Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 23 Feb 2022

Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013: Post-Enactment Scrutiny (Resumed)

Chairman

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. Members are requested to ensure that for the duration of the meeting their mobile phones are turned off completely, or switched to airplane safe or flight mode, depending on the device. It is not sufficient for members just to put phones on silent mode as it maintains the level of interference with the broadcasting system.

The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss, first, consideration of artificial canine insemination, canine insemination, canine fertility clinics and ear cropping in relation to post-enactment scrutiny of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 (resumed). The purpose of the second session is to discuss development of the hemp sector in Ireland.

In regard to committee meetings, with effect from 25 January 2022 members and witnesses have the option of attending meetings with the relevant committee within the relevant committee room rather than participating via MS Teams. Masks should continue to be worn by those present when not addressing the committee. Room capacity will continue to be reduced in the short term until all microphones and seating can be returned.

Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as far as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third party or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or any official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts, and members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

The first session from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. will deal with consideration of artificial canine insemination, canine insemination, canine fertility clinics and ear cropping in the context of post-enactment scrutiny of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 (resumed). I welcome Dr. Tim Kirby, director, PetBond. I now call him to make his opening statement.

Mr. Tim Kirby

I am a qualified veterinary surgeon with 20 years of practical clinical experience of all species, across both the UK and Ireland. During this time I have also served as a trustee for several animal welfare organisations and have been a firm advocate of animal welfare and health at all times. I currently also sit as a member of the Veterinary Ireland companion animal committee, and represent the group at a European animal working group level. In a personal capacity I am also a member of a joint UK and Ireland puppy farming stakeholder group attempting to resolve that major issue, which also represents more than 40 independent and government-affiliated bodies.

As we emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic it is not only a time for reflection, but also a time for change. Over the past two years we have witnessed the ever-increasing demand for pets by the public, and the resorts to which some will go to in meeting these demands. What was very evident, and something I witnessed first-hand as a clinician, was the mismatch between supply and demand throughout the pandemic. As a result, the imbalance created by an insatiable public demand created the perfect void for supply by opportunistic individuals, with the sole purpose of generating vast personal wealth. At a time of huge emotional strain and stress on both families and individuals during what was the greatest health challenge in modern times, some unscrupulous breeders seized the opportunity to capitalise and extort. With the demand for certain breeds such as brachycephalic, otherwise known as brachys for short, including French bulldogs, pugs and shih tzus at unprecedented levels, the supply of these puppies was seen by many as a passport to riches at any cost. As a result, more and more people resorted to using artificial insemination in their dogs which increased efficiency and maximised the chances of greater output, that is, greater numbers of puppies and greater profit.

Artificial insemination is not a new practice and has been performed in canines for many years. It has been used particularly in cases where dogs are in remote geographical areas and cannot travel to mate naturally. Derivatives of this procedure also include the more invasive transcervical insemination, TCI, technique and surgical insemination. It is worth noting at this point that surgical insemination is an illegal practice in the UK, whereas as all three forms of canine insemination can be performed legally in Ireland. In the case of surgical insemination, it is necessary for the recipient to undergo general anaesthesia, as a surgical incision is made through the body wall into the abdominal cavity. Thereafter, the uterus is identified and the uterine tubes are inseminated. The patient is surgically repaired and recovered from anaesthesia. This procedure is highly invasive and requires considerable anatomical skill, knowledge and experience in ensuring the best possible recovery for the patient. Alarmingly, such a high-risk procedure is being performed by untrained, unskilled lay persons, which is at a compete contravention of the Animal Health and Welfare Act.

With the soaring public demand for designer puppies, the suppliers of these have identified the commercial and practical ease offered by all forms of insemination techniques. As a result, we are seeing more fertility clinics emerging in an attempt to match the insatiable demand with a faster and on-order supply of designer breed puppies. Such fertility clinics are highly unregulated places that lack any veterinary or professional contribution. In essence, they are dungeons of misery for many animals, as the unskilled, untrained people there perform invasive and illegal acts such as blood sampling, invasive swabbing and, in cases, the highest-risk surgical insemination procedure. It is also believed among many veterinary professionals that Caesarean sections are being performed in some such fertility centres, which, in itself, is a highly disturbing concept. Attempting to subject any animal to such invasive surgery without the appropriate skills, procedures or medication is a gross violation of the most serious nature. The emergence of such unregulated and abhorrent fertility clinics has been mirrored across the UK and Ireland and is a trend which seems to be increasing. Such facilities are in clear breach of many animal health and welfare laws and Acts, not least the five freedoms that underpin all animal-based legislation globally.

In addition to compromising animal health and welfare, veterinary procedures are being illegally carried by unqualified lay persons who are in possession of medicines which are only licensed for veterinary use. In total, the existence of such fertility clinics pose one of the most serious risks to present and future generations of dogs and, as a result, must be tackled head on by the Government. Public education, awareness and vigilance regarding the existence of such centres must also be prioritised.

Coupled with the emergence of fertility clinics, is the re-emergence of ear cropping in the past 18 months, in particular. This hideous practice is solely driven by a human desire to create a better looking dog, where floppy ears do not conform to such a preposterous notion. As with designer breeds, the driving force behind the demand for ear cropped dogs is purely and simply people. People are choosing such dogs based on looks entirely and, in some cases, ignorant of the abject cruelty inflicted on the poor dogs in cosmetically designing such ears. Ear cropping is an absolutely cruel, wholly unnecessary and purely cosmetic procedure. There is no scientific, biological or logical justification for such a barbaric act. It is shunned among all my professional colleagues and it needs to be shunned by every citizen of this country. There is no place for such a procedure in modern Irish society and it is harrowing to think that such brutality is taking place out of public sight. Ear cropping is happening in facilities without any veterinary supervision and without anaesthetic or even pain relief. It is without doubt one of the most callous and visceral forms of animal cruelty. Removing a dog’s ears not only deprives it anatomically, but it also severely restricts its ability to communicate and express itself. Dogs use their body language, and ears especially, as a means of expressing their emotions, and removing part or all their ears has a catastrophic effect on their overall quality of life. I believe that the term "ear cropping" should actually be replaced with the term "ear chopping", as that better represents the lack of humanity and absolute brutality involved. Without doubt, a hotline to Government agencies should exist where such cases or suspected cases can be reported in confidence.

Chairman

We get many opening statements in this committee and I have not, in my term here, come across an opening statement as disturbing as the one Dr. Kirby made, in particular the fact that in Ireland and the UK in 2022, these fertility clinics can operate completely unregulated, according to his report, and I am not questioning the accuracy of it in any regard. We have the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and many justifiable rules on animal welfare, and rightly so, but is there any policing of these fertility clinics? If there was a rogue veterinarian on the bovine side, he would very quickly be found out and prosecuted. Have there been any raids on these fertility clinics or any prosecutions related to fertility clinics? How many are there in Ireland?

Mr. Tim Kirby

It is very difficult to quantify. Certainly, veterinary colleagues and myself who all see puppies coming in their door every day of the week often wonder where they came from. We live in an era where, as I alluded to, the demand is so great that people on the supply side are doing everything to supply as many puppies as they can. With that, I am sceptical as to the sources and origins of some of these puppies is, to say the least. That fits in with the wider issue we have of unregulated puppy farms with industrial-scale breeding. The lack of standards and care that are exhibited by those breeding practices fit like a glove on a hand with these practices such as artificial insemination, ear cropping and various other procedures, which are completely unregulated as well. Again, it is part of the wider pet sector. It is impossible for it to be completely policed, but there have to be greater efforts in determining where puppies are coming from because that is a classic avenue to get back to the root cause of some of these issues as well.

As I said, to quantify the exact the numbers is very difficult, but we have heard of facilities where the public were aware of them and Garda sergeants certainly were notified of the existence of them. Again, there was no veterinary involvement in any of these. These are people who are doing this of their own accord, seizing the opportunity to extort from people who want puppies quickly.

Chairman

I will bring in Senator Boylan first because she is the one who looked to have this subject brought before the committee and it merits serious discussion, so I will allow her to go first.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I thank the Chairman. I appreciate that. I know the work Dr. Kirby is doing with PetBond is exceptional. I recommend anybody who wants to buy a puppy to avail of the support of that site. Surgical artificial insemination is a very invasive procedure, even if carried out by a vet. There are also the more concerning issues raised by Dr. Kirby, namely, the possibility that this is happening without vets or anybody qualified. Would Dr. Kirby say that, even with a vet present, it is something that should be limited in its uses because of its invasive nature? I know it is used quite a lot in greyhound racing as well as in the puppy farms.

The other issue is the requirement to register only breeding bitches. A dog breeding establishment has to register only if it has six or more bitches. Do we need to move on this? The purpose of these sessions is to look at how fit for purpose the law is. Do we need to move to requiring anybody keeping stud dogs to register? It is not hard to find them on Facebook. One individual whom I will not name is making about €250,000 per year in stud fees of bulldogs. Does Dr. Kirby think we need to require stud dogs to be registered?

My next question concerns designer breeds and the breeding of dogs that are very different in size and nature. Aside from the fact this must be done through artificial insemination, which is an invasive procedure, what are the implications for the dogs that are born out of those mismatches?

Mr. Tim Kirby

Surgical insemination is certainly an invasive procedure, and by that we mean opening into a body cavity. Obviously, a dog needs a general anaesthetic. That carries a risk. We do not give a general anaesthetic very lightly because of the obvious risks it carries, which are the same ones for an animal as for a human. That is one factor that must always be considered. Is it critical that this procedure be done? You would assess the risk of using a general anaesthetic. You then have the actual procedure, which involves entering a body cavity. There is a risk of contamination, surgical injury as you are performing the procedure, haemorrhage and other complications. Even when it is performed in a controlled, sterile surgical environment, it does carry risks. When we look where the practice is being done in an unregulated and uncontrolled environment by an unskilled, untrained person, the risk of something going wrong is infinitely higher.

What we must bear in mind is that even if it is legal in Ireland, is it something at which we need to look more closely and ask whether there is a place for it, and if there is, why and how should it be done? We need to have this conversation, which is the purpose of discussing this topic here today. We must also bear in mind that, even though there are certain licences around dog breeding and certain establishments, there is a bigger picture where the majority of puppies are coming from that case. Similarly, there is the unregulated and uncontrolled sector of it. Many of the puppies born are selectively bred, such as French bulldogs. Many of these dogs are not designed for breeding purposes. They have inherent anatomical deficiencies that mean they are more likely to require Caesarean sections. If they are being bred in these unregulated and uncontrolled facilities, who is carrying out these procedures on them? We note there are reports of untrained people performing such procedures, which is highly disturbing. This is where due diligence is needed to quantify and assess how that area can be tackled as well.

Dog breeding establishments with six or more breeding bitches on the premises require licences under the Dog Breeding Establishments Act. What is the merit in the number six? We need far more discussion around the whole concept and I am happy to be a part of that at any point. I agree that in respect of stud dogs, when we look at the number of puppies, we assess their welfare and health. Again, the genetic contribution of the sire is as important as the dam, but it is an area nobody even bothers to refer to. The Senator is right. It is certainly contributing to a lot of the problems. When we look at the problems some of these brachy breeds are having, for example, French bulldogs, there is an initiative called BOAS, brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, where you can test specific breed lines, the dam and the sire to see whether they are suitable for breeding. This is something PetBond certainly encourages. We will be introducing more initiatives around that because many of these problems can be avoided. As the Senator rightly said, by introducing these tests on the sire but also on the dam side, we can alleviate and prevent a lot of the problems. With the number of puppies being bred in Ireland every year, the size of the demand for stud dogs is huge as well, and I think some control needs to be introduced because this is half of the story and it is certainly half of the problem.

Regarding the third point about designer breeds, we are talking about breeds like French bulldogs, many of the brachy breeds in general or Shih Tzus. They are along the very pedigree-generated lines, while at the other end of the spectrum we are looking at Pomeranians crossed with Huskies, Cavachons and Cockapoos, which are poodles crossed with cocker spaniels. Again, it is not like mixing two paints and getting a specific colour. When you mix these together, you essentially get a genetic cocktail. One of the greatest examples of where all of this is going wrong is in clinical practice. We are seeing a lot of dogs coming in our doors with behavioural issues. When we start to look at the root cause of these behavioural issues, we find they are underlying health problems. We have dogs in pain or with health issues we have not seen previously because we are getting these genetic mixes that are constantly being introduced by people to feed a demand for these designer breed dogs. As a result, dogs are presenting with these bizarre behavioural issues. What we are trying to do is see what we can do to help these dogs in the short term, but there certainly needs to be a longer term strategy and far greater awareness of the consequences of people demanding these breeds and people then supplying these breeds.

Senator Paul Daly

I compliment Senator Boylan on raising this issue. I concur with the Chairman's statement. I was horrified reading Dr. Kirby's statement. This is not to question its content in any way, all of which I accept. We had submissions from the Department and the Veterinary Council of Ireland, VCI. I took it that both of them were going to be here this evening. The questions I had prepared were for them based on Dr. Kirby's submission. By virtue of the fact they are not here, and that was my misunderstanding of the situation, I might run some of them by Dr. Kirby and get further elaboration from him.

Regarding Dr. Kirby's description of what I would call backstreet clinics, medicines are being used. We had a lot of deliberation over the past year on the European veterinary medicines regulation. At this stage, a farmer must have a prescription for anti-parasitic medicines just dosing for worms. It was made quite clear to us that nobody can buy or import these medicines without being registered and recognised by the VCI. Where are these medicines coming from? How are these people getting their hands on the medicines that would be required to carry out these operations?

Is it an issue for customs as much as for anybody else?

Mr. Kirby mentioned, in his opening statement, the raising of public awareness of this issue, which was a point I definitely intended to raise with the Department. I will be honest and declare my ignorance or naivety, as one could describe it, that either of these things was happening and I certainly was not aware of the resulting consequences and volume of artificial insemination and ear cropping. We need to raise public awareness of the issue. There would be people like me who, if they were to go with a family member to buy a dog whose ears were cropped, would not be aware of how or why that happened or that it was not the natural shape of the ear of that breed of dog. Until the end user or final purchaser is fully aware of how such a dog got to the condition it is in, with the enormous pain and trauma it would have endured to end up looking like it does, we cannot say "stop" to that while there is a market. If there was a strong publicity campaign highlighting the issues Mr. Kirby has raised and more public awareness of them, I would say people would say "No" and would not purchase the dog in question. The questions were based on Mr. Kirby's submission but, as I said, they were intended for the Department and the Veterinary Council of Ireland, VCI. Mr. Kirby might comment on where I am coming from on these issues.

Mr. Tim Kirby

I will speak on my own behalf. Certainly, without doubt, the drugs that would be used where a surgical procedure would be done are what we call controlled drugs. They are medicines that would only be licensed for use by a veterinary surgeon such as anaesthetics and pain relief drugs. The question is where some people would be accessing those medicines. The most likely scenario is that many of these drugs would be imported. There are reports of that with respect to generic drugs. For example, when a drug is launched, it gets a period of exclusivity and then the generic drugs come on the market. There are always reports that when a generic drug is launched there are counterfeit versions of that generic drug on the market. That is not a new feature of medicines. That has existed for years in animal health in particular. I imagine these drugs would be counterfeit generics of licensed drugs on the market. There are laboratories capable of producing those drugs. Scientists can reverse engineer them and produce them. They will make their way on to the market in some shape or form, most likely through importation. It is important to realise many of these facilities probably would not even have those drugs available. They would be using human drugs. People have given various human medicines to animals. Some of the breeding establishments do that to control the fertility of dogs and use pain relieving drugs. Some people will raid their human drug cabinet to see if those drugs will work on a dog with the consequent major risk and side effects of that for any animal. That is what I would say about those control medicines.

On raising public awareness of ear cropping, there was a very good drive to cut out ear cropping and make the public aware of it the UK in late 2021 with the Cut the Crop campaign. The word "cut" was really effective. As I said, I would almost replace the wording with "Chop the Crop" because it must be that stark. It is quite a visceral comment to make and it must be that raw that it captures people’s emotions such that they think it is not a procedure we should accept and that if we see it, it is abnormal. It comes down to education on what is normal and abnormal, and what is acceptable based on that.

Deputy Martin Browne

I cannot get over some of what Mr. Kirby said in his opening statement. When I read about the three types of artificial insemination I thought it was almost a set-up. Could any member of the public here carry out any of those three artificial insemination procedures, which are illegal in the UK?

Mr. Tim Kirby

The first two procedures would be less invasive than the surgical one. Certainly with training, there are people performing these procedures. Some people would have basic training on it and they can do it. One does not have to be a veterinary surgeon. Some people who are qualified as technicians would do it. Other people with fewer qualifications and less experience would do it also. The only procedure that would be banned in the UK would be the surgical insemination technique but the big issue is that people would still be performing it there even though it is illegal.

Deputy Martin Browne

It is crazy to think that I could decide tomorrow morning to carry out any one of those three procedures and there would be no comeback against me. Is most of the abuse of these dogs, of designer breeds as they have been described, being carried out not by the owners of puppy farms but by backyard breeders, to borrow a term used to describe them by a woman from my home town of Cashel? In some places papers are produced for these so-called designer dogs but do we need to change the language we are using? One can have such papers but those dogs are mongrels. If we were to change the way we describe them, it would take away the gloss of an owner having a little designer dog that would fit in her handbag that she could show off as she walks down the street. Having such a designer dog sounds like what a film star would have. Breeders are charging crazy money for what are described as designer dogs but they are mongrels. Do we need to change the way we talk about the industry, bring it back to reality and let the public know that such a dog is not a designer dog but a mongrel and that one can have whatever papers one likes, they would still be no good.

Mr. Tim Kirby

It is a good point. If we take it from both ends of the spectrum, on one end, we would have the finest bred pedigree dog and, on the other end, many of the dogs - I would add the caveat not all of them - would be high end pedigree but would have issues such as restricted noses where they cannot breathe properly and have airway issues. We are trying to bring in new breed standards where we say this is what the norm should be for this dog, its nose and airways need to be this wide and this long and anything that is different or less than that does not conform. Therefore, we would have some benchmarking for breeders and everybody involved in that sector of pedigree dog breeding. If we look at the other end, where this also applies, we would have cavachons, cookapoos and pomskies, which are pomeranians crossed with huskies. Many people would refer to those breeds as designer breeds also, even though there are no pedigrees whatsoever with these dogs. Some people would argue and say we crossed a pedigree poodle with a pedigree cocker spaniel but it is a completely new breed that is being created. What health and behavioural issues will it have? It is almost like opening a lucky bag and pulling something out to see what it could be.

I agree with the Deputy that we need to almost neutralise the language around it. One cannot make a comment without referring to both ends of the spectrum. Certain things are common to both ends of the spectrum. The health and welfare of any dog will apply no matter what end of the spectrum it is on. That is where we need to find a commonality in how we refer to these dogs. Also, as the Deputy said, it would take away some of the stigma associated with certain breeds. It does not glamorise certain terms. That is where the public education about this comes in. Sometimes we must be brutally honest about what it is, call it for what it is and then deal with the issues around that. We must almost reverse engineer the end product, which is the problem, and then build it back up in the public mind, with direct language around that, and inform and educate people on what is healthy and normal, and what should be acceptable from now on.

Deputy Martin Browne

Are some of unregulated clinics moveable? Are those chancers operating unregulated clinics from trailers, which they can move around and, if so, has any of them been apprehended?

In terms of what Senator Daly mentioned, I accept that some of the medicines come in but are some being brought in for vets or whatever? Is there a tracing system for these medicines? If so, has a regulator been informed that batches of these medicines have gone missing and ended up in the hands of criminals or unscrupulous dog handlers?

Mr. Tim Kirby

It is very feasible to create a mobile unit for these clinics. I do not have personal experience of a mobile clinic but I imagine that it is possible to do that, in practice.

In terms of the regulation of drugs, there is not a set database that could report that a specific batch of drugs is not recorded by the end user. There is no larger database that feeds in to this. Where a single unit or a batch is produced in the manufacturing plant of whatever company that makes this drug, that is not traced right down the chain to the end user nor is there an upstream of information back to the producer that says: "We have got a log of every single entry point where this drug was used and, therefore, we can record, we have documented and we can prove that the drug [be it a bottle or vial that was manufactured] was used in X, Y or Z facility." That chain of events does not exist in animal health. I certainly know from the larger animal side that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is introducing a much better system where the specific use of drugs can be recorded and documented. On the companion animal side, that does not exist at present.

Deputy Martin Browne

How common was the problem prior to the surge in this practice in the past 18 months? When did PetBond draw the attention of the Department to the issue? How did the Department respond? When did PetBond lobby the Government about this matter? Can Dr. Kirby explain why it has taken so long to either revisit or change the legislation in terms of ear cropping?

Mr. Tim Kirby

Yes, 20 or 25 years ago the procedure was performed more commonly. With public awareness and education the practice was no longer justifiable. As I said, there was no logical or biological reason for the procedure, and that was a huge driver in making people accept and realise that there was no practical purpose to continuing the practice. However, in more recent times, particularly just pre-Covid, the practice re-emerged. It fits in with all of the desired aesthetics. Many of these dogs are now bred purely for their looks and there is no other logical reason for them. This fits in with the idea that dogs with short ears that are not floppy are deemed to be more attractive. These animals are just clickbait and people use them to increase their profile on social media. As sad as that sounds, there is an animal welfare consequence and that applies to these dogs as well.

Can we convey the message to people that the practice is abnormal? Like what happens with a lot of these animal health and welfare issues, people can stop the practice by voting with their feet and saying that the look is abnormal and unacceptable. I think that is where the real change will happen.

Deputy Paul Donnelly

I thank Dr. Kirby for his report and I am shocked by his findings. I have a husky dog and I am beyond puzzled as to why somebody would subject an animal to this torture. I find the situation really disturbing and upsetting.

Some of my questions have been asked and I want to discuss the demand for these animals. Anecdotally, I know through social media, that one sees images of cavapoos and all these types of dogs. When I take my dog for its daily walk I see dogs of mixed breed everywhere and that situation became more apparent in the last couple of years because people got dogs during the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over there is a sense that a lot of these dogs have behavioural issues, and I found what Dr. Kirby said about this earlier really interesting. He said that a lot of these people who paid a huge amount of money for these types of dogs now find that they cannot manage them. In addition, if people have returned to work, these dogs have become more unmanageable. Now we have nearly a tsunami of dogs that have been handed back to the animal rescue organisations or dumped. Has Dr. Kirby seen evidence of this disturbing situation? I have heard, anecdotally, about dogs being abandoned; is that prevalent among those who look after dogs?

Dr. Kirby has said that the ear cropping procedure is performed by untrained and unskilled people. Who are they? Does he mean the dog breeders or are people brought in to do the job? Have untrained people set themselves up and told people that they will perform this dangerous procedure? Is it just the dog breeders who perform this procedure?

This is illegal and I noticed the report from the Minister said, I think, that the Department is aware and supportive of a number of Garda led investigations into such activities. I have only ever heard of one case of people being done for veterinary prescriptions - I will not name them, but some people will appear in court because of the illegal use of veterinary medicines. People may contradict me but I am fairly certain that it is exceptionally rare that something like this happens, yet these are exceptionally dangerous drugs and not just to animals. If these drugs are in unskilled and untrained hands then they are dangerous to animals but they are also dangerous for human beings as well. I get the feeling that the Department places no real importance on this issue.

In terms of the breeding of strange looking dogs, I was extremely upset when I saw one quite recently. I saw a poor dog that had an enormous head, a very thin body and it was obvious that two different breeds had been combined. The head was one breed and the back of it was another breed but the poor dog could not hold its head up. Sadly, the dog was promoted online as a show dog. When I read the comments I discovered that they absolutely damned the person who showed the images of the dog. People declared that the dog was not normal looking and that it was completely inappropriate to match the two breeds. Surely such bad practice is illegal? As Dr. Kirby said, there should be standards that govern what breeds can and cannot be cross-bred. I am shocked that there are no regulations to govern this issue considering all of the animal welfare aspects.

I notice that the Department, when it sent its report, stated that aspects of artificial insemination in greyhounds may be carried out by non-veterinarians subject to licence and veterinary oversight. That leads me to ask why greyhounds are exempt. That seems illogical to me.

Much of the root cause of this matter is that the legislation, particularly for dogs, covers three Departments - the Department of Rural and Community Development, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and I cannot remember the third Department. The main thing that must come from this debate is that we make a difference to the lives of dogs and improve regulations. Therefore, we must ensure that one Department deals with this matter. We also need to ensure that proper resources are provided to ensure that whatever is done is safe and legal. I agree with Dr. Kirby that we need a public awareness campaign to alert people to the fact that the practice is cruel and horrific.

Mr. Tim Kirby

Absolutely, I think the concept that one single Department would take control is something that should urgently be done. It makes absolute sense. It would reduce time lags, drift and the lack of certain things being done according to the demand for them. If that could be prioritised, I would see it as top of the list. Many things will stem organically from that as a result, so it would be a very positive move.

I agree with the Deputy. There are two ends of the spectrum and there are many issues in between, but we have to start somewhere. We will not have everything resolved in 2022 but we have to start somewhere. For example, the Deputy referred to the issue of dogs that look abnormal. Many of these dogs are coming from units that are breeding 300 and 400 bitches and they are breeding them endlessly throughout their lives - they are literally churning them out. They are commodities and, as I said, they are just seen as a passport to wealth. These animals are a lot more than that. We need to start having that discussion around how it can be acceptable in society that 300 or more bitches could be kept in any facility. It goes back to the previous point about the number six in some of these establishments. All of that needs to be debated. We need to get to the granular level of detail to see what makes sense here, what is going to effect change for the lives of these animals, and then start building that up into something that can be put into practice. There should be a phased approach to all of this. With one Department and a phased approach taking bite-size chunks, a lot of progress can be made very quickly. I am convinced of that.

To go back to the point raised by the Deputy on the number of dogs being relinquished, I know from the fantastic work Dogs Trust Ireland is doing that it is bursting at the seams at the moment with dogs being returned by people who got them during lockdown. What that highlights is the value of dogs but also that we need to start educating people before they get a dog in the first place. As I said in my presentation, it is not a simple click and collect service. This is a sentient living being and that has to be taken into account as well. Part of what PetBond does is to make sure people are in the right stage of their lives and are educated before they get a pet in the first place. We have to be aware of this. If something else happens in society in the future, are we going to see the same insatiable demand by people for pets? They are a very good fallback and a very good emotional comfort, but it is not acceptable that when normal life resumes, the pet is usually the first individual within the family that is going to suffer the consequence. Unfortunately, we are seeing that transpire at the moment.

The Deputy raised a point about people performing various procedures with regard to insemination. These people have a little knowledge about it, and there is probably nothing more dangerous in life than somebody with a little knowledge who thinks they know a lot more than they actually do. People invariably do not have any formal qualifications. They think that once they have observed somebody doing something remotely similar, they can have a go and do it themselves. I would not say there is a specific profile of any one individual but there are certainly people with very basic knowledge who are attending such procedures.

With regard to the veterinary medicines, if there are facilities like this out there that are breeding huge numbers of dogs, without a shadow of a doubt, we have to ask how are these people breeding so many so frequently? Would insemination not be a lot easier, given it is a lot more cost efficient and time efficient? What is going on within some of the units that are breeding large numbers? That question has to be asked, as well as where the medicines around those units are coming from. I would certainly consider importation is the main route there.

These are all areas where, with one single division and one Department doing this in phases and bite-size chunks, we could target those areas where we could get a result and then go on sequentially to the next issue. In that way, we could make a lot of progress on these issues.

Chairman

I will allow two quick questions from Senator Boylan and Deputy Browne.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I will be quick as I know we are under time pressure. I am following on from Dr. Kirby, as a vet practising for 20 years, explaining his concerns around surgical insemination and all the risks that it comes with. It is interesting that when I put a question to the Minister and the Department, they said they were not aware of any animal welfare concerns around surgical insemination. This is something the committee needs to come back to when we have the Minister and the Department in.

My question is on ear cutting and how we strengthen enforcement against that. One issue is public awareness and making it almost that people would be shunned if they were walking around with a dog that has this procedure done to it. When the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, DSPCA, representatives were before the committee, they were talking about the potential of a phased-in ban. If somebody has a dog, the dog could live out its life but we would ban the importation and ownership of a dog with cropped ears and that would be a way to address this. Under the current law, the person would practically have to be caught in the act of cropping the ears. I would like to hear Dr. Kirby’s view on that and how we could have better enforcement.

Deputy Martin Browne

The Department had given the impression that the dogs with cropped ears were being exhibited at shows and so on. Has Dr. Kirby a view with regard to sanctions that could be put on people who are running these shows if they regularly have dogs with cropped ears showing up? If they are not in place currently, are there any sanctions he would like the Department to bring in to stop the display of these dogs with cropped ears at these shows?

Mr. Tim Kirby

Absolutely. For any procedure like chopping, there must be disincentives around that regardless of where the people see the dogs, be it out in public, at a show or wherever else. If there is a controlled environment where there are a lot of dogs, it should be possible that the area is regulated to some extent. I know from discussing this with many dog breeders that, for example, for the French bulldog as a breed standard, it is no longer normal or acceptable for those dogs to have short noses. Therefore, if any of those dogs are seen at shows, or if any judge is seen to award that dog a rosette to say it is a really good dog, and it does not conform to what is now acceptable as a breed, then there are implications. Likewise, we need to do the same thing for ear cropping. If any dog is in an arena or any public space and has ear cropping, or it is suspected the dog was ear cropped, the key stakeholders need to call that out and act on it straight away. I would absolutely agree with that. The majority of people are members of the public who are observing dogs from a distance in the public arena, so that fits in with it as well.

I agree with Senator Boylan that the phased-out approach is the way we are going to do it. With many of these changes we are discussing in the different areas, it is going to be a phased-out approach. It almost has to be done in tandem with public education. If the two are done in parallel, we are more likely to get a successful outcome but, as I said, we have to educate the public, particularly about ear cropping. For example, Dogs Trust did a very effective campaign in schools to educate children. Many things with dogs are visual. The Cut the Crop campaign from the British Veterinary Association was pushing it strongly and striking imagery was used, which was very effective. Dogs are very amenable to visual imagery and this helps retain things in people's minds.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Kirby for participating in today's meeting. His insight into the issues was frightening, given some of the content we heard.

We have a submission from the Department. I want to put it on the record. It states legislation is being prepared on this and it hopes to have it by the end of the year. This committee will have a very significant input into that legislation. Legislation would be fine we have to make sure that it is also implemented and enforced. The practice that Dr. Kirby outlined here has no place and cannot be tolerated.

We will have a meeting on horse welfare in the near future. All animal welfare issues are intertwined. When we have the opportunity, we will raise the issues that have been raised with us here with the Department. We will keep pressure on the Minister to ensure that the legislation gets priority and that legislation is introduced that will allow for the proper penalisation of these activities and hopefully outlawed to stop them occurring.

On behalf of the committee, I thank Dr. Kirby.

Sitting suspended at 6.31 p.m. and resumed at 6.36 p.m.