order to obtain a broad range of views on the issue, the working group was comprised of representatives from a number of bodies, including the Veterinary Council of Ireland, the Irish Greyhound Board, the Irish Kennel Club, the Dog Breeders Association of Ireland and the ISPCA. Interested members of the public were invited to make submissions to the group by way of a notice in the national press on the 4 October 2004, thus ensuring that the process was not restrictive.

This Bill is about bringing laws in Ireland in line with international best practice. It will be good for Ireland's international image and will protect the welfare of dogs. It has been alleged that the legislation is part of a greater anti-countryside conspiracy. My contention is that barbaric animal cruelty demands legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to safeguard the health and welfare of dogs. People are seriously concerned about the inhumane cruelty that has been perpetrated. This is a national concern and it is not confined to rural Ireland.

I want to put on record my own personal experience. Having spent a life time supporting two local hunt clubs on my doorstep, I cannot speak highly enough of the care these clubs provide for their animals. Hunting has a long tradition in my area. I have visited these local kennels many times and like many rural supporters over the years, I have watched with great delight and pride as these fine dogs set out on their day's hunt.

There are amendments needed to this Bill. In consultation with local clubs, I am seeking changes. Imposing extra costs on hunts and thereby putting jobs at risks in the current circumstances is not acceptable. Kennelling is an example. Hounds hunt as a pack because they are pack animals. It is not realistic to insist that they are individually kennelled. I would go so far as to say that this will cause chaos among hounds when they then come together in a hunting situation.

As hunt kennels are not commercial operations, they have little option to improve their income. Hounds can be swopped but not sold. Local kennels provide a necessary service not only in removing dead animals from farms but in taking away a dead cat or dog from a household or when one is found dead on a local road or street. On behalf of hunt kennels, I am seeking further amendments, in accordance with commitments given, and I appeal for a full exemption of hunt kennels registered with the Hunting Association of Ireland.

There is a provision for an increase in the cost of individual dog licences. The cost of an individual dog licence has not been increased since 1998. More than 215,000 licences were issued in 2008, providing an income of €2.8 million to local authorities. However, the administration costs for this were €5.7 million, representing a shortfall of €2.9 million.

Breeding establishments are defined as having six or more entire bitches; those with fewer will not be included in the proposed legislation. Small breeders will not be affected by the legislation. A well run breeding facility has nothing to fear from the new proposals.

Some dog breeders have expressed fears that the dog breeding legislation will be enforced by unqualified animal welfare workers. It will be members of the Local Authority Veterinary Service, a professional body comprising of what may be termed "Government vets", who will oversee fair and reasonable implementation of the Bill.

The intensive dog breeding industry has acknowledged that approximately 90,000 puppies are bred annually of which 45,000 are exported overseas, primarily to the United Kingdom. This trade in puppies is valued at €29 million. Permanent identification of these pups before they leave the premises is essential in order to identify the origin of the puppy.

Up to now the issue of dog control has been governed by the Control of Dogs Acts 1986 to 1991. This legislation seems to have worked effectively but clearly needs updating in regard to regulations dealing with dog breeding establishments.

The provisions of this Bill will not hold any fear for those who run their establishments well and who have established quality premises and practices in co-operation with their local veterinary practices. I am also concerned about the extra costs to local hunt clubs that would apply under this legislation. It is a requirement of the proposed legislation that each dog in a dog breeding establishment be microchipped. This provision builds on existing practice, whereby a dog that is registered with a dog breeders' association or a breed association is generally microchipped for the purpose of registration and verifying bloodlines.

The Bill will hopefully put an end to backstreet dog-breeders and will benefit commercial breeders who do a good job and treat their animals humanely. It will protect dogs in our breeding establishments, whether they are bred for sale as pets or for racing and will improve the reputation of the Irish dog breeding industry.

Concerns were expressed over the implications for greyhound breeders, trainers and the many people employed in the industry. This is another area where my colleagues and I have sought amendments. Regulation of the greyhound industry should be made through amendments to the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. I welcome that the Minister has asked the Minister, Deputy Smith, to do this.

I appeal to the Minister, Deputy Gormley, to make the amendments necessary that will ensure that this Bill fits the purpose for which it is before the House. That is to bring an end to the cruelty perpetrated on dogs on so called puppy farms.

I have no problem with what is proposed applying to commercial for profit establishments but it should not apply to not for profit organisations such as the greyhound association and the Hunting Association of Ireland. Animal welfare is a number one priority for these people. If the Minister wanted to visit some of the hunting kennels or greyhound establishments, I would arrange for him do so and I would welcome that. I hope that the proposed amendments to the Bill will be to the satisfaction of everyone concerned.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I am pleased to speak on this Bill. Last week was an historic one in this House, having regard to the confusion that arose between the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill. I have never seen such confusion, with people failing to understand the difference between the two Bills. The confusion continued and the abuse we got in telephone call and e-mails was rough going. It was one of my toughest weeks in this House and it was due to confusion. In future when Bills of this nature are going through the House — the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill is different from the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill — they should be dealt with at separate times because people did not understand what these Bills were about. We heard they would bring about a ban on hare coursing and on live cattle exports — I never heard anything like it. I want to clearly make that point.

We have been in Government with the Green Party and I have enjoyed our term to date. The Green Party has done well under this Government. It is entitled to introduce its fair share of legislation and to have its fair crack of the whip in this respect. It has put through difficult legislation for my party and Government on banking, NAMA and many other areas. It was unfair of a small minority of people to make an attack on that party. I am glad that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, is here; he is an exceptional Minister. The Green Party has a different ideology from my party but, by and large, we work well. I look forward to my party finishing up with the Green Party in Government in probably two years' time and to our going to the country and perhaps being successful again.

The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill deals with regulating puppy farms and it long overdue. I am aware of a puppy farm where the pups were kept in deplorable conditions, they are subject to cruelty and live in squalor, the likes of which I had never seen. While I did not understand much about this area, anyone who is an animal lover — all rural people, by and large, are animal lovers — would be appalled by the conditions on that farm.

A former Minister, Deputy Roche, took this matter in hand, for which he has been admired, but he has moved from the Department before seeing the legislation introduced. The proposed legislation was inherited by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and well done to him for introducing it.

During my almost 30 years as a Member of this House, some legislation has been introduced that has been offensive to animal lovers and to people involved in hunting. When the legislation providing for the muzzling of greyhounds was introduced, we thought the roof of the Chamber would come in on top of us, but the industry has thrived since its introduction and the coursing industry has also been very successful. People are always nervous of change but often change can be for the better. The coursing industry has become very valuable to the economy.

I fought a vigorous campaign in 1988 with the then Taoiseach, Charlie Haughey, and the then Minister, Padraig Flynn. Otter hunting occurred in only a small part country, mainly in north Cork on the River Bride and the River Funshion, which are tributaries of the River Blackwater. Otter hunting was banned and there were massive rows about it. I defended otter hunting as best I could at the time. I fought a hard battle on that with the then Minister, Padraig Flynn, and the then Taoiseach. The proposed legislation to ban otter hunting has originated from Europe and its introduction would have affected my area. We heard from the otter packs and specialist dog people, to whom Deputy Johnny Brady referred. They are still there but they do not hunt otter any more.

Wild mink have now taken over on the River Funshion and the River Bride and they are destroying the fish stock and water birds such as water hens and cormorants, which is the one regret I have about the banning of otter hunting. That did not happen when there was otter hunting because the people who were interested in such hunting maintained a discipline on the river and they also protected the otter species. They were animal lovers and even though they hunted otters they looked after them. I have land along the banks of the River Funshion and there are otters on that river bank but they are not cared for anymore. The river can flood and many things can happen along the river bank but there is no one to look after the otters. Those people cared for the otters even though they were wild animals. A danger in introducing animal welfare legislation is that the people who are involved in animal welfare do not have the same commitment to protecting wild species as the people to whom I referred.

Bord na gCon is a State agency and the chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well aware of my views on that agency. It has stepped over the line. If Charlie Haughey, Jack Lynch or Liam Cosgrave were here, there would be a new board because of its behaviour. Members of this House, whether in Government or in Opposition, make policy and we look after the spending of the Exchequer funding, but when people from State agencies — for which this House is responsible — appearing before a committee come into a meeting tell me what to do, I take a serious view of such behaviour. I was shocked and appalled when people from Bord na gCon appearing before the committee in question, came in to talk about the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill and spent a considerable time doing so.

I told the delegate from Bord na gCon that that was my job, not his. The board stepped well over the line in its behaviour. I have seen State boards over the years dismissed and reappointed by Governments, and I am worried about the behaviour of this one. Its job is to look after the greyhound track industry. It has spoken about an estimate for the future, but I have strong reservations about its behaviour. It is also in conflict with the coursing industry because it does not want greyhounds racing in ordinary fields, whether in open coursing or park meetings. It should be funding the coursing industry but the problem is the stud book; the coursing industry controls the stud book and Bord na gCon wants to lay its hands on it. We have the same problem with draft horses because the sports horse industry wants to take over that stud book. The battle goes on between the ordinary people and the specialists. There is snobbery in the industry.

I am also concerned by Bord na gCon's expenditure, with €23 million spent on a race track at Markets Field in Limerick. State resources are being used to build a large glasshouse at a time when we are stretched dealing with Anglo Irish Bank and other issues. That amount of money would be better spent in the interests of social welfare recipients and users of the public health system. The money is already committed but it should have been reviewed two years ago when the country was on the eve of a crisis. I know the Markets Field in Limerick as well as anybody here. As a boy of ten or 11 years of age, I sold calves in that field. It was a valuable market at that time in the west, with herefords — or whiteheads, as they were known — being bought and sold in April and May. As I said, Bord na gCon has gone over the top in its behaviour. It should not be in the business of corporate entertainment; its job is to look after the greyhound industry, not to be grilling steaks and cooking chickens and ducks.

It is certainly time for the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 to be updated. It has served its purpose well but it has been in place for more than 50 years. Much of this legislation crosses over between agriculture and the environment. I welcome that we have found a way to take greyhounds out of this legislation by making necessary changes to the 1958 Act. I do not understand the strong opposition that exists to micro-chipping. Deputy Bannon spoke earlier about swine, bovines and so on. It ultimately comes down to the fact that people do not like change. Just as tagging, recording and inspections have been introduced at farm level in the bovine industry, the other industries will have to accept it too.

I do not want to boast about my own area, but I am fairly certain we have the largest number of park meetings of coursings in the country. We also have a greyhound track in our constituency. We have the famous Duhallow Hounds, the Avondhu, and the Coolnakilla Harriers which is a very famous harrier organisation that has won national prizes. The latter is very controlled and disciplined in its activities. We also have Ballymacoda, a famous place for open coursing. In defence of these and other organisations, I say there is noting to fear from this legislation. However, it is inevitable that somebody will abuse the system.

Dog licensing is very welcome given that dog fighting is becoming such a problem. People are keeping dogs larger than calves in many housing estates, with neighbours living in fear. We must clamp down on that because it is encouraging dog fighting. I will not name the areas where these dangerous dogs are most often found because that would be unfair to residents, but it seems to be a particular problem in new housing estates. These dogs are a threat to society and to human beings. I am holding clinics tomorrow in a particular area and an urban councillor there has promised to take me into a housing estate to show me what is happening. Local authority representatives in these areas are constantly receiving complaints.

I thank the Minister, Deputy Ryan, for taking this debate. His party and mine are partners in government and I work well with him and his colleagues. I have no criticisms to make of his party. Some of the criticism of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has been grossly unfair. I have never had a problem meeting the Minister, and he was quite willing to meet with deputations I have brought to him. I am probably seen by some as one of the more awkward people in this House, although perhaps I am not so bad, but the Minister has always been willing to meet me and discuss my concerns. I say well done to him and I look forward to meeting him down in Duhallow.

Deputy Joe Carey

I propose to share time with Deputy Breen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Deputy Joe Carey

I listened carefully to the contribution by the Minister, Deputy Gormley. This issue has been debated extensively outside the House in recent weeks. The Bill was introduced in the Seanad where it was discussed for months, yet it is to be railroaded through the Lower House in less than one day. We can only take what the Minister has said in good faith. We heard from him today that the greyhound industry has a summer reprieve, but that is not good enough. The Minister must indicate clearly the amendments he proposes to introduce and the impact they will have on the greyhound industry in particular. What he has done today is to kick the matter to touch. He has effectively told the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, that if he does not do X, Y and Z, namely, implement the changes the Minister, Deputy Gormley, requires in the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, that he will not sign this legislation into law. That is not good Government. Once again we see the cohesion of the arrangement between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party breaking down.

I come from a family that is involved in breeding and racing greyhounds. One of my earliest memories is of travelling to a trial in Milltown Malbay with my father, with two greyhounds in the back of the car. I currently have a bitch called Taco Beauty.

Deputy Pat Breen

A very good dog.

Deputy Joe Carey

I just found out today that she is in pup to a sire called Headbound.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Congratulations.

Deputy Joe Carey

Five or six of us own that bitch between us and she has won races both on the track and in the field, in Liscannor and in the Duffer Stakes. She has produced very good pups, one of which won two rounds of the Produce Stakes, which is a classic, and was trained by an excellent trainer, Gerry Holian. I come from a tradition in Clarecastle where we won two coursing derbies with Murty's Gang and Danagher's Best. It horrified me to see Senator Ó Brolcháin talking about an issue he knew nothing about. He talked about The Late Late Show commanding stud fees of up to €1 million. In all fairness, if he was a stallion that might be the case, but The Late Late Show commands a stud fee of €800. For any Green Party spokesman to lecture Fine Gael Senators in that way is ridiculous.

What impact will this legislation have on the greyhound industry? The idea that a breeding bitch is classified at six months is laughable. Not every bitch is bred; only select bitches are bred if they have proven themselves, or perhaps if they are from a good litter. They certainly are not classified as brood bitches at six months. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government proposes to change that from four months to six months. It is ridiculous. It is so stupid it shows a complete lack of understanding and ignorance of the whole issue.

It would be funny if we were not talking about an industry that supports 11,000 jobs. To the credit of successive Fianna Fáil Governments, first class stadia have been built and one is currently under construction. All of that will be undermined if we start tampering with the greyhound industry. I did not hear anything from the Minister that got me excited. The greyhound industry has a reprieve for the summer but we are still in the dark because we have not seen the amendments. I will reserve my judgment on this legislation until I see the amendments in black and white.

I have no difficulty with the regulation of puppy farms but I question how many puppy farms there actually are in the country. The Minister is making more of an issue of this than it is. I am horrified to see images on television of intensive puppy breeding — it is wrong — but the Minister should not tar the greyhound industry with that brush. I was horrified that the Minister never mentioned the Irish Coursing Club in his speech. That was outrageous.

I hope the Minister will see sense. I appeal to Fianna Fáil, Green Party and Independent Deputies to make sure the amendments to the 1958 Act are reasonable, that they take account of what matters in the greyhound industry and that they are not pie in the sky. The current Bill's provisions for the greyhound industry are pie in the sky. The proposed fees of €400 and €250 are ridiculous. They will cripple an indigenous industry that already has a fee structure in place. If someone wants to register a litter or transfer ownership, there are regulations in place. There is no need to interfere with them because they are fair and have worked for years.

The best way to deal with this issue is through the 1958 Act. We must see the amendments that will supposedly come. I am not happy with the way this legislation is being rushed through the House and I look forward to scrutinising the amendments on Committee and Report Stages.

Deputy Pat Breen

Like my colleague, Deputy Carey, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Pardon the pun, but with unemployment levels and ordinary families struggling to make ends meets, it is not surprising that ordinary people out in the street think that the Government has finally gone to the dogs.

I tried to go through the Minister's speech but it is only a face-saving exercise for the Fianna Fáil backbenchers so the Government can survive this session. The desperate last minute haggling between both parties will not quell the deep anger in rural areas. The Minister is trying to buy time but what happens if the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do not bring in the same regulations? The greyhound industry will be back to square one.

If a stay is being put on the Bill until 1 January, why guillotine it? Deputies should have more time to speak on this Bill because it is important in rural Ireland. Last week, Deputy O'Rourke in her contribution on the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill warned the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that there were to be no more ramblings into rural Ireland. This was echoed by the crowds of people who gathered outside the front gates of Leinster House to express real anger at the Green Party. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is a man I respect but this anger was echoed in the Red C poll last weekend, with another fall in support for the Green Party.

People in rural areas are concerned about what is happening. My office has been inundated with calls about this and the way life in rural areas is being changed. Traditions that were part and parcel of rural life are under attack, including the age old tradition of turf cutting; many country families cut turf on their own land and depend on it for fuel. If the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government continues to whip his Fianna Fáil colleagues into submission, turf cutting will be consigned to the annals of history.

I commend the work by dog control wardens in local authorities and welcome that aspect of the Bill. Mr. Frankie Coote looks after the situation in County Clare, picking up abandoned dogs, and regulation is necessary.

It is important the Government takes on board the views of the Opposition. We should all be singing from the same hymn sheet. There can be a compromise with the amendments. Sustaining rural Ireland and its traditions is important. We should not threaten people's livelihoods and the Government should turn its attention to the problem of rural isolation.

Sporting and angling are vital to the rural economy. This debate and the debate last week should not have been a debate on rural Ireland versus urban Ireland; that has to stop. As many other speakers have said, the greyhound industry contributes a huge amount of money to the economy. It generates approximately €500 million and supports the huge amount of approximately 11,000 jobs. We all know people in every parish in every county who take great pride in their greyhounds and Clare is no different. Many of the dog breeders there go to the greyhound tracks in Limerick or Galway every Friday and Saturday night and they look forward to that social event. Greyhound racing and coursing are extremely important, particularly the annual meetings in places such as Cooraclare, Killimer, Kilmihill and Clarecastle and Ennistymon, to name but a few. The event in Liscannor is also extremely important. The events are important for local villages and towns.

Many people are involved in coursing clubs, such as the Tradaree Coursing Club. They want to have a dog who will raise a flag and win a race in Clonmel or wherever. Of those involved in greyhound breeding, 90% are small operators and under this legislation they will only be able to breed a brood bitch every 12 months. One does not see a greyhound's potential until it is approximately a year and half old. This afternoon, a breeder told me that changing the threshold to six bitches will make no difference to greyhound owners.

The greyhound industry is self-regulated to a very high standard and that is important. I visited the kennels of the County Clare Hunt, which are located in my parish of Drumquin. They are very clean establishments and the dogs are looked after extremely well. An odd time I hear the hounds when they go for a walk.

Many owners are concerned about the mechanism that will be put into place to force the greyhound industry into double regulation which is part and parcel of the Bill. They are not convinced that they will not be wiped out and that they will still be forced to pay. Up until now, a small breeder could manage to come up with €20 or €30 along the way so they could stay involved in the sport. For many people having a dog is just a hobby. The Minister stated that €400 is not excessive, but for many people €400 is a lot of money, particularly in these recessionary times. Added to that are veterinary inspection fees. The fear is that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will put in place a similar regulatory system.

I welcome electronic microchipping for dogs. It is a good aspect of the Bill and is very important for tracing lost dogs and with regard to where dogs are bred. As Deputy Hogan stated, Fine Gael supports stronger rules on puppy farms. Whatever legislation we introduce it will be very difficult to track people down because many people ignore the law anyway. There is no doubt that regulation is needed. We have all seen many published incidents of abuse of dogs, the terror some dogs have to go through and dogs that are kept in really bad conditions. This needs to be regulated and all parties in the House agree on that. Even with amendments, many in the greyhound industry throughout the country believe the industry will be strangled and that is why it is important that there is all-party agreement.

I hope the Fianna Fáil backbenchers will not be subject to the Whip again in this debate and abandon rural constituencies. The Government has lost the trust of rural Ireland and they will see this when the election is called and they go knocking on doors. Rural Ireland has been ignored for far too long and people have had enough. The former US President, Andrew Jackson, said, "One man with courage makes a majority". I hope there is much courage among our colleagues in the Fianna Fáil backbenches and that they stand up for rural Ireland. We have to wait and see the amendments the Minister will bring on board. I hope the Minister will accept the amendments of the Opposition parties and listen to rural Ireland. This legislation is needed but there needs to be all-party agreement on it.

Deputy John Browne

I wish to share time with Deputy Brendan Kenneally.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Agreed.

Deputy John Browne

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. It has exercised many Deputies over recent weeks, Fianna Fáil Deputies as well as Deputies on the other side of the House. In 2005, Deputy Dick Roche prepared the heads of the Bill with regard to a report for the working group. At that time, it was to deal specifically with puppy farms. Unfortunately, Deputy Roche did not stay long enough in the Department to finalise the Bill and now, not alone does it cover puppy farms but also kennels, greyhounds and every other sector of the dog community involved. It has caused much soul searching and public anger throughout the country. All of us as Deputies were subject to representations from the greyhound industry, the kennel industry and from other areas of the dog sector.

Last weekend, 300 or 400 people from Wexford visited me at my clinics, informing me they were not too happy about what is in the Bill and asking me to make representations to the Minister and to the Government. The Minister has reacted to some of the representations. We will await the amendments to be tabled and perhaps we will table more amendments between now and next Thursday to ensure the people in rural Ireland will be satisfied with the Bill when it is finally enacted.

It is always difficult to fully satisfy people but I am sure we will go part of the way in satisfying them. I have no problem with the legislation on puppy farms. The low standards set by unscrupulous dog breeders throughout the country in recent years has left much to be desired. Not all breeders are out of order because we have many good dog breeders that produce top-class quality and run very good operations. However, there are some cowboy operators that need to be dealt with. In 2005, the working group made strong recommendations in this area. The purpose of the Bill should be to safeguard dogs, particularly those in puppy farms. We should have proper identification, proper traceability and proper regulations, and people who run puppy farms properly and within the law have nothing to fear in the Bill.

Hunting clubs have raised many issues with me in recent weeks and, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows, Wexford has the Bree Hunt, the Island Hunt, the Wexford Hunt and Killinick Harriers. They have huge membership from dog owners to horse owners and they run very good kennels. To impose charges on them would cause severe hardship. They are not for profit organisations. It has enjoyable outings. It does a lot of fundraising for charitable purposes and provides valuable employment, directly and indirectly, if one considers what is involved in looking after the hounds and those involved in the hunts on a weekly basis throughout the season. A lot of people are employed and involved and it is also an opportunity to showcase its horses. It is very dissatisfied with the overall thrust of the Bill.

The Minister said he will table amendments on Committee Stage and I hope he will go further with amendments that will appease those who operate kennels and hunt clubs around the country. In his speech he stated that having regard to the concerns of the Hunting Association of Ireland, HAI, and the Irish Greyhound Board he has agreed registration fee exemptions for HAI registered members and greyhound trainers. He has also agreed to widen the fee bands in order that a dog breeding establishment with six to 18 bitches over six months of age which are capable of breeding will pay a fee of €400. He reiterated that someone with fewer than six breeding bitches will not be covered by the Bill. It is a welcome change from the Minister's initial proposal. In some areas the €400 will cause hardships and the Minister needs to reconsider the issue to see how he can make further changes.

He is also allowing for the continuation of the tattooing of dogs in dog breeding establishments operated by hunt clubs as an alternative option to microchipping. Hunt clubs sought such a provision and I welcome that the Minister will do that. It is a welcome change. I am sure the kennel clubs will not have only problem with the addition of a subsection to section 15 to require that tattoos be registered on a database for traceability purposes.

Dog wardens generally do a good job but the problem is that we have only one dog warden in each county and their job is difficult when one considers more than 10,000 dogs are put down every year. I welcome the fact that the Minister proposed having a dog licence for the lifetime of the dog rather than having to renew it on a yearly basis. In his speech the Minister said he would seriously consider an exemption for dog licences for old age pensioners.

On the greyhound industry, like Deputy Carey I own a greyhound. It ran six times and was last five times. It is not as successful as Deputy Carey's greyhound. It is costing me a lot of money to keep it and train it, although the trainer feels I am in arrears on training fees. We do not want to over regulate the greyhound industry. The industry worked very well under the 1958 Act. It has been one of the great success stories of this country. Different Governments have invested in it, including the Fine Gael and Labour coalition and the current Government, which has pumped a lot of money into the greyhound industry. New stadia are being built around the country.

There is a dog track in Enniscorthy which is one of the most successful in the country. People tell me it is the top betting dog track in Ireland. Unfortunately we did not have the same investment as other parts of the country. The former Minister, Joe Walsh, allocated €4 million to it a number of years ago for but for reasons I cannot go into today we were unable to avail of it. It is not the same standard as others with restaurants. It is a very high class greyhound track for racing.

In recent years due to the recession we have seen a downturn in the greyhound industry. During the boom farmers and builders were doing well and there was huge investment in greyhounds, not just in Wexford but all over the country. In 2006 Ireland produced 4,481 litters of greyhounds. It has decreased by 14%, 6%, 11% and there is a 9% decrease projected for this year. For the first time in a decade Ireland will produce fewer than 3,000 litters in 2010. Based on the numbers of declared litters in 2010 so far, we are on course to produce some 2,800 litters this year which compared to 2006 is a drop of one third.

We do not want to introduce legislation which will downgrade the greyhound industry and will lead to a lack of investment. The 1958 Act has worked very well and I complement the Minister, Deputy Smith, and the Minister, Deputy Gormley, on the changes announced today. The Minister, Deputy Smith, will upgrade the 1958 Act in the autumn in line with this Bill. I appeal to both Ministers not to over-regulate the greyhound industry. It currently works very well. It should be left alone. There is no need for changes.

I have great faith in the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and the Minister, Deputy Smith, to work out a system that will ensure that the greyhound industry will continue to thrive and be viable, and will encourage people invest in the greyhound industry in Ireland.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I thank Deputy Browne for sharing time. Deputy Joe Carey has left the House but I would like to congratulate him on his elevation to the position of deputy Chief Whip of Fine Gael. I was interested in his comments on the greyhound industry because he is obviously very knowledgeable about it, as is Deputy Browne. It appears as if Deputy Carey is more successful. Deputy Browne had a dog that was last five times out of six. I hope Deputy Carey is successful and that his bitch has a very good litter.

This Bill prompted a huge amount of discussion outside the House before it came before the House. In rural Ireland we have been inundated with people calling to us with their views on the Bill. Like Deputy Browne, a huge number of people came to see me last weekend about the measures in the Bill. We have been trying to force change and it is to be hoped that we are moving towards a compromise and something with which we can all live and agree. The Bill has a very worthy objective because there is no doubt there is a huge problem in the country in the way puppy farms are currently run. We have seen a number of television programmes on the abuses and cruelty in the industry. There have also been reports in the press on it. Any right thinking person in the country would say that this was going to be an excellent Bill to deal with this aspect of society. It would have had universal support in this House.

As the Minister, Deputy Gormley, said a number of years ago, the primary objective was to regulate commercial dog breeding but unfortunately it went beyond that. It has included the greyhound industry and the hunting community. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, was referred to. When he was dealing with the Bill he said in dealing with HAI that it was not part of the problem, therefore it did not have to be part of the solution. That is true, it is not part of the problem.

I wonder why so much controversy had to be created. The waters were muddied by making it a catch-all Bill rather than dealing with the real problem. It is unfortunate that all of that has happened. In doing that we brought about a situation which, it is to be hoped, will not arise as a result of some of the comments the Minister, Deputy Gormley, said earlier today. The Bill could be defeated when we vote on it next Thursday, which would be a pity when we are trying to deal with commercial puppy farming and not extraneous elements that were brought in.

The local hunt in Waterford is the Woodstown Harriers. I have seen how well it runs its operation, as do the other hunts throughout the country. I visited it, saw its kennels and how it looks after its animals. Some of them are looked after better than some human beings.

The suggestion that hunting organisations or greyhound owners are mistreating animals is very wide of the mark. Rogue operators pop up in every walk of life but, by and large, these organisations run a good show.

The Minister had indicated that affiliates of the Hunting Association of Ireland, HAI, would be exempted from the legislation and, as such, they were not included in the consultative process. However, it subsequently transpired that they would be affected by the Bill even though they did not have a proper opportunity to make their views known. My colleagues and I told our constituents in good faith that we had the Minister's assurance that the legislation would not affect them and it is difficult to maintain our credibility if we have to admit we were wrong or that the goalposts have moved.

The greyhound industry is well regulated by the Irish Greyhound Board, IGB, and the Irish Coursing Club, ICC. The ICC operates a register of all matings, litters born, adult greyhounds named and transfers of ownership. All stud dogs and brood bitches are DNA profiled, greyhounds are tattooed and earmarked for identification purposes and pups are inspected and tattooed by control stewards jointly appointed by the ICC and the IGB. Greyhound breeders are subject to registration fees which ultimately support the integrity of the industry. Recent reductions in funding for the industry have been accompanied by decreases in prize money which will impact on breeding and future supply of greyhounds. The industry has a defined policing structure on all matters relating to conduct of breeders and owners. Matters deemed to be in breach of industry regulations are processed through the independent control committee for sanction.

I am dealing with the Bill as it stands even though the Minister has indicated his intention to bring amendments because I have not had an opportunity to study his contribution on Second Stage. He has indicated that the greyhound industry will continue to be regulated by amendments to the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. Does this mean the industry will be covered by this legislation until such time as new legislation is enacted or will it be exempted altogether?

I met several representatives of the greyhound industry in my clinic in Waterford. I am closely acquainted with some of these individuals and I greatly respect their judgment. They expressed concern that the six litter ban would eventually kill the industry in this country because only the best brood bitches have more than six litters. If this measure comes into force, many of these bitches will be exported to France and elsewhere. The effects will not be felt for two or three years but the industry will then begin to die. I do not see why it would not suffice to allow a vet to determine whether a bitch is able to have more than six litters.

The Kilcohan Park Greyhound Stadium in Waterford has attracted huge numbers of spectators thanks to its excellent facilities. I do not want the contribution it makes to the local economy to be damaged in any way.

I wonder how "breeding bitch" will be defined. A dog breeding establishment is defined as owning more than six breeding bitches. However, a bitch may not be used for breeding again if her first litter is not good enough and, while she is a bitch, she is not a breeding bitch.

Significant progress has been made on the inspection regime. A dog warden can make a report but it will be up to the local authority veterinary inspector to make the follow-up inspection, possibly accompanied by representatives from the relevant organisation. I welcome the Minister's announcement on fee exemptions for the HAI, IGB and ICC. Let us hope that by the time we vote on the Bill next Thursday we will have agreed legislation with which all of us can live.

Deputy Dan Neville

I wish to share time with Deputy Seymour Crawford.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Dan Neville

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009. When the Bill was introduced I understood that its purpose was to regulate puppy farms, which I would completely support because I have seen on television the abuse that animals in some of these establishments suffer. For quite some time my party has pushed for stronger rules on puppy farms. However, the Bill before the House goes far beyond the issue of puppy farms to impose additional costs and duplicate inspection structures on rural industries such as greyhound and hunting dog breeding.

These are important activities in my constituency. Greyhound breeding has been popular in County Limerick for hundreds of years. People of the area love their sport and sometimes treat their dogs better than they would treat themselves. Rather than introduce something that inhibits the development of this industry, we want supportive policies that create jobs and opportunities.

Fox hunting is also popular in County Limerick. Several packs are based in the county, the most famous of which is the Black and Tans pack in Emly. The soldiers known as the black and tans got their name from this pack. The name of the pack in turn comes from the black and tan colour of foxhounds. The County Limerick Foxhounds pack is based two miles from where I live. As a child I was entertained when the horses and hounds walked up the road on which I grew up. We also helped to rear the pack's pups, which were farmed out to various families. There was a lot of angst among children in the area when dogs reached maturity and had to be returned to Clonshire. We had great days at the puppy shows, when all the new pups were judged.

Prizes were given, children were given lemonade — there was no cola at that time — sweets, buns and God knows what else. It was part of our life. We also have foxhunting, scarteens and many other packs.

The Fine Gael Party proposed a number of amendments in the Seanad to exclude these vital industries and instead focus primarily on puppy farms. While the Minister indicated he will partially reconsider the issue, the Bill before us is unchanged from the legislation passed in the Seanad. Fianna Fáil Party backbench Deputies have correctly expressed their opposition to the proposals, which are an excuse for the Green Party to impose its narrow ideological agenda on rural Ireland under the guise of solving other, real problems. There is no reference to dog breeding legislation or more regulation on industries such as greyhound racing in the revised programme for Government. Backbench Government Deputies will argue that they were unaware that the promised legislation on puppy farms included the areas to which I have referred.

While the Fine Gael Party is happy to engage with the Government and other stakeholders to address the issue of puppy farms, it will not do so while the Green Party is threatening to undermine rural industries which provide real jobs and income. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a more appropriate public body to have responsibility for animal welfare, with operational responsibility devolved to other bodies.

Under the proposal announced by the Minister, the regulation on greyhound control will be suspended to allow the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, to examine this area and produce proposals on the 1958 law. If the Green Party is not satisfied with the Minister's proposals, it can choose not to accept them because the decision will be made at Cabinet. If the Minister has not introduced an agreed regulation by 1 January next, the current proposals will be signed. If the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has problems with the proposals, he can be overruled without reference to the House and Deputies will not be given an opportunity to express a view on the changes taking place. If the Green Party wants to ensure the proposals before us are introduced, it need only refuse to approve any proposal made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The proposed change merely postpones the evil day. Why not trust the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to do what is right in the area of animal welfare given the Department's long and illustrious experience, if that is the correct term, in dealing with the welfare of all animals under many regulations and Acts? The Department can be trusted to regulate the welfare of animals.

Hunt clubs are not commercial bodies and hunting beagles are not bred for sale or racing but to replace hounds in the pack. The greyhound industry is highly regulated and tightly controlled by the l958 Act. Why interfere with a system that works?

The proposed powers to access premises are draconian and raise a question as to whether they undermine property rights under the Constitution. The Minister has gone over the top on puppy farms by applying its provisions to hunting beagles and greyhounds.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

While I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, it is extraordinary that Dáil Éireann should sit on a Friday to deal with such legislation when the Government cannot provide time to discuss serious health issues, the 40% drop in farm income, the extraordinary economic problems that many mortgage holders are experiencing and, especially, the cutbacks in support for those who are elderly or disabled. Only last Wednesday, the Taoiseach promised we would be given advice on Thursday morning as to how people with cystic fibrosis would be dealt with. I understand some time will be provided for this matter next week but no time could be found for the Dáil to deal with any of the other issues to which I referred. For the Green Party, the life of a deer or the position of dogs is clearly much more serious than the real problems of real people.

As a farmer, I am totally committed to the proper treatment of animals of all kinds. If there was abuse in dog breeding farms, as I know there was, I accept that reasonable regulations have to be implemented. However, I assure the Minister that those who own and look after greyhounds and beagles look after their dogs like members of their families. It is impossible to understand the reason these categories of dog were included in the Bill. It is important for greyhound breeders that their dogs are properly looked after in order that they will perform on the greyhound track. Otherwise, there would not be any point in remaining in business. The same position applies as regards beagles. Many of my neighbours have beagles and look after them extremely well. I welcome the proposed change to allow those with five breeding bitches or fewer to be exempt from the Act. A farmer who has bitches incapable of breeding will also be exempt, provided they are sterilised. I telephoned a friend who is involved in this business to ask him what would be the cost of sterilisation. He indicated it would be approximately €100 as he had paid £75 north of the Border for the procedure. It should be noted, however, that a sterilised bitch is no longer suitable for hunting or other purposes as it grows fat and loses the will to hunt. This issue needs to be examined more carefully.

The County Monaghan regional game council has suggested that a different definition of a dog breeding establishment be included in the Bill to provide that the premises or any number of premises owned by the same proprietor where five or more clutches of pups are born in a calendar year should be licensed. In other words, where fewer than five clutches of pups are born in a given year, the premises would not be a dog breeding establishment for the purposes of the Bill.

One of my neighbours has 20 bitches, which between them only had one litter last year. Although he does not use the dogs for breeding purposes, he will have an enormous burden placed on him by the legislation. The individual in question, who lost his job, lives across the Border at the moment although his home is on the southern side of the Border. He receives £69 per week. For him to pay €400 and all the other expenses would be a major issue. The Minister should try to keep those sorts of people in mind. The reality is that there is an increase in suicides in rural areas at present and we do not want any more.

However, my concerns and those of Fine Gael are that the Green Party is committed to making things as difficult as possible for the way of rural life, including pursuits such as greyhound racing, fox hunting and beagle hunting and the Minister has certainly done nothing in this Bill to change this view. The Minister has transferred the greyhound issue to his colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, and requires him to have a similar Act in place by 1 January 2011, stating that if this is not done the Minister, Deputy Gormley, will deal with the situation himself. This clearly shows the difficult relationship there is between the Green Party and Fianna Fáil.

I wish to deal with one other major issue, which is the use of microchips to control the dog industry. The Minister stated in his opening address that the working group recommended that all dogs kept in breeding establishments including their offspring should be electronically micro-chipped to ensure traceability and assist the enforcement of the registration system. It is rich that the Government is using such a system to control the movement of dogs — which I welcome — when it has refused over the years to use such a system for the movement of cattle. For some time I have said that the use of a microchip was clearly the ideal and necessary means but the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food always found an excuse to claim it was not suitable. The present tagging system is totally questionable. If this is successful in the dog industry, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might learn something from it.

Deputy Paul Gogarty

Good point.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

There are clearly major concerns among those in the dog-breeding industry regarding who will control this system. Section 17 outlines the different ways that a person breeding dogs with six bitches or more can be controlled. It is vital that only veterinary surgeons authorised by a local authority should have the final say. The breeders are rightly very worried that others outside the control of the local authority would have any role in compliance. I would like the Minister to clarify this.

On the issue of the dog licensing I am clearly interested in the figures given by the Minister regarding how much money is collected through the existing fees. This was an issue I constantly raised when I was a member of Monaghan County Council. After each of the elections I went through for either the council or the Dáil, I could never understand why there was so little money collected from the dog licence fee because every house I visited had at least one dog and in many cases far more. I can assure the Minister there were very few houses where there were no dogs at all. I appreciate that some of them may be strays but I would suggest that 90% of them were owner owned. Clearly little effort was made to ensure that each dog was licensed. I would have thought that the first approach to raise more money should have been to improve licence fee collection rather than increase the amount. If this was done there would be more than sufficient money available to control the sector.

I want to return to the general thrust of the Bill. A full-page article in the Irish Independent reported that Deputy Lowry had negotiations with the Government — I am not sure if it was with the Minister, Deputy Gormley, or with the Taoiseach. He claims that he has secured sufficient changes to the Bill to allow him to support it. However, it is vital that the Minister makes it clear in his concluding speech on Second Stage that hunting clubs, owners of beagles and owners of greyhounds are exempt.

One active member of the Green Party made a statement at a well attended public meeting in Monaghan town that a puppy farm only a mile from his home was a disgrace or something to that effect. I visited the only dog breeding farm that I am aware of in that area and found the beagles better looked after than many children. The Minister and his supporters want to bring about a bureaucracy for dog breeders which is completely unnecessary and I would object to the Bill in that context.

It is impossible to believe that the Green Party Members believe this as such an important and serious issue when if they walk out through the door of Leinster House at night they would clearly see those individuals in need of housing lying in doorways. Even more frightening is a 25% increase in suicide, mainly in rural areas. For many people living on their own a beagle hunt or a day at the dogs is one of the few things they have to live for and I beg the Minister to ensure that none of these people are even worse off after the Bill is passed than they are at present. I fully support the control of puppy farms used for commercial purposes. However, to introduce these other issues is unfair.

Deputy Trevor Sargent

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Gogarty.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Trevor Sargent

The Dog Breeding Establishment Bill 2009 is, as Deputies have rightly said, primarily focussed on addressing and regulating the breeding of approximately 90,000 puppies per annum, approximately half of which are exported, mainly to the UK in a trade that is worth €29 million. It definitely needs regulation. On many occasions in this House we have called for regulation in different quarters having perhaps learned too little too late. However, this area has been left without regulation for a long time.

It is not a Green Party Bill as such, as some would try to insinuate. It is a legacy from the time of the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. It is the implementation of the recommendations of a working group which need to be put into legislation. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, was initially informed it could happen through the Control of Dogs Act. Subsequently it proved not to be possible to use that Act to address the working group's recommendations and the advice was that it needed separate legislation. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, was landed with this legacy, one might say, but he is not one to shirk his responsibilities and it needs to be implemented. It needs to include animal shelters and other areas where there are large numbers of dogs, simply because by not doing so it would create loopholes which would put us in a worse situation of having gone through all the trouble of introducing the legislation and then needing to revisit it if loopholes are found. Unfortunately for those who have an opposite view, there is not much alternative. However, some amendments are possible and that is where the Minister is trying to address those concerns and build consensus on the matter, given the legacy he has had to deal with.

I know many greyhound owners. Balbriggan is a town of greyhound breeding going back over many years. One owner asked me today what all the fuss was about. There is not one greyhound breeder in my town who will be affected by this Bill. They are all in the business of having one, two or three breeding dogs at the most and that is the case for most greyhound breeders. All the animal charities support the Bill. They would have considerably more dogs and less money, given the veterinary fees they need to meet. I hope the issue can be depoliticised. Dogs and their welfare should be beyond the kind of sniping that takes place at a party political level. It is essentially about trying to regulate an area that has been regulated in other countries. We are learning from their mistakes and I hope we can have good legislation as a result, having listened to all sides in the meantime.

Debate adjourned.