Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 25 May 2022

Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 and the Control of Dogs Act 1986: Discussion

Chairman

I remind members, witnesses, and persons of the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. The purpose of today's meeting is to examine the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 and the Control of Dogs Act 1986, and the strategic priorities of Rásaíocht Con Éireann. In the first session, the committee will hear from representatives of the Department of Rural and Community Development on the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 and the Control of Dogs Act 1986 and, in the second session, it will hear from representatives of Rásaíocht Con Éireann on the priorities for the greyhound industry.

From 28 February, the legal requirement of mask wearing in all sectors has been removed. However, it is still good practice to continue to use face masks, particularly in crowded areas. The Service encourages all members of the parliamentary community to wear face masks while moving around the campus or when in close proximity to others.

Before we begin, I want to bring to witnesses' attention the matter of privilege. Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee. 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 they 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 give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precinct 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 in this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside of the proceedings held by the committee, of any matters arising from the proceedings.

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

In the first session, we will hear from representatives of the Department of Rural and Community Development. We are joined by Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa, assistant secretary; Mr. Paul Geraghty, principal officer; Ms Catherine Burns, assistant principal and Ms Teresa Gavaghan, higher executive officer. I call on Ms Nic Aongusa to make her opening statement.

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

Good evening. I would like to thank the committee for inviting us here this evening to discuss the Department’s role in relation to Dog Breeding Establishments Act and the Control of Dogs Act. I am assistant secretary in the community division of the Department of Rural and Community Development and I am accompanied by my colleagues, Mr. Paul Geraghty, principal officer, Ms Teresa Gavaghan, higher executive officer, and remotely by Ms Catherine Burns, assistant principal officer.

First of all, I would like to set out the Department’s responsibilities regarding dog breeding establishments and dog control. Legislative and policy responsibilities in relation to the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 and the Control of Dogs Act 1986 were transferred to us from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government in July 2017 when the Department of Rural and Community Development was formed. Since the transfer of these functions, the Department of Rural and Community Development has carried out several reviews of this area of work to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose, to seek to make improvements where appropriate and to promote responsible dog ownership. I will talk more about these activities later.

The Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 regulates the operation of dog breeding establishments. It requires local authorities to establish and maintain registers of dog breeding establishments and prohibits the operation of unregistered dog breeding establishments. The Control of Dogs Act 1986 provides for the licensing and control of dogs and for the protection of livestock from worrying by dogs. Operational matters in respect of these Acts are the responsibility of the local authorities and I will speak about this in more detail later.

First, it is important that the public understands the key work that the Department of Rural and Community Development carries out in the area of dog control. The Department of Rural and Community Development publishes comprehensive annual statistics on local authority dog related activities. These cover, for example, information on stray and unwanted dogs, dog licences, enforcement actions, and the operation of local authority dog shelters and dog breeding establishments. The statistics are available on the Government website gov.ie.

Statistics for 2021 will be published later this year, but I can give some examples of the type of information gathered for 2020. In 2020, the total number of dog licences issued was 207,866. This includes 200,857 individual dog licences, 6,713 lifetime of dog licences and 296 general dog licences. The general dog licence covers an unspecified number of dogs in the one premises. The annual dog licence and general dog licence are valid for one year while the lifetime of dog licence is valid for the dog’s lifetime.

The statistics contain some welcome trends. For example, the total number of dogs euthanised in 2020 in local authority pounds was 172, down from 403 in 2019, 778 in 2018, 996 in 2017 and 1,674 in 2016. This continues the year-on-year annual trend in the decline in the number of dogs being euthanised – down from just over 21,000 in 2002.

Information in relation to dog breeding establishments is also collated by my Department. The number of such establishments in 2020 was 239. This figure includes 83 commercial dog breeding establishments, 85 hunts clubs and 49 commercial boarding kennels. The remainder comprises 18 animal welfare shelters and four training kennels. That is an overview of the Department of Rural and Community Development's work in the area, but in order to provide the committee with a full picture of the work carried out in relation to the control of dogs and dog breeding establishments, it is important to understand the role of other arms of Government with responsibilities in these areas.

The most important aspect of work relating to dog control happens at the front line. The local authorities are key in this regard. They are responsible for all operational matters in relation to dog breeding establishments, including the licensing, monitoring and inspection of dog breeding establishments and, where a serious and immediate threat exists to public health or animal health and welfare, for the closure of such establishments. Local authorities are also responsible for the enforcement of certain legislation in this area. For example, under the Control of Dogs Acts local authorities have the power to issue dog licences, appoint dog wardens, provide dog shelters, seize dogs, impose on-the-spot fines and take court proceedings against dog owners, where appropriate. The Department of Rural and Community Development co-operates closely with the local authority veterinary service to ensure that we do what we can to support the vets in their work.

The Department of Rural and Community Development also has a close working relationship with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This Department is responsible for the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, and a statutory instrument made under this act includes provisions around the microchipping of dogs. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine also wrote and oversees regulations around the sale, supply and advertising of pet animals, including dogs. We are currently in discussions with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding the potential transfer of some responsibilities in this area, as a move towards consolidating the work around dog breeding establishments.

As a result of our close relationship with both the local authority vets and dog welfare groups, we became aware of the need to tighten up on the operating standards in dog breeding establishments in Ireland. We initiated a public consultation in 2017, and in January 2019, revised guidelines for the operation of dog breeding establishments came into effect. They now form part of the framework within which local authorities carry out inspections and issue improvement notices where required. Having taken on board the stakeholder views, we ensured a substantial shift in focus within the revised guidelines towards the welfare of dogs and pups in dog breeding establishments. We know that better socialised pups, housed in appropriate accommodation, make for better pets. Where there is a focus on socialisation in the key first few weeks of life, there is a smoother transition to life in a family home.

We know that better socialised pups, housed in appropriate accommodation, make for better pets. Where there is a focus on socialisation in the key first few weeks of life, there is a smoother transition to life in a family home. The revised guidelines also place an emphasis on the need for accurate record-keeping by dog breeding establishments and sets the staff to breeding bitches ratio at 1:25. This was a key shift from the original guidelines, which did not stipulate in a ratio.

As part of our drive to review and improve legislation in this area, work is ongoing in the Department on a review of the legislation and the preparation of proposed amendments to the Dog Breeding Establishment and Control of Dogs Acts. Regarding dog breeding establishments, we are considering, for example, strengthening the enforcement regime by introducing additional penalties for offences and allowing for fixed payment notices. We are also proposing additional amendments to ensure that local authorities can inspect deregistered premises and seize dogs when warranted due to welfare and other issues.

Under the Control of Dogs Act, we are considering a new provision to allow for dog control notices, DCNs. They are notices issued to owners whose dogs have been found to be out of control.

As part of our objective to promote responsible dog ownership, the Department recently published a consultation report on a review of measures relating to the control of dogs in Ireland. This report followed a public consultation to which more than 1,000 responses were received. As a result of this review, the Department intends to more actively promote a culture of responsible dog ownership in Ireland. This will include supporting information campaigns regarding responsible dog ownership and progressing measures involving primary and secondary legislation.

We are also consulting with the Office of the Attorney General regarding introducing increased penalties for the offence of livestock worrying, which continues to be an issue in our rural areas. Some 241 incidences of livestock worrying were reported to local authorities in 2020, with 253 reported in 2019.

All the work we do in this area, including the reviews of the legislation, revised guidelines and stakeholder consultation, is with a view to the promotion of responsible dog breeding and ownership in Ireland. Dogs who are bred in dog breeding establishments are now more likely to receive individual attention and be socialised properly before going to their homes. At that point, the responsibility transfers to their owners.

We know that dog ownership brings great benefits, physical and social, but it also brings with it responsibility. Another part of the Department has responsibility for the national outdoor recreation strategy. As part of the communications plan around the forthcoming strategy, there is the intention to develop and deliver a communication campaign to promote a culture of responsible dog ownership in outdoor recreation. This will complement the work already carried out in area by the Department.

Dogs must be kept under effectual control, in particular around livestock. Dogs should never be left free to roam and pose a threat to the livelihoods of our farmers. During lambing season each year, the Department has spearheaded communication campaigns seeking to inform dog owners of the risks of leaving dog unattended. As I mentioned, we seek to increase the level of fines for the offence of livestock worrying. We will continue to do our part, along with colleague in local authorities, local authority vets and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, to consolidate efforts in this area and promote the message of responsible dog ownership.

I thank the committee for its attention. My colleagues and I are happy to respond to any questions the committee may have.

Deputy Martin Browne

I welcome the witnesses. I have a number of questions. I will ask three and let other members in. The Department published statistics on local authority dog-related activities. Can Ms Nic Aongusa tell us the biggest issue local authorities are faced with? Is it stray, missing or mistreated dogs or illegal breeding? According to the statistics for 2020 on gov.ie, five local authorities issued no on-the-spot fines in 2020. I appreciate the pandemic may have been partly responsible for that, but I checked the figures on the same website for 2019 and the number was four - Tipperary and Kildare were included for both years. There were four in 2018, with Tipperary coming up again. In 2017, four fines were issued. None were reported to have been paid and no prosecutions or convictions were recorded.

Can Ms Nic Aongusa offer any reason some local authorities have issued no fines? In the instances that have been reported, could she explain why that was not followed through on? If the Department's statistics have any purpose, it is to inform us as to how well a policy is working. What is being done to address the issue from the Department side?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

I thank the Deputy. We regularly engage with local authorities and get a sense from them of what is happening. The important thing to emphasise is that we publish the statistics and information that local authorities send us. In general, local authorities would probably be more appropriately able to answer those questions. I do not know if my colleagues have any further information on that.

Deputy Martin Browne

There is no follow-up from the Department side, other than working with-----

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

We publish the statistics and local authorities are responsible for following up on the issues.

Deputy Martin Browne

I will get in touch with the local authorities. Are local authorities hooked up to any of the various microchip databases? Not all databases can be checked online. Some are manual and people have to phone the companies concerned. Would it be easier if everything was digitised and amalgamated?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

I am aware of that issue, which has been raised with the Minister. As I understand it, there is a local authority database on dog licences and a separate database on microchipping. The two databases operate separately. When they were being developed, some consideration was given as to whether there should be a single database, but I understand speed was of the essence and it was decided on the local authority side to proceed with having a dog licence database. The question of having a link between the two databases would require further work and development.

Deputy Martin Browne

The Departments of Rural and Community Development and Agriculture, Food and the Marine and local authorities are all involved in this area to some extent. Are the limitations of their remits clear? In addition, the Department of Rural and Community Development stated that it was in contact with the Department for Agriculture, Food and the Marine about transferring some responsibilities in this area, namely the sale, supply and advertising of pet animals. What responsibilities is the Department considering transferring? What would be the benefit of that?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

We are in discussions with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding the potential transfer of some responsibilities in the area as a move towards consolidating the work around breeding establishments. The discussions are at an early stage. My understanding is that it concerns the functions of our Department has regarding dog breeding establishments.

As I said in my opening statement, our responsibility as a Department is a policy responsibility. We are responsible for the legislation and the operational responsibility rests with the local authorities and their vets.

When I was answering earlier about databases, I did not have my note to hand. Perhaps I will go back to the question asked before. The dog licensing database was established in 2018 by the local authorities and a microchip number can be recorded on a licence but it is not mandatory. There was a question about linking the microchipping and dog licence database, and a policy decision was taken to keep the two separate for a number of reasons. A link was not technically feasible because dog licences do not contain a unique identifier and there were data protection issues as well about databases handing over personal details other than individual cases.

There was also a concern when setting up the microchips database that there could be a negative impact on the uptake of microchipping, which was being introduced for animal welfare reasons, if people were also required to buy a licence at the same time. Another concern came from the local authority side about a potential loss of earnings. As the committee knows, local authorities collect dog licences and depend on those for dog warden operations.

We could give consideration to amalgamating databases, but if that happened, an amendment would be required for the statutory instrument that prescribes dog licensing. The database would require much coding change. Currently, dog licences may be purchased at post offices and there would need to be further discussion with those post offices. Of course, we would also need to discuss this with colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, who are responsible for microchipping. It would be quite a complex operation to link the two databases. We try to have very good co-operation at official level between the two Departments to overcome those kinds of issues.

Deputy Martin Browne

Statistics from the Department indicate Tipperary has 1.5 dog wardens. We have the longest and largest inland county, so is there an opinion or rule-of-thumb ratio for how many dog wardens a county should or is advised to have? The Cathaoirleach knows we had two and one went out sick and has only been replaced, to the best of my knowledge, with half a post. It is crazy because I know there are times when a dog warden is stuck trying to catch dogs in an estate. We have a huge county in Tipperary that is not being covered. Is there a rule of thumb for the number of wardens?

Mr. Paul Geraghty

There are 50 full-time dog wardens in Ireland as per 2020 statistics, as well as 25 part-time dog wardens. We do not have any rule of thumb on the distribution of those wardens. Under the local government legislation, each chief executive of each local authority is responsible for the staffing and organisational arrangements necessary for carrying out functions in the local authority area, including the provision of dog warden services and inspections of dog-breeding establishments. The number is fairly static. In 2018 and 2019, the number was 49 and it was 50 in 2020. Those are full-time dog wardens.

Deputy Martin Browne

They are full-time.

Mr. Paul Geraghty

Yes. There are 25 part-time dog wardens.

Deputy Martin Browne

That is a little over one per county.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

To reiterate, local government Acts prescribe that the local authority must have a dog warden but it is a matter for the chief executive how many or how few are employed.

Deputy Martin Browne

It is the chief executive of the county council who decides.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

Yes. We have no role in determining how many each local authority should have. It is a matter entirely for the local authority.

Deputy Martin Browne

I thank the witnesses. I will come back in if there is enough time.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I will focus mostly on the dog-breeding establishments, if the witnesses do not mind. There is the legal definition of guidelines and there seems to be some confusion at different local authority levels, with some believing they are legally enforceable. Some local authorities make it a condition on granting a licence that a party complies with dog-breeding establishment guidelines but others do not. Do the witnesses agree it would be best if we removed the term "guidelines" and the ambiguity that goes with it so we can all be sure these are conditions that must be complied with if somebody is to run a dog-breeding establishment?

The second point concerns the databases and inconsistencies. Animal welfare organisations and I have done an exercise in trying to find out what dog-breeding establishments are licensed to different local authorities. What we find is that approximately 50% of local authorities will display some form of information around licensed establishments in the area. Others will have no information and it would have to be requested. Even then, the information given is patchy. Again, could we not have some consistency where the local authority would be obliged to display publicly the dog-breeding establishment licence and that the establishment itself would be required to divulge information, including the number and location of the establishment, along with the number of breeding bitches, for example. Again, that is not on every database. It should also include the tax registration number, because this can be a very profitable industry, and the date of the last inspection, including whether any conditions were attached to same. That sort of information would be very helpful.

From speaking to members of the public, it seems they are horrified to think they could be buying a dog coming from industrial-scale puppy farms. They are being advised by the Minister to do their homework but there is no way they can do that because they do not have the information available to them. What are the views of the witnesses on that or the database that could be publicly available with all that information, which could lead to people making an informed decision when buying a dog?

There is another question relating to data that should be maintained by the dog-breeding establishment operator. This would be a record of births, deaths, sales, movements and any other events that relate to each dog within the establishment. I have asked the question of previous witnesses in particular about what happens to breeding bitches then the dog-breeding establishment finishes with them. What we hear is it is very hard to gauge what happens to them. In some cases they are sold as older dogs and in other cases they are surrendered to rescue operations, which puts a cost on that service to look after these retired bitches. There is also anecdotal evidence that some of the dog-breeding establishments set up a separate rescue-type organisation and advertise these retired bitches as rescue dogs. They make more money by selling pups and then the retired bitch as a rescue dog. I will start with those questions and I might get back in again. The questions relate to tracking where the animals go from these establishments.

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

My colleague, Ms Gavaghan, will answer some of these questions. The Senator asked about the local authority register of dog-breeding establishments. As the Senator knows, under section 9 of the Act, the local authorities are obliged to maintain a register of establishments in their area, but section 9(15) outlines that the local authority may publish the register in a manner that it sees fit.

Senator Lynn Boylan

That is the problem.

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

They are required to make the register available for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable times. We carried out a search of all local authority websites and it indicated that 15 published their list online. Seven had no commercial dog-breeding establishments and therefore did not publish a list, whereas nine did not publish online anyway. The Department has raised the matter with the dog control working group, which is under the auspices of the County and City Management Association, CCMA. It was agreed by the CCMA that the publication of the dog-breeding establishment details should remain at the local authority's discretion. This aligns with the current legislation.

The question of whether the legislation should be amended to impose stricter conditions is something we will be considering in our review of the legislation. I will ask Ms Gavaghan to address some of the other issues raised.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

I thank the Senator for the questions. In regard to the word “guidelines”, the Dog Breeding Establishments Act allows the Minister to issue guidelines. We published revised guidelines in 2019. They became effective on 1 January 2019. In the proposed amendments, we are planning to put these guidelines on a statutory basis so they will be able to help future-proof the Act and to link the guidelines clearly to the Dog Breeding Establishments Act. Local authority veterinary inspectors use the guidelines to carry out their inspections and if there are serious deviations from these guidelines, they have the power to issue improvement notices, or for very serious health and welfare issues, they can close down an establishment.

Senator Lynn Boylan

What we are hearing back is that the bar to close down an establishment is extremely high and the different local authorities apply a different standard in terms of inspections. Would the inspections not be better done like farm inspections and brought under the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine so there is a consistent approach to all dog breeding establishments, no matter where they are? It seems it is pot luck. If someone is in a local authority which takes this very seriously, they will have very good inspectors, or the inspector might be the dog warden in one local authority but is a vet in another local authority. It would make sense to have a consistent approach so we know that when the inspections are taking place, they are all being held to the same standard.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

The Department tries to facilitate this kind of standardisation of inspections and enforcement across local authorities. We do this by holding and facilitating annual training days for local authorities. We intend to hold one this year in September. Obviously, we could not hold them face to face during Covid, but we held one online. They help to ensure there is standardisation across local authorities. Presentations are given by senior vets who have experience in inspecting and issuing improvement notices and closure notices in local authorities. We have had presentations from people from Northern Ireland and Scotland in regard to dog control and an individual from the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, in respect of investigative techniques. In this way, we try to ensure there is standardisation of enforcement across the local authorities.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I think it would make more sense if it was streamlined and if there was just one body carrying out the inspections, rather than the Department having to keep carrying out training exercises.

The revised guidelines set the staff to breeding bitches ratio at 1:25. Most animal welfare organisations have a 1:10 ratio. What is important for anybody listening today is that it is 1:25 breeding bitches and does not include the pups or any stud dogs on the farm. That could result in one person actually being responsible for up to 150 dogs. I have one dog and I know it is an awful lot of work in terms of cleaning up after it and maintaining it. I hope the witnesses will tell me that this staffing ratio is under review and will be reduced from 1:25 because it is just not practical for it to be 1:25 when we are really talking about 1:150 dogs.

Mr. Paul Geraghty

In regard to the ratio, it is under constant review. It is important to take the views of the local authority vets on board, which would be that there is a huge variance between the various dog breeding establishments. Some have a high degree of automation, which would mean that staff are freed up to spend more time with the dogs and pups if there are automated feeding stations, automating cleaning and so on. It is a slightly crude implement to use the ratio in a very strict way and we have to trust the local authority vets to apply common sense when they visit these establishments because of that sort of variance.

The Senator asked in regard to retirement plans for breeding bitches on dog breeding establishments. It is a stipulation of the Act that appropriate retirement plans should be in place for breeding bitches. We are not aware of dog breeding establishments advertising retired bitches as rescue dogs but we will look into that.

Senator Lynn Boylan

Would the Department be open to the idea that the operator would establish a system which keeps a system record of births, deaths, sales, movements and any other events, for example, when the bitch is retired, the number of litters she has had, the number of live pups versus dead pups and all of that information in order that it is available and we can track what exactly is going on in these establishments?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

The revised guidelines stipulate that there is very detailed record-keeping. This would include the birth of the pup, the death of the pup, the dams, the sires and all of this type of information. The dog breeding establishment operator is required to make it available as and when required by the inspecting officer - the local authority vet - and if the information is not satisfactory or to the vet's satisfaction, he may issue an improvement notice. That is very clearly stipulated in the guidelines.

Senator Lynn Boylan

Is that available electronically?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

Yes. I have a copy here. It is available on gov.ie.

Senator Lynn Boylan

All of that level of detail for each dog breeding establishment is available publicly.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

Yes. The guidelines state, at section 9:

A Dog Breeding Establishment operator must establish and maintain a detailed records keeping system to record the details of births, deaths, sale, movement (and reason for movement) or other events relating to all dogs and pups kept within the establishment. These records must include all microchip details, age, sex, breed, dates of whelping of each bitch, number and sex of pups in each litter (including the number of live and dead pups), and details of sale or disposal. Each pup must have its dam and sire’s microchip number listed in its records. The premises must also have a separate record of all bitches, over 6 months of age and capable of being used for breeding purposes. All such records must be maintained for five years and made available for inspection on request by an authorised person.

Senator Paul Daly

I welcome what the witnesses said earlier about talking to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in regard to trying to co-ordinate the roles and responsibility but that is specifically with regard to dog breeding establishments. Is that correct?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

Yes.

Senator Paul Daly

We have been dealing with this for a long time. This is my second term on the agriculture committee. If I had just happened to drop in here today and this was all new to me, I would find it very confusing that one minute we are mentioning local authorities, which house local government, and the next we are referring to the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Rural and Community Development. When it comes to the broad spectrum of dog control, licensing and microchipping, can this circle be squared in any way? If someone is not up to speed with this, it is confusing. If someone has an issue, especially from a livestock worrying perspective, even if the dog is captured and it is microchipped, that person has to go round the houses to track down who might own it or who might be responsible, or where to go next. That is if the dog is microchipped or licensed. The majority of dogs out there may not be and probably are not.

How do we get the ordinary man or woman on the street, not to mention those in breeding establishments or large-scale outfits, to deal with this? They will have a dog and there is no onus on them to do it, but they know it should be done. God be with the days when I was a young lad in rural Ireland and a garda would call in to look for a dog licence. That day is long since gone. We will find, 99 times out of 100, that when there is a problem, an issue or an offence such as livestock worrying, it will be the dog that is not microchipped or that is untraceable that will be the offending dog. That is the root of all evil in this debate, as far as I am concerned.

My next question is one I asked a previous witness. It concerns licensing and microchipping for those who are compliant and who go to do it with the best will in the world, but who then down the line may not be responsible or good owners.

The way I put this the last time was that it was like the theory test for a driver's licence. Do the witnesses think there should be a kind of simple, basic, perhaps ten-point, questionnaire for people to fill out as to what they think it would be like, what they would need to do, or the tasks they would need to perform to be what one would consider a responsible dog owner? Do the witnesses think it should be as simple as registering a dog, irrespective of who the person is, what the dog is or how vast or otherwise the person's knowledge of being a dog or other pet owner is?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

I will ask my colleagues to come in in a minute. The first question the Senator asked was about the diversity of the various State bodies responsible for this. I agree with him that it can be confusing. That has historical origins in that dog wardens and dog control, historically, were matters for local authorities and the Department with responsibility for housing and local government. Then the community function of that Department transferred to our new Department of Rural and Community Development. We have brought that function with us. In more recent years, in the past decade or so, issues of animal welfare have come more to the fore, so there is very much a focus on animal welfare when it comes to issues relating to dogs. The discussions at the moment are with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and, I understand, the local authorities in respect of the issues of animal welfare and dog-breeding establishments. Given that Department's responsibility for animal welfare and dog-breeding establishments, it follows that regulation, inspections, standardisation and other issues would all come under the control of the overall animal welfare function. After that, the issue of dog control arises.

There is a case to be made for all issues relating to dogs to come under one authority. We have not got there yet, however. The discussions at present relate to the dog-breeding establishments element. However, we engage regularly with all the stakeholders. For example, we meet regularly with the local authority vets, as I said earlier, and the control of dogs working group we attend, which is chaired by a director of services under the auspices of the CCMA. We also have regular meetings, as required, with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We co-operate closely. It is a three-legged stool. There is the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, our Department and the local authorities. The best approach is to have that close collaboration.

Senator Daly mentioned enforcement and how to improve it. That issue goes beyond enforcement of dog licences and could relate to many other types of licence. As to how to improve enforcement, I would turn the question on its head. It is linked somewhat to the third area the Senator raised, that is, how we can encourage more responsible dog ownership. The idea of a theory test for a dog owner is not a bad one at all. If, however, responsible dog ownership is encouraged and promoted, the first thing a responsible dog owner does is get a licence for his or her dog and get that dog microchipped. That could be part of a communications programme we have talked about.

I invite my colleagues to speak if they wish to add anything further.

Mr. Paul Geraghty

I thank Senator Daly for his question about livestock worrying. We are very aware of the issue. We hear quite a bit about it. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, is particularly concerned about it. Under the Control of Dogs Act there are specific requirements about keeping dogs under effectual control. There were 253 incidences of livestock worrying reported in 2019 and 241 in 2020. We know that a lot of instances go unreported and are sorted out locally and so on, but we are considering increasing the fine for the offence of livestock worrying. We are getting legal advice on that.

I will pass the Senator on to Ms Gavaghan for responses to the other questions.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

I thank the Senator for his questions. As for the onus being on the owner of the dog, and if we compare dog ownership to buying a car, when I buy a car I have to inform myself as to what is required, have my car tax, have a driver licence and so on. Perhaps what is warranted and needed here is information campaigns as to what is required, and it is something the Department is looking at in the context of our outdoor strategy. People may not be aware they need their dogs licensed and microchipped and that there are responsibilities in respect of dog fouling and cleaning up after their dogs and so on. I agree we need to get the message out there, but there is a certain amount of personal responsibility here too. People need to inform themselves as to what they have to do, and the Department needs to ensure they are made aware of that.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank our guests for coming. I will not repeat what everyone else has said other than to say I am aware that the Department of Rural and Community Development publishes a comprehensive manual of statistics in respect of local authority dog-related activities. When I went looking today, I saw that the statistics for 2021 are not yet online. The witnesses might tell us when they are because this is important. I am also aware of the information on stray and unwanted dogs and the detail the Department has on that. I have looked back at those statistics. The witnesses need not go through all that, but they might tell us when the 2021 statistics will be published. We are now coming up to the middle of 2022.

I noted from the Department's comprehensive written statement, which I read in detail today, that the total number of dogs euthanised in local authority pounds in 2020 was 172. That was dramatically down from the 404 in 2019. Has Covid anything to do with that? I think Covid had a significant effect on dog ownership, strangely enough. We see a lot of dogs now being got rid of. I will not say "dumped", but certainly there were many people who had dogs and who were walking them around Dún Laoghaire Harbour a few months ago. I ask them where their dogs are and they say, "We parted company." There is a small issue there in respect of Covid that we will not really know how to measure. Many people got new dogs during the period of Covid and suddenly realised when they were going back to work that they could not quite manage their dogs. There is something in all that. The witnesses may know something about it, but in time I think we will know more from those figures. In 2002, 21,000 dogs were euthanised. Are those figures correct? I am shocked to think that many dogs were euthanised in 2002. The witnesses might come back to me on those figures.

Another area I am especially interested in hearing about is whether the Department has more detailed information on the dogs held by the 85 hunt clubs? Concern has been expressed to me about some of those clubs. I simply do not have the facts but I would like to know how much the Department monitors that and how much it inspects those activities. It is a different type of dog keeping, if the witnesses know what I mean. We talk about animal welfare, and that is critically important. I would like the witnesses to address that issue.

I am particularly interested in the issue of livestock worrying. The Department tells us it is taking advice from the Attorney General on increasing the fines and the regulatory issues around all that, and rightly so. Farmers, whom we represent, are clearly a big aspect of our work on the committee and they are deeply concerned about this. What are the penalties the Department is planning? What engagement has it had with the farm representative bodies and groups, and indeed individual farmers or stakeholders in agriculture? They need to know more about this. When does the Department expect a timeline in respect of the Attorney General? We hear a lot in these Houses about the Attorney General's legal advice, which seems to be endless. It is a great old line to be spun out. I am not suggesting the witnesses are spinning that line but I am suggesting it is one we hear regularly in these Houses. What is the timeline in that regard? That is the particular issue on which I wish to concentrate. I accept there seems to be a bit of a disjointed mix between the local authority, the witnesses' Department and the local authority veterinary service. I am hearing from the witnesses that there may be a need for some legislative change in some areas. That has been suggested. As a committee, we would like to hear about those changes. If anything is to come from our work today, we would like to elicit from the witnesses some key messages, not necessarily today, but the witnesses can contact the committee at any time with recommendations as to what they think would be positive and favourable in respect of this issue in order that we could further consider them in any report we may wish to do.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the time. I thank the witnesses for coming here to be with us. They might touch on some of the issues I have raised.

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

I will pass over to Ms Gavaghan in a moment. The Senator asked how much we inspect and monitor. I will reiterate that we have policy responsibility for the legislation. The measures, operational aspects and enforcement are matters for the local authorities. Within that context, we are happy to provide as much information as we can.

On the question of the Attorney General's advice, as my colleague mentioned earlier the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, is keen on the amendment relating to sheep worrying. She has met recently with farmers' groups and has sought the advice of the Attorney General. We are hopeful we will get advice that will enable us to make regulations in the short term. I will ask Ms Gavaghan to address the Senator's questions about the statistics.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

I thank the Senator for the questions. We publish annual statistics on the dog control activities of local authorities, including dog control and dog breeding establishments. The Senator firstly asked when the 2021 figures will be published. They will be published shortly. We are currently finalising them and have a few queries to follow up on. We carry out an in-depth checking process. If we need new data, we agree that with local authorities first. We issue a form, generally early in the year, to the chief executives of each local authority to make them aware we are collecting the data. We give a deadline for receipt of that information. We issue quite a detailed and extensive form. The local authorities generally provide the information as soon as possible and we collate it and do thorough checks. There may sometimes be inconsistencies in the data and once we are aware of them, we follow up with the local authorities. The process can be quite detailed.

If local authorities have outsourced their dog control facilities to an animal welfare organisation, such as the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, they may have to go to that third party for the information, which can slow down the process. Those figures should be published by the end of the second quarter; certainly by June.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I wish to ask one supplementary question of Ms Gavaghan. Data is everything. Figures need to be broken down and analysed. Ms Gavaghan talked about the comprehensive and detailed form involved. Would it be possible for the Department to make a blank copy of that form available to the committee to allow us an understanding of the type of data it is attempting to capture? I do not want a form that has been filled out. I would like to see a plain copy to understand the format of the form. That would help us to understand the type of information the Department is trying to elicit. That might give us a greater understanding of the in-depth analysis she has set out for the committee. I thank Ms Gavaghan for her detailed response.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

The euthanasia figures have been decreasing steadily over recent years.

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

One interesting point relates to the number of dogs that are now transferred to animal welfare groups and rehomed. That illustrates a shift in policy. In the past, large numbers of dogs would have been euthanised but more of an attempt is now being made to ensure they go to good homes. They are either rehomed or transferred to animal welfare groups.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

I can give the committee an indication of the statistics with regard to the number of dogs that have been euthanised in recent years. In 2017, 916 were euthanised. In 2018, that figure reduced to 725. In 2019, the figure was 398 and in 2020, it was 171. The figures seem to have plateaued. At a certain stage, the statistics plateau and we seem to have reached that stage. The 2021 figure has reduced slightly from the 2020 figure but it has plateaued to a certain extent.

Chairman

A certain amount of dogs will always be euthanised for various reasons. Perhaps they get injured, or whatever.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I will return to the point about the blank form that sets out the strata and data the Department is seeking. Would it be possible for the committee to see a blank copy of the form to get a measure of the situation?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

Certainly.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Ms Gavaghan has no difficulty with that.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

It is no problem at all.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That is great. I thank Ms Gavaghan.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I have a couple of short questions, one of which repeats other questions that have been asked. We are dealing with three Government Departments and 30-odd local authorities. I am concerned about the efficacy of that. There is a compelling case that the all-encompassing role of animal welfare should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine because it would be a natural progression from the work of that Department. Do our guests have a view on that?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

I thank the Deputy for the question. As I said earlier, I agree that it seems a bit incongruous and confusing that the functions are spread across three different bodies. We have responsibility for the Control of Dogs Act and the Dog Breeding Establishments Act from a policy perspective while the local authorities have operational responsibility and deal with enforcement. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine deals with animal welfare. Responsibility for the Control of Horses Act, for example, rests with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine whereas the Control of Dogs Act rests with us and the local authorities. That is worth considering. As I said earlier, discussions have commenced with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the local authority veterinarians about the transfer of responsibility for dog breeding establishments, which clearly come under the remit of animal welfare.

As I said earlier, the Control of Dogs Act is an historical matter about controlling stray dogs and dog fouling, which also comes in under the litter Acts, which are the responsibility of another Government Department, namely, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. The question is more complex as it relates to the control of dogs. However, it is a matter that will be discussed and considered into the future.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I will ask about the areas over which the Department of Rural and Community Development has responsibility, including the Control of Dogs Act and the Dog Breeding Establishments Act. Since the establishment of the Department, the number of enforcement actions has reduced drastically. In 2015, under the Department as it was then constituted, there were 4,849 on-the-spot fines. In 2020, the equivalent figure was approximately 1,000. Is there a particular reason, other than what I have cited, for the reduction? Those figures have reduced, year on year, since the new Department was established.

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

As I said earlier, we do not speak for the local authorities but my understanding is that the approach taken now caters more for animal welfare and tries to encourage more responsible dog ownership around the country. I would not necessarily link that change to the transfer of responsibility to the new Department. It may be a reflection of other responsibilities in local authorities. I can try to find out more information about that and communicate with the Deputy. I do not have that information to hand.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I mentioned on-the-spot fines, of which there were 1,069 in 2020.

Of those fines, only 548 were paid. There were 82 prosecutions. Again, that number is substantially lower than in previous years. There were 411 in 2015 and 304 in 2016. Since then there has been a year-on-year reduction. Of the 82 prosecutions, there were only 20 convictions. Does the Department have a view on those rates? Are they are acceptable success rates?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

We see this as a matter for the local authorities. They are the ones with responsibility for enforcement. We would engage with them and find out in general how things are going but this is a matter for each local authority. They have a statutory function under the Act as the authority with responsibility for dog control within their functional areas. It is the same with parking fines and things like that. It is an enforcement act to be carried out by the local authority under its statutory function.

Deputy Matt Carthy

What is the purpose of the Department's engagement with local authorities?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

We engage with the local authorities on our policy responsibility. We have regular meetings with the CCMA's control of dogs working group. Department officials meet regularly with the vets to raise awareness of and discuss issues of mutual concern. Three to four meetings would be held annually and the meetings are chaired by the director of service under the auspices of the CCMA. It is an operational matter, which is the responsibility of the local authority.

Deputy Matt Carthy

The legislation concerned - the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 and the Control of Dogs Act - falls under the auspices of the Department with regard to the policy direction. Is that not right?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

That is right. The policy is our responsibility.

Deputy Matt Carthy

The Department engages with the local authorities three or four times a year. Has nobody ever asked the local authorities why the on-the-spot fines and prosecutions have been drastically reducing and why the fines paid and subsequent convictions from prosecutions are so low? Have those questions never arisen? Has the Department no view on any of those figures?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

I thank the Deputy for his questions. The 2020 figures are quite reduced in comparison to the 2019 figures. Covid played a big part in that. During the level 5 lockdowns, only emergency call-outs were allowed and there may not have been as much door-to-door activity. There may not have been as many dog wardens on the streets and they could not stop a person walking their dog to see if the dog was licensed due to Covid. We are responsible for the policy and legislation and all the powers of enforcement are invested in the local authorities. It is a matter for the local authorities to carry out these enforcement activities. Various issues would be raised at our meetings with the CCMA. As I said earlier, various issues are discussed when we hold our dog warden training days. We try to ensure standardisation across local authorities. Senior local authority vets give presentations on how they carry out inspections, on how to proceed to court and on court activities, etc. Sometimes if a fine issues at the end of a year the process might be carried through to the following year and it will be reflected in the following year's statistics.

Deputy Matt Carthy

The difficulty with that is that the one place the statistics are consistent is in the portion of fines paid and prosecutions that lead to convictions. Those percentages are very consistent. Ms Gavaghan says that part of the approach is to ensure standardisation across all local authorities. How does the Department do that if it does not discuss the number of fines issued, the number of prosecutions, the fines paid and the subsequent convictions from those prosecutions? How does the Department strive to achieve standardisation and a consistent approach across local authorities if it is not discussing the specific experiences of local authorities in all those areas?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

At the training days the Department facilitates, we would always have a presentation on the various statistics. The statistics are outlined and when we publish them we also send an email to the chief executive of each local authority. It is a matter-----

Deputy Matt Carthy

Without having a view on the statistics.

Mr. Paul Geraghty

The local authority veterinary service is very well networked. There is peer-to-peer information sharing between people in that network on an ongoing basis. Our policy and legislative responsibility means we do not step into the operational space very often or at all.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Three of the witnesses have answered this question and I am still not clear on the role of the Department. If, in a given year, in a local authority there are no on-the-spot fines issued, no fines paid, no prosecutions and therefore no convictions, does anyone pick up the phone to the local authority to ask what is going on? Does the Department simply assume this is an operational matter for the local authorities and its job is only to provide them with the statistics?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

We provide the chief executive with the statistics. It would be a matter for the chief executive of the local authority, who is responsible for his staff in the local authority, to raise it with his dog control personnel.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I will ask the question a different way. The programme for Government contains a commitment to "Ensure robust and consistent enforcement of the Dog Breeding Establishments Act." Who is responsible for the delivery of that action?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

The policy oversight of that Act is the responsibility of the Department of Rural and Community Development and the local authorities are responsible for the operational aspects. We tend to leave that side of things to the local authorities.

Deputy Matt Carthy

We might have identified a problem that I hope the Department will commit to addressing. The Department has committed to ensuring robust and consistent enforcement of this Act but is not making direct interventions when there is clearly not consistency in how it is being implemented in different parts of the country. Will the witnesses accept that perhaps there is a need for greater intervention to ensure the delivery of that aspect of the programme for Government?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

I accept that we should ask more questions and we will do so. I am very clear that the responsibility for ensuring there is more enforcement rests with the local authorities. However, I accept that we are the Department with the policy responsibility. We should also bear in mind that in recent years, the functions of the local authorities in relation to overall community responsibilities have increased. Their dog breeding functions are funded by the dog licence income and so there is a deficit when it comes to their income versus their total expenditure on dog breeding and dog control functions. For example, in 2020 the total expenditure by local authorities on dog control and dog breeding was €7.2 million and their total income was €4.7 million. There is a funding deficit of €2.5 million there. I cannot speak for the local authorities but if the Deputy put the same questions to them about the lack of enforcement or on-the-spot fines, I imagine they would give two answers. The first one might be to do with resources.

The second might be that imposing fines may not be the way forward and that it may be more of a case of engaging with communities and dog owners. Once again, it is a question of encouraging responsible dog ownership. I know from talking to people that the problems are not so much to do with having more licences or microchips. The key problems with dog control relate to the animals that are neither licensed nor microchipped. It is harder to impose an on-the-spot fine on their owners. I have heard from staff operating on the ground that if a fine is imposed, it is very difficult to collect. These issues relate not only to dog licences but also to a range of other areas regarding which fines are imposed at local level.

I accept what the Deputy has said and that there is a case for us to engage more proactively with local authorities and find out more about what is happening on the ground. In fairness to Deputy Martin Browne, he raised that at the beginning of the session. We need to reflect on that.

Chairman

Ms Nic Aongusa said the control of horses was the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. If horses have to be impounded or collected, however, it is the county council that has to do so. It also has to fund it.

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

That is right.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

My understanding is that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is responsible for the legislation relating to the control of horses and that it is the local authorities that implement it.

Chairman

The local authorities implement it. That is all right. I just thought we had crossed wires.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I would like Ms Gavaghan to clarify a point on the electronic system to record births, deaths, sales, movements and other events relating to animals in an establishment. She said the recording happens. Is the information made publicly available for greater transparency?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

I am not 100% sure but can confirm later whether it is an electronic system. I would say that some dog breeding establishments probably use some sort of spreadsheet, and some may still use registers. I am not 100% sure. It is up to the local authority veterinary inspector to ensure that-----

Senator Lynn Boylan

I do not want to be rude but I will stop Ms Gavaghan there because I am conscious that I do not have much time. This matter goes back to the crux of the problem, which is about consistency at local authority level. We and those who are interested in animal welfare are interested in consistency across the board. It would make sense if inspections were carried out by a national body, be it the Veterinary Council of Ireland or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and if there were an electronic register with all the relevant information. Regardless of whether there is a dog breeding establishment in Cork, Kerry or Dublin, the same data would be collected. Those same data would be available to members of the public so they could make informed decisions when purchasing pups. They would know exactly where pups are from, the sizes of the dog breeding establishments and the level of breeding.

Let us consider the Department's report on inspections. Cork county had 35 renewal applications but only three inspections. Mayo, by contrast, had ten renewals and ten inspections. Clearly, the local authority in Mayo inspected every single dog breeding establishment that applied to renew a licence whereas the local authority in Cork inspected only three of the establishments of the 35 applicants seeking a renewal. Even from looking at the chart in the report, one sees a lack of consistency at local authority level. We are calling for a more joined-up approach. The delegates will agree that this is what is needed. The Department might be in charge of the Act but the local authorities need to implement the laws consistently across the board.

The delegates noted in their report that the problem with the current definition of dog breeding establishment is that it also captures the animal welfare organisations, kennel clubs and so on. Would it be much better to separate them in order to have a clearer picture?

Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa

On that point, the statistics distinguish between the hunt clubs and kennel clubs. When the legislation was being drafted, there was a strong argument that all dog breeding establishments, regardless of who runs them, need to be subject to the same guidelines. That is the approach that has been taken.

Senator Lynn Boylan

An establishment with 300 bitches breeding for commercial purposes is very different from the Dublin Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or Dogs Trust Ireland, which may have a couple of bitches that came in pregnant and must therefore be dealt with. One would have to argue that one-size-fits-all guidelines are probably not the most appropriate.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I have a point to make in respect of which I might have missed a response. The 85 hunting clubs and the associated dogs represent a somewhat different set of circumstances. I realise they are well looked after in most cases, or in 99% of cases. It is in people's interest to keep the dogs healthy and fit. They are working dogs. I know the subtle difference between pets and working dogs and have no difficulty with that. Are there any data on this? Data are everything. Where could we get more information on the 85 hunting clubs that the delegates referred to in the opening statement?

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

The hunting clubs are inspected by the local authority veterinary inspectors. I agree with the Senator that the premises are different from those of commercial dog breeding establishments. Hunting dogs are pack animals and have a unique set of circumstances. We revised the guidelines in 2019. I understand from talking to representatives of the Hunting Association of Ireland that it has commenced a review of its guidelines and that its revised guidelines, which would comprise a second set, are imminent. I am not sure what kind of data the Senator would like.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Maybe we can contact the Hunting Association of Ireland at a future date. That is fair enough.

Ms Teresa Gavaghan

They are inspected. Improvement notices and closure notices can be issued in the same way as they are issued to commercial dog breeding establishments.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Ms Gavaghan has confirmed the position and guidelines. We can make our own inquiries. I thank Ms Gavaghan for her assistance. She has been most helpful.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses for answering our questions and providing detailed background information. I apologise for stating at the start of the meeting that Ms Gavaghan would be joining remotely. It was Ms Burns who was joining remotely.

Sitting suspended at 6.57 p.m. and resumed at 7.03 p.m.