Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 6 Apr 2022

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

Vice Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Kehoe and Senator Boyhan. Before we begin I remind members, witnesses and those in the Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. Members are requested to turn off their mobile phones completely or to switch them to airplane, safe or flight mode, depending on their device, for the duration of the meeting. It is not sufficient to put phones on silent mode because this will maintain a level of interference with the broadcasting system.

The purpose of today's meeting is to examine artificial canine insemination and for the committee to resume its examination of canine fertility clinics, ear cropping and microchipping legislation. In a second session, the committee will also review the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010. The committee will hear from witnesses from the Dogs Trust and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, in the first session and from representatives of the Dogs Trust in the second session.

On 28 February, legal requirement for mask wearing in all settings was removed. However, it is still good practice to use face coverings, particularly in crowded areas. The Houses of the Oireachtas Service encourages all members of the parliamentary community to wear face masks when moving around the campus and in close proximity to others. While the easing of restrictions removed the general requirement to maintain 2 m physical distancing, public health advice continues to state that maintaining a distance from other people is good practice. It is important that everybody in the parliamentary community continues to be respectful of other people's space.

Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have 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 by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. 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 is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this 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 any charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is within the parliamentary precincts.

There is no assurance in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of that when they make their contributions.

In the first session we will hear from representatives of Dogs Trust Ireland and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. From Dogs Trust Ireland we have Ms Sarah Lynch and Mr. Conor Brennan, and from the Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals we have Mr. Conor Dowling. I ask the witnesses to make their opening statements, and Dogs Trust Ireland will go first.

Ms Sarah Lynch

I thank the committee for inviting Dogs Trust to speak to it today and we welcome the joint committee’s commitment to gathering information on important dog welfare issues. I am policy manager at Dogs Trust and I am joined by my colleague, Conor Brennan. On behalf of Dogs Trust, we welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in discussing how we can work together to address the matters presented here today. Our presentation will focus on microchipping and dog breeding establishments, with an overarching aim to explore collaborative solutions that advance dog welfare in Ireland.

Dogs Trust has been working in Ireland since 2005. Our mission is to bring an end to the destruction of stray and abandoned dogs through a national responsible dog ownership campaign and an education programme. In 2009, we opened the doors of our rehoming centre in Finglas, Dublin and today Dogs Trust rehomes dogs all around the country through both our rehoming centre and our regional rehoming programme. Last year, we rehomed 862 dogs and to date we have rehomed more than 20,000 dogs.

Since as far back as 2009, six years before the commencement of the Microchipping of Dogs Regulations 2015, Dogs Trust has not only seen the value of the microchip but the power of the data that are recorded against it. In that time, we have chipped almost 21,000 dogs in our care. Outside of our rehoming centre, we ran national awareness campaigns, starting in 2013, pushing the message out to the public on the importance of microchipping, updating contact details recorded against the chip, and ensuring all dog owners are aware they must be in possession of their microchipping certificate. Through our various microchipping schemes, we have assisted almost 29,500 dog owners to become compliant with the microchipping of dogs regulations. That has been accomplished through the hosting of microchipping clinics, delivering microchips to dog owners most in need of our help via a dedicated network of vets throughout the country, and allowing dog owners to update or change the contact details registered against their dog’s microchip free of charge during our national chipping week.

We were encouraged to hear the Department supply figures to this committee last week to the effect that 600,000 dogs have been chipped in the Republic of Ireland since 2017. Building on this positive work, Dogs Trust Ireland believes now is the opportune moment to modernise the legislative framework to keep pace with other regulations and current trends in dog ownership. We believe traceability is key and high-quality data are the means to produce meaningful traceability. Therefore, greater emphasis must be placed on the quality of the input data as we have found that individual databases have different standards in terms of the quality of the input. Greater obligations on database providers are needed with regard to all relevant details, including date of birth, breed, colour, markings, gender and owner contact details. Widespread anecdotal evidence reveals that such details are currently not being kept to a requisite standard. Greater emphasis should also be placed on the guidelines in place for databases and for collecting certified data. With the update of the microchipping regulations, there is an opportunity to issue clear and mandatory requirements on registered databases operating in Ireland to ensure the highest quality data are held.

That is why we believe a central place for hosting data is an obvious next step for the advancement of dog welfare. Ideally, a central database should be kept up to date, with a process implemented for the removal of deceased dogs. It should provide one point of call for dog owners to update their details easily. We recognise the difficulty in creating a single database as each database is run as a commercial enterprise. If this is not possible, there should be a single repository for searching information.

We believe all data should be held in an accessible and digital format by database providers. For example, some databases require the scanner of the dog to phone them to get the owner information, which delays reunification. Having an accessible, unified location of the relevant data would bypass this issue as they could be obtained online. In this way, all databases could be regularly shared with a central repository that cross-checks this information against similar databases operating in Ireland, for example, dog breeding establishment, DBE, licence holders; sellers and suppliers; and registered owners, trainers or breeders operating in the greyhound racing industry.

The importance of cross-checking the microchipping number against an owner that may hold a DBE licence or a seller and supplier registration number cannot be understated. A simple change to introduce a mandatory field when registering or updating a microchip will open the door to full transparency for enforcement officials and registered rehoming charities.

We advocate for a streamlined central system for updating details that is easy to understand, not overly burdensome on the owner and, crucially, affordable to all dog owners. Revised microchipping of dogs regulations should strengthen powers of authorised officials to fine owners where there are incidents of false information knowingly being submitted to the database or where there is widespread non-compliance. Alongside this, a Government campaign could be run to increase owners' awareness of their obligations with regard to keeping their dogs' microchip details up to date. This should, crucially, run in tandem with any engagement with database providers and registered breeders and sellers.

Technology is available to integrate the databases. The central repository would need to be independent to address concerns regarding access to information. This will lead to greater enforcement of responsible dog ownership and correct dog welfare practices. On a much wider scale, compliance with the Dog Breeding Establishments Act and correct information displayed as part of the requirements under the rules on the sale, supply and advertising of pet animals are two clear examples.

We are encouraged that work is continuing behind the scenes with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and departmental officials to discuss options as to how best to tackle the issue of microchipping which, as far as we are concerned, can unlock solutions and enforcement for many welfare issues, including ear cropping.

As I realise the subsequent committee session will cover the Dog Breeding Establishments Act, I will outline Dogs Trust's hopes for the future review and implementation of the Act. Following the introduction of voluntary guidelines in 2018 to supplement the Act, the then Minister of State, Deputy Canney, promised the Act would be updated. This commitment was reiterated in the present programme for Government. Close to three years on, we believe now is the ideal time to prioritise this important legislation and ensure the right structures are put in place.

Following engagement with Department of Rural and Community Development officials on the revised text of the Act, we believe three key changes to the Act will have a lasting impact on dog welfare in Ireland: a sufficient staff-to-dog ratio; greater transparency and accessibility of the DBE licence register; and the 2018 guidelines being placed on a statutory footing.

On sufficient staff-to-dog ratio, owing to the significant variation in workload between breeds and numbers of litters, Dogs Trust understands it is difficult to set a minimum ratio. However, it is unreasonable and impractical to suggest that one staff member could properly manage 25 breeding bitches. The current guidelines for DBEs states “it is recommended that this will be equivalent to one fulltime equivalent per 25 breeding bitches”. In practical terms, workers must fulfil a thorough sanitisation programme for each of the 25 dogs as well as the number of puppies born to them, which could result in as many as 150 dogs under the care of one staff member during full-time working hours.

The staff-to-dog ratio must be sufficient to provide the level of care set out in the DBE Act and, although establishing the number of staff requires internal assessment, we do not foresee any circumstance where a non-human supervisor can come close to meeting these requirements even under the guidelines. Indeed, the adoption of widespread mechanisation to fulfil socialising needs is cruel and deprives a companion animal of necessary human interaction.

I turn to greater transparency and accessibility of the DBE licence register.

The review of the Dog Breeding Establishments Act affords an opportune moment to empower the public with the knowledge of the environment a puppy or dog has been bred within before buying from a licensed DBE. The current Act allows for a local authority to maintain a register of DBEs as it sees fit. In practice, however, this has led to only approximately 50% of local authorities making the register available for members of the public to view online. Instances of the register being kept up-to-date and what information is shared, in what format, is entirely uneven as well. Empowering the public by mandating for the register of all DBEs to be made accessible online via each local authority portal and updated on an ongoing basis would allow for the traceability that should be available upon purchasing a dog from a DBE. It would also facilitate the seamless creation of a centralised register where interested parties can easily access the key information for each DBE licence holder.

Regarding the guidelines, we are also eager to explore how the 2018 guidelines for DBEs will interact with any new revision of the Act. We believe this is a great basis for strengthening the Act and should be recognised in primary legislation. We recognise that the effective implementation of the guidelines cannot satisfy a one-size-fits-all approach. The care required for a pack of hounds is very different to that for lapdogs. The option of introducing separate guidelines or regulations for different types of establishments that come under the definition of a DBE, such as boarding kennels, rescues or hunt kennels, would be welcome and we are happy to work with the Department to explore this approach in a way that satisfies the wording of primary legislation.

Overall, any legislative changes should be looked at in the round. Attention should be placed on how the updated regulations complement the Dog Breeding Establishments Act, the Control of Dogs Act and the Animal Health and Welfare Act, and we look forward to listening to the officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and from the Department of Rural and Community Development in this regard. Some progress has been made in these policy areas but there is a worry that the impetus in recent years is waning and progress in key legislative pieces has stalled. We believe that by maintaining the partnership between welfare groups and Government we can continue to drive effective change that leaves a lasting legacy and puts Ireland at the forefront of dog welfare in Europe. I thank the committee for its time and I welcome any questions that committee members might have.

Mr. Conor Dowling

On behalf of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, I welcome this opportunity to address the committee on the issues of canine welfare, including artificial canine insemination, canine fertility clinics, ear cropping and microchipping. I am the chief inspector with the ISPCA and have been working with the society for almost 24 years. The ISPCA operates a team of animal welfare inspectors who, since 2014, have been authorised under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. This is a privilege which we value deeply.

In that time our inspectors have responded to over 27,000 allegations of animal cruelty and removed in excess of 8,000 animals from substandard conditions or care. While the vast majority of these reports are dealt with by means of advice or instruction, ISPCA inspectors have also contributed to over 100 prosecutions for offences under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. The ISPCA also operates three animal centres located in Longford, Cork and Donegal dedicated to the rehabilitation and re-homing of animals that are admitted by our inspectors.

The Animal Health and Welfare Act is a progressive piece of legislation that revolutionised the enforcement of animal welfare standards in Ireland. However, as with most legislation, there is room for improvement. The law, and those who enforce it, must also react and adapt to trends in society and it is some of these trends we will be speaking about today.

The microchipping of dogs regulations were introduced in 2015 and represent progressive legislation. The regulations require that all dogs be microchipped and registered to their current owner with the details recorded on an approved database. When it works, microchipping and registration is extremely effective. It has been proven to be the most reliable method of reuniting lost dogs with their owners. It allows for the identification of owners of dogs that are not kept under control and it can be used to hold those responsible for cruelty and neglect to dogs accountable.

Statistics might suggest that there has been widespread compliance with the regulations with most dog owners having their dogs microchipped but the reality on the ground is not so straightforward. Registrations are all too often not kept up to date or the initial data recorded are not accurate or sufficient. While a dog may be microchipped, that may not identify its current owner. As in all areas of life, the compliant majority do the right thing but many others do not. The fact is that in the world where I spend the majority of my working life there is little compliance with the microchipping regulations. That is unlikely to change as there is currently virtually no enforcement of the law. There are neither the required mechanisms nor the people dedicated to the task.

I am aware that the committee has previously heard from other witnesses as to the level of cruelty and suffering associated with the unnecessary and barbaric practice of ear cropping. It is not just the pain that is inflicted during the procedure and its immediate aftermath. Dogs can experience lifelong pain as a result of having their ears cut off. The dogs are also impacted in other, less obvious ways, including their ability to communicate. Dogs use visual cues to communicate and express emotion, and removing part or all of their ears severely limits their ability to do so.

Section 16 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act prohibits operations and procedures that involve interference with, or the removal of, the sensitive tissue or the bone structure of an animal. Despite this, during the years that the Act has been in effect, dogs with cropped ears have become more and more prevalent, particularly the American Bully breed. It is currently an offence to perform the cropping procedure, to cause another person to carry it out or to show a dog with cropped ears. It is not an offence to import such a dog, to possess such a dog or to buy or sell such a dog.

While the ISPCA has submitted some files on this issue to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that have resulted in convictions, and there are more such cases in the system, they are very small in number compared with the amount of dogs that are being subjected to this mutilation on a weekly basis. As the law presently stands, it is very difficult to prove offences in court. The Minister has committed to a review of this aspect of the legislation. The ISPCA very much welcomes this review and has submitted proposals with options including banning the importation, sale or supply, or even possession of cropped dogs.

The issue of public awareness is important. There is no doubt that sections of the population not familiar with these breeds might not recognise that the dogs have been maimed but it would be a mistake to think that those involved in breeding, selling, showing and even buying these dogs are unaware of what has been done to the dogs and its illegality. The truth is that the appearance of the dog after they are cropped is more important than the suffering they endure to achieve the desired look.

Canine fertility clinics and artificial canine insemination is an area with which the ISPCA has had little direct involvement yet. We are aware that sperm is being bought and sold for thousands of euro. We also know that canine fertility clinics are being established, sometimes by individuals with no veterinary training or expertise. We have theories and suspicions about what procedures are being offered in such establishments but the fact is we really do not know what is going on behind their doors. From what I have heard, and from what I believe the committee has heard, we do not believe that anybody knows. That is the problem. This is a new area in Ireland and the UK with which everyone is struggling to grapple and deal. Our view is that it is an area that needs oversight and regulation. I am happy to address any questions that committee members may have.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I thank our guests for giving up their time to come before the committee and talk. This is our third session on the issues of microchipping, ear cropping and artificial insemination. I might ask a few questions of the representatives of Dogs Trust Ireland and the ISPCA that follow on from what we have heard from other witnesses. Representatives of Fido, one of the microchip databases, were before the committee last week. They said that they record the colouring, gender and other information of the dogs concerned. My understanding is that it is not mandatory to do so. Fido is doing that but is not obliged to do so. Is that the case or is it mandatory and Fido is the organisation complying with the law?

Ms Sarah Lynch

I do not have on-the-ground experience of that. In Dogs Trust Ireland, we are hearing anecdotally that it is not always the case that such information is recorded. There are requirements. The regulations require the inputting of 30 pieces of information. We sometimes hear that is not happening in all cases. We are not naming any organisation in particular but we have heard anecdotal evidence to that effect from certain groups with which we work. Mr. Dowling has more experience on the ground and may deal with the issue more often.

Mr. Conor Dowling

Our experience has been that the lack is less with regard to the information relating to the dog but with the information relating to the owner.

All too often, that information is inaccurate or inadequate to identify a person. Whoever is providing the data, taking the information from the person who has presented these dogs or pups to be microchipped, is quite often not getting sufficient information. Sometimes the data will include a generic townland, area or road without a specific address. In one example, there were large numbers of puppies being held in a derelict premises for sale. They had been microchipped with different variations of the same name, all on the same road, so we could not identify precisely who this person was. That is where the issue lies for us, in the gathering of that information.

Senator Lynn Boylan

Would that sort of single repository address that issue? If it were digitised, when logging that information the single repository would pick up if it was not filled in correctly. For the benefit of the committee, how do the witnesses foresee their proposals addressing these concerns around the different variations of names and addresses, as well as the markings? What I am getting at is the importance of the information and how we fix this.

Mr. Conor Dowling

I would suggest more oversight of the implanters who are providing this information. When we discover these issues, there seems to be little recourse as to what we can do to address them. Each implanter is registered and identifiable. There is normally a code associated with them on the registration so they can be identified. There should be some sort of mechanism whereby, if there is a consistent problem with the information they are providing, it should be queried and questioned. Last week there was a discussion about whether non-veterinary personnel should be allowed implant dogs. There are some restrictions on who can do that. Commercial breeders are not allowed implant chips. The person cannot have any interest in the dog. They cannot be the owner or related to the owner. There are certain limitations. However, there are still too many people with the right to implant dogs. Even with some vets, there are issues with the information they provide. We have queried what can be done about this and at the moment there does not seem to be much of an answer. That suggests we should perhaps make a complaint to the Veterinary Council, which seems a very extreme step. Surely it should be possible to raise this concern before it gets to that stage.

Ms Sarah Lynch

I will just explain why it is so important that the information be up to date. There are two reasons. First is reunification. If someone loves their dog and it goes missing, if it runs away in a park and the person does not know what has happened, they could be reunited if the information is up to date. This is why we always encourage everyone to ensure they get in touch if they change their phone number, address or anything else. They also need to make sure they change the details when they buy or acquire a dog by any means. That dog should already be registered to whoever has the dog, who they are taking the dog from, no matter what age that dog is. The certificate that belongs to that dog should then be passed over to the person and they can change the details. Reunification is one major aspect but correct recording of details along the way also facilitates this sort of tracking and telling of the dog's story. It enables transparency and enables owners to see where the dog has come from. It enables rescues like ours to see what this dog has gone though, whether it came from a breeding establishment, was a stray, or turned up in a local authority pound and so forth. If it is done correctly it can provide a lot of answers along the way. That is why it is so important.

Senator Lynn Boylan

That leads to my next question about why greyhounds should be incorporated into such a national database or portal. Both the Department and Dogs Trust have flagged that, because these databases are run by commercial bodies, they might not want to share the information but we should still have a single portal that is accessible to those who need access to it. Why would greyhounds be included in that, given they have their own separate system? Why is that so important?

Ms Sarah Lynch

Dogs Trust is here for all dogs and greyhounds are dogs. At the end of the day, the portal is an independent piece of technology. If there is a portal or a database sitting above them all, it is just a check. That is all it does. It just checks whether the microchip belongs to this database or that one. It would quicken reunification and allow people to see where the dog is coming from and where it started. I might chip my dog on one database but if I give Mr. Dowling my dog and he takes ownership, he can register it on a different database. It can change. If there is a portal tracking these things, we can see. Europetnet has that sort of European function right now if you were to check a number on that. However, it does not provide contact details. It is important that everyone knows that. It does not provide the owner's number or address. It just shows the dog was registered on this database or that database and it has a chronological function. It comes back to the traceability and verification of the dog's history.

Mr. Conor Dowling

As we mentioned in our opening statement, when you look at all the different pieces of the jigsaw in the round, they have become siloed. They have drifted away from one another. When we talk about microchipping databases and bringing them together, it is not without thinking about the other databases. Even with regard to the DBE licence holders, we now have the seller and supplier lists the Department holds. It should be looked at in the round for all dogs in order that we can make sure people can cross-check and, as Ms Lynch said, tell the story of the dog and where it has been. I would stress that point.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I ask the Chair to indulge me a little longer. On ear cropping, Mr. Dowling says people are not allowed show a dog that has cropped ears. Anyone can go on any social media platform and see plenty of dogs with their ears cropped, particularly bulldogs. Would Mr. Dowling advise that we need a public awareness campaign? As he says, the people who are doing this know exactly what they are doing. It is the same with artificial insemination and the need to regulate the stud dogs. We have been told by the Department that there is no requirement to have a database, or any register at all, of people using their dogs for stud. There are people on social media who are prolific in using dogs for artificial insemination. We want regulation there. How important is it, in the view of all of the witnesses, to have that sort of Government-led public awareness campaign to make it socially unacceptable to be out walking a bulldog with cropped ears? It is almost like the way it was with tail docking years ago. Now you do not see it. What is the importance of that? I also ask the witnesses' views on how to tighten up on the stud stuff. That will lead into the DBEs as well but I am asking about the need to regulate the canine fertility clinics, semen collection, stud rights and all of that sort of stuff.

Mr. Conor Dowling

Tail docking is an interesting comparison because the same legislation covers both procedures. There are regulations that permit tail docking in certain situations but it does not happen to any great extent because vets consider it an unethical procedure and generally do not perform it. While on the one hand we are seeing a reduction in the number of docked dogs, and it is becoming more normalised to see Jack Russells, Dobermans and all those sorts of breeds that traditionally would have been docked in the past with long tails, at the same time we are seeing a proliferation of dogs with cropped ears. A growing proportion of the population seems to have an interest in these dogs. It is not everybody who is involved in canine fertility or breeding but some people who just like the breed. Something to be aware of is that very often, whether the pups are cropped is the choice of the buyer. The pups will be offered for sale and if the buyer chooses to have them cropped, they will be cropped at ten weeks of age. The vast majority of the people involved in owning them are quite aware of this.

I use a photograph of a cropped dog in a presentation I do quite often and I ask people what is wrong with the dog. The dog is immaculate other than the missing ears and a lot of people will not spot it. In line with any education campaign we would have to address the deficiencies in the legislation because some people contact the ISPCA who say they have seen a Facebook profile of someone with dogs with cropped ears. We have to explain that this may well be the case but that it does not necessarily represent an offence under the legislation or that it certainly does not represent an offence that we can prove. Some of these have probably committed an offence but defining who is the difficult part of it.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank both speakers for their informative contributions. I will go to the Dogs Trust representatives on the issue of databases, which we have heard some evidence on heretofore. Could they recap the number of databases operating in the country? I accept that they operate to varying standards. I assume that the utopian solution would be a statutory database with any subsidiary databases aligned with the same reporting structures. Is that correct?

Mr. Conor Brennan

Yes. We understand there are four databases operating. I would say "Yes" to the Deputy's second question as well. The quality of data received needs to be aligned and standardised and then it should feed into a central repository or application programming interface, API, system. It is worth noting why we are stressing this. Because microchipping is universal with dogs it unlocks a lot of solutions for reunification and enforcement and it ties in to so many different aspects that are emerging, such as the new rules on online sale and supply of pet animals where the owner gives the microchipping number and uses the verification system. We are stressing this because we feel that will open the door to a lot of solutions.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

With regard to the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010, it is telling that only 50% of local authorities have made the register available and accessible to members of the public to view online.

Vice Chairman

We will take that as the next topic.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Sorry. I will come back on that one so.

Vice Chairman

I will move on to Deputy Martin Browne.

Deputy Martin Browne

I welcome our guests. A question was asked about how many databases there are. It must be next to impossible to get an accurate figure on traceability. Is it nearing impossible with that many databases?

Mr. Conor Brennan

I might get clarity on the question. Is the Deputy asking if we find it difficult to verify the data that is coming from the databases?

Deputy Martin Browne

Yes.

Mr. Conor Brennan

Yes. That is what we hear from other third parties that are trying to utilise the data for verification. We are hearing that the data is sometimes lacking and that it is false. As Mr. Dowling alluded to, sometimes there is widespread abuse of the system unfortunately. That is one of the key issues. The ISPCA might have something to say on it too.

Mr. Conor Dowling

It is difficult to quantify it because we are only looking at certain sections. A lot of people might be microchipping their dogs and they might be providing the full details but it is not those people with whom we are dealing. We come across quite a lot of non-compliance in our area but that may not be representative of the whole picture.

Deputy Martin Browne

The revising of the microchipping must be causing the witnesses to tear their hair out. People can be fined for giving false information but with four databases how easy is it to identify those who are providing false information and to bring them to a stage where they can be fined?

Mr. Conor Dowling

That is the problem. If the information they provide is false, they cannot necessarily be identified and then it is up to the implanter to ensure the data and the information he or she is extracting from the person who is presenting the dog is accurate and complete. There is no mechanism for the imposition of fines. There is provision under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 for the imposition of fixed penalties but there is no mechanism in place for same. There should be something similar to the dog licence system in place whereby somebody who has a dog that is not microchipped could be presented with a prescribed notice requiring him or her to send details of a microchip to a certain place and if he or she does not do that then a fine could be imposed on foot of that. There is no such mechanism in place. Although ISPCA inspectors are authorised under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, if we encounter someone who has a dog that is not microchipped we will tell them it is a legal obligation to do so but we cannot enforce it.

Ms Sarah Lynch

We have oversight in that area. As has been said, it is hard to check where it went wrong. Let us say there is a blip along the way and we realise the data is not correct and was not completed properly, if the chips provided by the database providers are sent out to registered implanters such as a veterinary practice, there is a record of that. We have the system in place in this country and there are records of the microchips in the database, including records of whom they are sent to. If they are sent to a veterinary surgeon, if that is implanted and checked and if that data is incorrect or was not entered, it is possible to find out what the chip's number, where it went, what database it belongs to and where it was sent. There is a trail that can be followed but who is going to do that work? If something happens, as Mr. Dowling said, it can be flagged that this is an issue and the owner can be told he or she is in breach of the legislation but who will ensure a change is made? Who will ensure something is done so this does not happen again, or if it happens that there is a penalty for flouting the legislation? That is an area that might be missing.

Deputy Martin Browne

I imagine that if there was one database it would make life an awful lot easier for our guests. Is there any indication of a willingness at government level that legislation be changed and that all that information be brought in under one database or has that even been broached?

Mr. Conor Dowling

We have not had any commitments on it yet. There are different ways of thinking about it. Some of those involved in the databases would say that there is no need for a central database as such but that it is about communication between the different databases and whether the information is shared. From our point of view, if I am out in a field, scan a dog that has a microchip and I want to figure out who the owner is, and I have access to the database as an authorised officer, I first have to get into Europetnet to find out which database it is registered with and then I have to get into that database. It makes work on the ground and efforts to find the information more difficult. Even if there is no single database some sort of method of gathering all that information and having it accessible in one place would be beneficial.

Ms Sarah Lynch

As we mentioned earlier, even having it accessible in a digital format would be one step to improvement. In our centre, should a stray dog come in on a Friday evening and we can see from the chip on Europetnet that it is registered to a certain database, then we might not be able to check it online. People with access to the databases cannot enter anything; they have to make a phone call, but these businesses are only available during business hours from Monday to Friday. If it comes in at 4.55 p.m. on a Friday, we will not be able to check it.

We were looking at rescues - informing the local authorities, of course, and following procedure - becoming almost like weekend pounds. A person must wait until Monday morning at 9 o'clock when he or she can get hold of that database. If every database was online, at least, and it was mandatory for them to have all this information accessible in a digital way whereby those who have access can access it 24-7, it would make everything much quicker, particularly in terms of reunification. We all have dog owners worrying all weekend thinking the worst has happened to their dog.

Deputy Martin Browne

It is something we as a committee need to look more into as we get feedback from Dogs Trust Ireland. The ISPCA said it is illegal to perform the cropping procedure and for another person to carry it out and also to show dogs with cropped ears. It is not an offence to import a dog, however. If I have a dog with cropped ears, I cannot show it. However, I take it that most of these dogs are being imported and, therefore, Martin Browne can walk around with his dog with a cropped ear. Who is responsible for identifying those kinds of dogs and actually bringing someone to court? Do dog wardens who are tied in with local authorities or does the ISPCA follow up on that kind of enterprise with those types of dogs? We all see these guys walking around with dogs with cropped ears.

Mr. Conor Dowling

The Deputy asked who is responsible for which aspect.

Deputy Martin Browne

Who is responsible in the event that I am walking down the street with a dog with cropped ears? If the ISPCA sees me, is it able to hold me responsible or does it need to get a dog warden who is hired by the local authority to follow up on that?

Mr. Conor Dowling

First of all, the dog wardens would not have any involvement in that area at all, really. If I am walking down the street and I see somebody walking a dog with cropped ears, I could speak to them and ask them about it. To be quite frank, however, unless there is some evidence that he or she committed the offence, it is probably a pretty pointless task.

The Deputy mentioned dogs being imported. I would say it is very much not the majority of these dogs that are imported. That is the kind of standard explanation that is offered straight away. The reality is that they are being done here. The procedures are being performed here. People are trying to make it appear that they are imported. We have had people importing passports from other countries where it is legal, along with microchips, and then microchipping Irish dogs and passing them off as imported dogs.

The people involved and most of the people who have these dogs are aware that it is illegal. If I approach them and ask them, they are not going to hold their hands up and admit that they were involved somehow. They will offer one of these excuses. Unless we can prove otherwise, it is very difficult to do anything.

There are certain situations where we can do something at present. We have a number of cases ongoing where we were able to act on information we received to identify puppies with recently cropped ears, which we could demonstrate were in the possession of these people post and prior to the procedure. There is also the suffering aspect in that they were caused suffering and did not receive veterinary care afterwards because, of course, a person cannot bring a dog that has just had its ears removed to a vet and expect not to be reported. That is the difficulty at the moment with walking along the street with a dog that has had an illegal procedure performed on it. We cannot prove any offence on that. The short answer is that it really cannot be addressed by anybody.

Deputy Martin Browne

With that in mind and with the ISPCA feeding into it, it is not an offence, we will say, to import, own or sell a dog with cropped ears. Does that mean, therefore, that a person could import a dog that has been cropped without any real consequences?

Mr. Conor Dowling

Yes, absolutely. It is an area that is being looked at in Britain at the moment. They are looking at banning the importation of these dogs. I think that would be a start. Only a couple of months ago, I was contacted by gardaí who intercepted a vehicle containing a couple of dogs with cropped ears that had been imported. We verified that the paperwork was correct. We checked on the places they were going to and they could continue on their merry way then because no offence was being committed with regard to those dogs.

Like I said, we proposed a number of options, one of which would be to ban the importation for a start and possibly look at banning the sale or supply of them. Ultimately, to really stop this being normal and stop people desiring this look, we should over a period of time look at the possibility of making it illegal to possess them, with some sort of amnesty or grandfather clause built into it so that perhaps dogs that are currently cropped and in somebody's possession could be registered as such. If, however, more dogs appear in the future and people cannot provide some sort of registration to demonstrate that these were registered prior to the registration coming in then they could be considered to be guilty of an offence by mere possession.

Deputy Martin Browne

Is that one of the reasons there is such a low number of prosecutions? As Mr. Dowling said, is it that when the ISPCA questions someone, he or she gives that excuse? Is that one of the reasons there are such a low number of prosecutions?

Mr. Conor Dowling

Absolutely, yes. Like I said, for every cropped dog we come across, somebody has committed an offence. That is unless it is imported but most are not. Somebody has committed an offence with regard to that dog. We have to prove who it was and what the offence was. Proving somebody has actually done it is difficult. However, if a person has been in possession of a number of pups for their whole lifetime and then their ears are cropped, it is a fair assumption that person was responsible for it. It is difficult once they are healed or have gone beyond the suffering stage, however, or if they have exchanged hands. If we come across a puppy in somebody's possession that has been cropped, for example, that person might tell us he or she bought it from the breeder like that. Even if that person names the breeder and we call the breeder, who tells us that no, the pup was sold with its ears and that the buyer must have done that, immediately, from an enforcement point of view and proving offences, we have a real problem.

Vice Chairman

I thank Deputy Browne; his time is up.

Deputy Martin Browne

I have one final question on canine fertility clinics. What we seem to be looking at here is that both the ISPCA and the Department have in the first instance identified that there is no regulation at all in this area. The second is that the ISPCA said it is aware of theories and suspicions about the procedures being offered, which means that is an issue than cannot be addressed until there is tighter regulation in this area. Can Mr. Dowling give us his views on that? Is there another stance the ISPCA could take on it?

Mr. Conor Dowling

It is interesting. Since I wrote my statement, I spoke to members of An Garda Síochána yesterday with regard to some of these places. Many of the people involved are also the same people who are involved in the breeding and showing of these dogs with cropped ears. It is reasonable to have suspicions about what services might be offered at some of these places. As the Deputy heard from other witnesses, there is even some doubt about whether some of the procedures are classed as veterinary procedures. We really need to nail down what is going on in there. Who is involved? What services are they providing? Are they qualified to do so? Who are they providing them for? All that information should be recorded and available to somebody who could access these places. Again, when I spoke to these gardaí, they told me they are looking at obtaining search warrants to go in to look at these places whereas if a person is providing some sort of service like that, surely, it should be transparent and subject to routine checks.

Deputy Martin Browne

I appreciate the latitude, Vice Chairman. I am sorry; I have to leave for the Chamber. I thank the witnesses again.

Vice Chairman

I thank Deputy Browne. I call Deputy Fitzmaurice

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. From what I heard, it is my understanding that everybody has to get a dog licence. Why can we not incorporate all of this? If I own a car, for instance, I must have the serial number and everything right when I got to tax it. If I do not have everything right then it will not be taxed and will obviously be seized. I am reading into what the witnesses said this evening with regard to powers that the ISPCA can check if a dog is cropped.

The council warden would then have to check whether they have a licence. Are there many dogs in Ireland all together? In the agricultural sector, we have an animal identification and movement, AIM, system thorough which we are able to control nearly every animal in the country. Why do we not have something like that in the dog sector to enable us to control both the breeding and dogs generally?

Mr. Conor Dowling

I think that another symptom of something that has been raised previously is the fact that the responsibility lies with different Departments. Dog licensing and dog control is the responsibility of the Department of Rural and Community Development, whereas microchipping is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It would make a lot of sense for them to be linked together. The Deputy mentioned that a vehicle that is not licensed appropriately can be seized. If a dog is not microchipped, theoretically, under the legislation, that is an offence and the dog could be seized. However, it is not a practical option. When we are talking about live animals, they are not like vehicles that can be impounded and stuck in a yard, or a bit of evidence that can be stuck on a shelf. They are live animals. They are very costly to maintain and there is also a welfare implication. Certainly, as the Deputy has described, there is a disconnect between the licensing and the microchipping. If that could be brought together with everything on one database, it would make a lot of sense.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

That is all I wanted to know.

Vice Chairman

I call Senator Paul Daly.

Senator Paul Daly

I just want to follow on from the point raised by Deputy Fitzmaurice. I am aware that there is an issue when a dog is scanned because there are four different databases. The biggest issue is probably the number of dogs that are not microchipped at all. With that in mind and with a view to perhaps incentivising or encouraging people to microchip their dog, could technology be used? For my own information, is it a universal scanner that reads all chips? There are four different databases that probably relate to the four different producers of microchips. I presume the microchips are all standard and there is a universal reader. From my own knowledge, I know that to scan a dog, you need to catch it, have it in your possession and be very close to it. Where are we with technology? Does technology exist anywhere else in the world that can be used to scan a microchip on a dog from a distance and indeed, to tell, from a distance, whether that dog actually even has a microchip? The point I am making is that down the line, if we get the legislation right and for enforcement, perhaps such a thing could be used as leverage to get people to microchip their dogs at an early stage. It could be somewhat like the television licence man or whatever, and owners would know that there could be somebody passing on the road outside their fence that is able to tell from a distance that the dog is not microchipped. Am I going down the wrong road completely, or could that be a potential future way of ensuring, at least from the outset, that more of our dog population is indeed microchipped?

Ms Sarah Lynch

I thank the Senator for his question. It is very "Tomorrow's World" thinking. I really like it. Mr. Dowling can correct me if I am wrong and the ISPCA knows something that I do not, but I am not aware of any technology that exists like that. To explain a microchip, it is described in legislation and has to conform to certain standards. A microchip is around the size of a grain of rice. It is that small. It is put in the back of a dog in between the shoulder blades or around the neck area just under the skin. It is not possible to see, from glancing at the dog, that it is microchipped. A scanner is required. Luckily, one scanner works on all four microchips, so that is one less problem we have to deal with. It is brilliant.

Again, it is really about what is recorded against the chip. The chip is useless unless there is anything good recorded against it. What we have found is that the microchipping itself is not as much of a problem now as it was previously. We spoke earlier about awareness campaigns and how the public need to know what a dog should look like and the correct appearance of certain dogs. We are lucky in Ireland, with microchipping, because it has grown over a few years and there have been a lot of public awareness campaigns around microchipping, particularly with the its launch in 2016. It really goes to show the effectiveness of good public awareness campaigns. Referring back to what we discussed earlier, if we want to let people know what dogs really should look like, it is possible to run an effective public awareness campaign. Microchipping has proved that. We did research on behaviours and attitudes over the course of a number of years. From around 2016 to 2019, there was a significant increase in the uptake of microchipping and people being aware that they had to have their dogs microchipped. We are now seeing more dogs come in to our centre that are microchipped. Where it is all falling down is what is recorded against them, as the representatives of the ISPCA mentioned earlier. That is the really important aspect to it.

Of course, there is still an issue with ensuring that those who do not want to comply with the regulations become compliant. We are very lucky that we have such compliant dog owners, who comply with the legislation and who chip and register their dogs. In respect of those dogs that are not chipped, we have to figure out a way to make those non-compliant people compliant by chipping and registering their details. To go back to the original point, recent surveys that we have done up to 2019 show that there is more than a 90% uptake in microchipping dogs. It is about the correct data being registered against them. On the Senator's point about technology, I hope something like that is developed in the future, because it would help a lot.

Mr. Conor Dowling

I would like to echo that. I think it is a fabulous idea and somebody needs to invent it. On the issue of non-compliance with microchipping regulations, there are perhaps two different types. With the information not being updated, sometimes that is caused by just a lack of awareness, knowledge, thinking and foresight. Perhaps what we are dealing with is symptomatic of a bigger welfare problem. For example, if an owner has not brought their puppy to a vet to have it vaccinated as a pup, they are not likely to have it microchipped. It is all part of the bigger picture. In respect of the people that we deal with more often, there is a lack of various compliances with welfare and identification issues.

Vice Chairman

Does Senator Boylan have a supplementary question?

Senator Lynn Boylan

I have a quick question on deceased dogs and the importance of the issue of registering them. We heard from the Department last week that almost 600,000 dogs have been microchipped since 2017, but we do not know if there are 600,000 dogs in the country or more or less. How important is it for that to be clarified, and how do the witnesses foresee that happening? I have another question on surgical artificial insemination and transcervical artificial insemination. It is my understanding that such procedures are banned in the UK. Should we be going down the road of banning those two procedures?

Ms Sarah Lynch

I can respond to the Senator's question on deceased dogs. Unfortunately, I do not have enough information on the artificial insemination topic. Perhaps the representatives of the ISPCA can speak to that. On deceased dogs, it is a requirement under the microchipping of dogs regulations that deceased dogs are removed from the register or registered as deceased. It is something that people might not be aware of. In the turmoil and grief of losing a dog, it is not the first thing on an owner's mind to contact the database and register the dog as deceased. It is something that could be communicated a lot more. It is something that we would like to see databases being a bit more proactive on, as part of looking at the quality of the data that are in these databases and what we can do to ensure that those data are of top quality.

Part of this is checking whether the dogs are still alive or existing on the database. It can lead to ensuring microchips are not being manipulated or used for another purpose. What is to say that, if a dog dies, its microchip number might still be used if it is not be verified in any other way? In Australia there is a system run by database companies. A yearly reminder is sent to owners on the date their dog was registered asking whether they still have the dog, if their telephone number, email address or address changed and whether the dog is deceased. It is as simple as clicking a button. If someone is going through the emotional turmoil of losing a dog, it is just a reminder to click a button and it is done. There is no having to call when the person is not there, no sending an email and no searching for the certificate and causing upset. It is all automated. This is something we would definitely encourage. We would love to see more done to clean up the data.

Mr. Conor Dowling

I am not familiar with the system in Australia but I was about to suggest something very similar. It is a no-brainer. Technically it is an offence under the microchip regulations not to update the database on the death of a dog but it would be pretty harsh on somebody who has not done so in their grief. There needs to be a reminder, and once it is done it goes out of people's minds. It would be very suitable.

With regard to procedures, I do not have sufficient knowledge about what exactly is involved. Veterinary witnesses who come before the committee would be the best to advise on it. If it has been abandoned in the UK, there is probably a good reason for it.

Vice Chairman

The witnesses have mentioned the lack of data when a dog is registered. Are postcodes part of the information submitted when people register their dogs? There is traceability throughout Ireland now with the postcode system. It has revolutionised the delivery of packages. Is it part of the application?

Mr. Conor Dowling

It should be. Most people register their dogs with good intentions and will provide all of this information. Perhaps it might be argued by people that they cannot remember the postcode and perhaps implanters accept an incomplete address. Perhaps over time it should become mandatory. It might help us to address some of these failings.

Ms Sarah Lynch

It is a very good idea. It is very valid. It comes back to ensuring all of the fields are filled out, which goes back to the point on having high quality data. It would be brilliant if it were a mandatory requirement. It could be traced back if it is not filled in to discover why not.

Vice Chairman

I thank Ms Lynch and Mr. Dowling for their attendance. They have been very open with their information and very helpful to the committee.

Sitting suspended at 6.43 p.m. and resumed at 6.51 p.m.