I take this opportunity to express my sympathies to Private Seán Rooney's family. We are all shocked and saddened by the news that he lost his life in Lebanon. I extend my sympathies to his family, friends, community and comrades. Private Rooney's death is a reminder of the risks and sacrifices that our peacekeepers make every day when on duty. I wish a speedy recovery to his colleagues who were injured in that horrific incident.
I thank Deputies Verona Murphy, Tóibín and Canney for bringing forward this Bill and speaking on it this evening It relates to an important issue on which I have spoken previously. Pets are incredibly valuable to us. We saw that during the Covid lockdowns. We have an emotional attachment to our pets that goes far beyond property ownership, and the loss of a pet is far more than an economic loss. It is a loss from our lives and it brings a deep worry about what has happened to them. As public representatives, we regularly deal with constituents who have suffered the loss of pets and can see the distress caused. Pets are also particularly important to older people and vulnerable people. That is why there is a shared understanding of the importance of this issue across the House. This is a matter I have worked on since becoming Minister of State. I have had very useful and constructive input from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and others.
The Government will not be opposing the Bill. Before speaking to the specifics of it, and some concerns that arise, it would be useful to take stock of where we are. Demand for dogs was particularly high during the Covid lockdowns. Huge prices were being paid, and, unsurprisingly, that coincided with an increase in reported thefts. I liaised with the Ministers for Justice and Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputies McEntee and McConalogue, on the issue at that time. Information for dog owners went out through the Garda, and there was targeted enforcement and ongoing patrols. The Garda reported a number of search and seizure successes through this period, as did customs and excise officers at designated ports of entry. The message went out that dog theft was already a serious crime and that people faced serious sentences for it. As Deputies know, these prison sentences run to up to ten years for theft and for handling of stolen property and up to five years for possession of stolen property. Where a burglary is involved, the sentence may be up to 14 years' imprisonment. When imposing sentences, judges are not limited to considering the monetary value of a pet. The sentimental value and the emotional distress to the victim caused by the offence can be and are taken into account.
The Animal Health and Welfare (Sale or Supply of Pet Animals) Regulations 2019 brought in new registration requirements which anyone trading in pet animals must adhere to. Both the person and the premises used must be registered with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Sellers must keep records of who they buy animals from and they may not sell animals younger than the ages specified. The Microchipping of Dogs Regulations also apply. All dogs must be microchipped by the age of 12 weeks. If one is advertising a dog for sale, the advertisement must now have the microchip code. Together these steps acted as a strong deterrent, and it is positive to see that most recent figures indicate a significant reduction in reported incidents of dog theft in Ireland in 2022. This reduction coincides with the preventative measures taken and the reopening of the country.
To date this year, 47 incidents of dog theft, involving 128 dogs, have been reported. This is relative to a dog population of approximately 500,000. These numbers are comparable with those in other countries, such as the UK. The Garda Síochána takes pet theft very seriously. I encourage anybody with information to report it to An Garda Síochána. If people believe their pet has been stolen, I ask them to please report it to An Garda Síochána. Leaving aside for a moment whether property offences in general adequately capture the emotional impact of pet theft, I do not agree that current sentencing provisions are inadequate. Offences of theft, handling stolen property, and so on, are very serious, and potentially carry long sentences.
There is a good, principled argument to be made that viewing pet theft as solely a property offence is too narrow a perspective. This was ultimately the conclusion the UK task force came to. The UK is introducing a new offence of "taking a dog without lawful authority", which distinguishes pets from inanimate property. It also puts in place some important practical measures, such as excluding disputes over pet ownership that might arise in a relationship breakdown, for example.
I caution that changes to the criminal law can only be a part of the answer and that we need to look at pet welfare, control and ownership in the round. Everyone can play a part in deterring theft. There are two key practical actions, the first of which is microchipping. As I said, every dog must be microchipped by the time it reaches 12 weeks of age, or earlier if it is sold or moved from its place of birth. The microchip must be registered with an authorised database. Microchipping of all dogs protects the animals' welfare and assists with speedy identification and reunification of lost or stolen dogs and their owners. It is an offence to keep a dog aged over 12 weeks that has not been chipped. It is an offence to sell such a dog. Chips can be easily checked by a vet and by the Garda. They are by far the most effective means of tracking and identifying dogs. The second action is I would urge anyone considering buying a dog to ask to see the pup in its home environment with its mother. People should never buy a puppy from someone who offers to meet away from the puppy's home. People should ask for evidence the seller or supplier of the dog is properly registered. They should ask to see the certificate of registration of the microchip. It should never be the case that a person is buying a dog informally from someone he or she does not know, without any paperwork and without checking that the dog is microchipped.
Deputies referred to the recent report of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine on issues surrounding dog welfare. The report makes a number of recommendations to improve legislation relating to dog ownership, welfare and breeding, including outright bans on certain practices and tighter regulation. Some of these recommendations will complement existing measures deterring pet theft. Colleagues in the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Rural and Community Development, and Housing, Local Government and Heritage are actively considering those recommendations.
A cross-departmental review of the laws around the control of dogs is now also under way and being led by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue. A terrible incident occurred in my own home town of Enniscorthy just a couple of weeks ago when a nine-year-old boy, Alejandro Miszan, was attacked and severely injured by a dog. It was truly shocking. My thoughts are with Alejandro and his family and friends following the horrific ordeal he endured and to wish him well in his recovery. In more recent days there were two terrible dog attacks in counties Offaly and Kildare, where up to 70 sheep were killed. I heard the farmer, John Healy, on the radio talking about the harrowing scene of devastation he and his children came upon. Fifty sheep were killed in the attack on his farm, and that is any farmer's worst nightmare. I understand the Garda is investigating these incidents and as Mr. Healy said on the radio, somebody must know something about this attack on his farm. Those dogs would have arrived home covered in blood and their owners have a responsibility here. I encourage anybody who has information to come forward. The review being led by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, will build on the work undertaken by the Department of Rural and Community Development in its consultation report on dog control earlier in the year. The goal, in short, is to ensure there is a culture of responsible ownership which will benefit dogs, owners and society more broadly. We all love dogs but if you own a dog, you need to look after it and you need to control it.
I will make some brief observations on the Bill itself, some of which I have touched on already. As I have said, the Government is not opposing the Bill at this Stage. I hope these observations are taken constructively as the Deputies further consider their Bill. The Bill provides for a mandatory minimum sentence and does not provide any discretion for the sentencing court to not apply this minimum. As a starting point, involving the Oireachtas in determining minimum rather than maximum sentences is very much the exception, and for good reason. We entrust courts with the responsibility of determining what is an appropriate sentence based on the facts of the cases before them, including the specific features and gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the offender and the impact on the victim; in short, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Minimum sentences are used sparingly in Irish legislation and are typically appropriate for only the most serious offences, such as section 15A possession of drugs with a value in excess of €13,000 with intent to sell or supply, section 15 possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life or a mandatory life sentence for murder. It would be a significant departure from sentencing practice to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in respect of a pet theft offence, which, while very serious, may not be of comparable gravity to other such offences just listed.
I will say something on minimum sentencing more generally. Deputies have referred to dogs being stolen by organised crime groups One of the weaknesses of minimum sentences is the people who are subject to them are usually not the ones calling the shots. They may be young people on the bottom rung for whom long prison terms are not the answer. Where minimum sentences are used, they are generally prescribed on a presumptive basis where judges may impose a lower sentence if exceptional and specific circumstances make it appropriate to do so. The Bill before us does not provide for such a possibility. As Deputies are aware, the Supreme Court struck down a non-discretionary minimum sentence as unconstitutional in the Wayne Ellis case in 2019. The assessment of the Attorney General's office is the offence proposed in the Bill would face similar constitutional difficulties.
There are other technical legal issues with the drafting that would also need to be considered further. In policy terms, as I mentioned, the issue here is not that the sentencing powers are inadequate and the question is rather whether property offences are the most appropriate tool. These are areas the Deputies might reflect on and which might form part of the consideration on subsequent Stages. While it would not be possible to support the Bill as it stands to enactment, given the issues I have raised, and in particular the constitutional difficulties, it is an area of active and ongoing policy development and I look forward to working with Deputies on it in the future to see how these issues can be addressed.
A Chathaoirligh Gníomhaigh, this would usually be the last piece of business before the Dáil rises for Christmas. While that is not exactly the case this year, I might nonetheless take the opportunity to thank the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, all the Deputies who have acted as Cathaoirleach, the ushers, everybody working within the Dáil, Seanad and Oireachtas buildings, including those in the canteen and everyone who helps keep this place running. It is not an easy job at the best of times and I thank them for their help and support throughout the last year.
