Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 2024

Scrutiny of EU Proposals

I remind members to turn off their mobile phones.

Before we begin, I will read the note on 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 against any defamation action as regards anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction.

Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by them outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from these proceedings.

The purpose of today's first session is for the committee to examine further scrutiny of EU legislative proposal COM (2023) 769 on the proposal on improving the rules on the welfare of cats and dogs and their traceability. We will hear from the following officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Dr. Eoin Ryan, head of animal welfare division, senior superintending veterinary inspector; Dr. Mary McCarthy, head of animal health and import policy division; and Dr. James Choiseul, director, One Health, One Welfare. The witnesses are welcome to the meeting. I will allow them five minutes to read their opening statements and we will then process to the question-and-answer session. I call Dr. Ryan.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee in respect of its further scrutiny of COM (2023) 769 proposal on improving the rules relating to the welfare of cats and dogs and the traceability in respect of these animals. I am joined by my colleagues Dr. Choiseul and Dr. McCarthy. The proposal before the committee was published by the European Commission in December 2023 and is available online.

I will describe the background and context for the proposal and I will then outline the main elements of it. Within the context of the EU farm to fork strategy, the Commission has looked at revising and updating existing animal welfare legislation. The results of a Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2023 which showed that 44% of EU citizens own companion animals and 74% consider that the welfare of companion animals should be better protected were cited in support of the decision to include dogs and cats in the scope of this legislation. Currently, there is a lack of harmonisation across the EU on issues such as dog and cat breeders, pet shops, shelters and traceability. There are also serious concerns about the illegal trade in dogs and cats. In 2020, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the illegal trade in companion animals calling for harmonised EU mandatory identification and registration of cats and dogs and improved protection of consumers purchasing companion animals via online listings. Although EU legislation is already in place for the protection of dogs and cats used for scientific purposes, the transportation of dogs and cats, and the movement of dogs and cats in the context of animal diseases, there is currently no EU legislation on the welfare of dogs and cats and no specific EU obligations for the sale of dogs and cats via online platforms. This proposal is intended to address those gaps. The scope includes the breeding, housing and handling of cats and dogs in breeding establishments, pet shops and shelters, and the identification, traceability and registration of dogs and cats.

There are many elements to the proposed regulation - I will touch on the key headline points, which are the general welfare principles for breeding establishments, selling establishments and shelters. There will be restrictions on breeding animals with extreme physical characteristics which cause them suffering, as per Articles 5 and 6. Regarding breeding, there will be a minimum age for breeding and a restriction on the frequency of pregnancies. There will be mandatory approval and registration of these establishments, as per Article 7. Information on responsible pet ownership must be provided to those acquiring a dog or case, as per Article 8. Required competencies and training for animal caretakers are set out in Article 9. There will be an annual advisory visit by a vet for welfare purposes, as required under Article 10. Standards for providing feed and water to dogs and cats are set out in Article 11. Minimum standards for housing are set out in Article 12. Requirements to take care of the health and behavioural needs of dogs and cats are set out in Articles 13 and 14. Certain painful practices are prohibited, with allowances in some circumstances, for example, ear cropping is banned but the notching of cats' ears in the context of trap-neuter-return programmes is permitted. The use of muzzles is prohibited other than for the welfare of the animal or for public health or animal safety reasons. Applying electric currents to dogs or cats will be prohibited under Article 15.

On the identification of pets and national databases, all cats and dogs placed on the market would have to be microchipped and registered in a national database. These databases need to be interoperable. This means that it will be easy to search across these approved databases using a new single search portal, to be developed by the Commission. For online sales, suppliers will have to provide information on the identification and registration of dogs and cats through a website connected to national databases. This will allow buyers to verify the authenticity of the animals they purchase. All of this is contained in Articles 17 and 19. On entry into the EU, the proposal clarifies that welfare conditions for pets entering the EU for the purpose of being placed on the market must be equivalent to those set by the proposal in Article 21. Technical requirements for feeding and weaning puppies and kittens, housing, space allowances, breeding frequency and behavioural needs are set out in the Annex.

Regarding timelines, it is proposed that the regulation will apply from two years after it enters into force and is published, with the exception of: health requirements, which will be three years after entry into force; caretaker training, which will be after four years; microchip regulations and microchip databases, which will be after four years; approval and inspection of breeding establishments, which will be after five years; housing, which will be after five years; online platforms requirements and automated checks, which will be after five years; and the common EU index microchip database, which will be after five years. I would like to point out that this is based on the current draft. These timelines and details of other provisions may change during the legislative process.

Since January 2024, a series of Council working party meetings have been held in Brussels at which member states have discussed the text published in December. The Belgian Presidency has been reflecting on the feedback and discussions. The latest drafts take on board many of the points made during these discussions. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine attends these meetings because they come under the Council working party on animal and veterinary questions. Some of the policy areas under discussion are under the remit of the Department of Rural and Community Development. Officials from both Departments are in regular and frequent contact to discuss and consider the proposals and revised texts which have been circulated. In this way, we have ensured a co-ordinated approach. Council discussions are approaching their conclusion under the Belgian Presidency.

On the Parliament side, the file was attributed to the committee on agriculture and rural development as the committee responsible. The Commission presented the proposal to the committee on 18 March. With the upcoming European elections and the new Commission due, it is difficult to predict the speed at which the trilogues may commence and proceed.

The Department has responsibility for five general areas relating to dogs: the pet sales register; pet passports; the movement and trade of dogs internationally; the microchipping of dogs and the provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, which applies to dogs. The Department of Rural and Community Development has policy responsibility for dog breeding establishments and the control of dogs. A number of the proposed actions align with current Department policies on dogs, cats and animal welfare. Examples include: the recently launched responsible dog ownership campaign; regulations on microchipping and registration of dogs; recent initiatives on the control of dogs; responsible pet ownership initiatives suggested by the advisory council on companion animal welfare, ACCAW; the initiative led by ACCAW on promoting innate health characteristics in pets and dissuading advertisers from using images of brachycephalic dogs. They also include new regulations introduced by the Minister in September 2023 strengthening the ban on ear cropping of dogs and the recent announcement by the Minister of his intention to ban the use of remotely-controlled hand-held electronic shock collars on dogs and cats following a public consultation on this question and advice from the advisory council on companion animal welfare. It is important to note that this will not affect collars linked to boundary fences or anti-bark collars.

On the Department’s engagement with charity shelters, at our recent annual seminar for charities in receipt of departmental grant funding, training was provided on raising standards in relation to animal health and biosecurity, at the request of the charities. The Minister has supported animal charities with record assistance of €6 million awarded to 101 animal welfare organisations last December. This funding recognises the importance of the role such charities play in education, awareness raising and dissemination of knowledge to improve animal welfare. This is particularly relevant for encouraging responsible pet ownership, which can help to reduce the number of dogs abandoned or surrendered to charities. The animal welfare grants process for 2024 is currently open for applications. Some of the provisions that set out minimum standards for establishments may require investment or have cost implications for breeding establishments and shelters but this depends on the conditions in which a given breeding establishment or shelter may currently house, keep and take care of animals in its care.

I hope I have given members of the committee a useful short overview of the proposed regulation. My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.

I thank Dr. Ryan. In the context of applying electric currents to dogs or cats being prohibited, Dr. Ryan stated, "It is important to note that this will not affect collars linked to boundary fences". Is that not contradictory? At a boundary fence, it is a shock that stops them going out on the road or the ditch or whatever.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

My reference to boundary fences related to the recent announcement by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, that he intends to ban electric shock collars. Separately, the proposal sets out that applying an electric current to a dog or a cat will be prohibited for breeders, pet-selling establishments and shelters. I meant to clarify that the Minister's recent announcement applies to remotely controlled shock collars.

It does not apply to boundary fences.

So you can still use a boundary fence to keep a dog you have running around a lawn or whatever within its domain.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

Correct. I just wanted to clarify the recent announcement by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, because it is an important point. His announcement that he intended to ban remotely controlled handheld shock collars did not apply to boundary fences so it does not apply to what you are saying, a Chathaoirligh.

Thank you, Dr. Ryan.

I call Deputy Flaherty.

I thank Dr. Ryan for the comprehensive overview. The obvious question is where we are relative to the UK on this now on the basis that these are EU regulations. In tandem, are we having discussions with the UK to adopt these regulations with the UK on the basis that illegal trade in dogs, in particular, is the biggest market at the moment? Sin ceist amháin.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

This is an EU regulation, obviously, so it does not apply to the UK. The applicability to the North comes under the Windsor Framework, and there is a separate framework to address that, which I will not go into here. On the question of whether we have been in touch with our UK colleagues, we regularly meet our counterparts in DEFRA on dog welfare and dog control issues on a technical level, so they are aware of this from that. We regularly interact with and talk to them on these dog issues. Similarly, in the UK, there is a lot of societal concern about dog welfare. That is no secret. The UK also has its own legislation moving through. The committee will be aware of that. I will not comment on that. It is fair to say the UK is moving in a similar direction. There are similar concerns in both countries about similar issues, and that is normal. This EU regulation reflects societal concerns across Europe, and there are similar societal concerns in the UK. On a technical level, we have been in touch with our UK colleagues about this. That would be part of our normal discussions. We regularly interact with them.

Yes, but Ireland has not entered formal discussions with the UK on adopting similar regulations, although they will not be EU regulations, to what is in place for the Windsor Framework.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

That would be a question for our UK colleagues. It would not be for the Department of agriculture to consider with them, but they are aware of the technical issues.

Will it be an obvious failing in the regulations, though, if we do not do something like that? Is it not a back door?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

I cannot comment on the applicability of UK law to the UK but I can certainly say they are aware of this.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

It is published online. It is a matter of public discussion.

Dr. Ryan will probably say my next question is either the wrong question for the wrong person or the right question for the wrong person. Dog welfare falls between two Departments: the Department of agriculture and the other Department. What is the rationale for that, or how did it end up that way? Should there not be just the one Department looking after animal welfare?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

I cannot comment on previous discussions that may have decided which policy area went to which Department, but the Department of agriculture is the lead Department on dog welfare, specifically. The Department of Rural and Community Development covers dog breeding establishments and the control of dogs. That is one of the reasons we have regular discussions with colleagues there. Under the control of dogs working group, we have a regular whole-of-government approach whereby not just the Department of Rural and Community Development and our Department but others - dog wardens, local authorities, An Garda Síochána - meet to discuss these issues. It is through that regular interaction that we tackle that.

Dr. Ryan touched on dog wardens. He may not have the information to hand. Is there any county at the minute that does not have a dedicated local authority dog warden?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

I am afraid I cannot comment on that because I do not have the information. The Department of agriculture does not cover dog wardens. Again, that would be for the Department of Rural and Community Development. It would probably have that information.

I call Senator Boylan.

I apologise for missing the start of the presentation. I want to ask a couple of questions on this. The proposal is really positive. My concern is about the delays and the timelines Dr. Ryan set out. Is there anything preventing us from moving ahead of those timelines, given that a lot of the recommendations are in line certainly with what this committee has recommended around puppy breeding. Could we move earlier?

The second is about - I am not sure if Dr. Ryan mentioned this in the briefing - an independent inspectorate to enforce this legislation, if it were to come in, and to enforce the existing legislation. My understanding is that there is a conflict of interest between the local authority issuing the DBE licence and then the local authority being the one to carry out the inspection. Would we be moving to an independent inspectorate and having not only consistency around the standards being applied but also transparency around those inspections so we would be able to see the inspection reports, like we do with HIQA and other independent bodies that go in to inspect buildings? Would that be part of this or could that be something the Government is examining?

The other element is getting a NACE code for puppy breeding. My understanding is that it is not captured by Revenue at the moment because it does not have a separate NACE code. That comes up for review under the European Union as well. Is the Government seeking, especially now that we will have these changes or reforms coming in, that puppy breeding establishments would have to have tax clearance and that Revenue would have oversight of just how much money these facilities are making and giving back to Revenue?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

As regards timelines, it is open to any member state to have standards higher than are required in this. That is one of the articles in it. The only thing that is set out is that one cannot impede other member states from selling dogs or cats if they match these standards but do not match one's higher national standards. It is possible for any member state to have standards above this regulation once they do not impede the internal market. On the timelines, I emphasise again that this is what is in the proposal. I understand that often it is the timelines that can change as part of the legislative process. My understanding is that the Commission and the Presidency are attempting to balance the interest in moving quickly on this and raising welfare standards for dogs and cats against the need to allow stakeholders a bit of time to adapt to it. The timelines are not determined or fixed; that is just what is in the proposal. I guess that will be discussed at the trilogues-----

Could we move beforehand? They are consistent with calls from lots of different areas, including this committee, to improve the standards of DBEs around the staff-to-breeding bitch ratio, the age of the breeding bitch and the number of litters they can have. All those calls have come in advance of this EU proposal. Are we going to just wait for the EU to go through the trilogues before we improve the standards here or are we going to enforce our own? As Dr. Ryan said, this is a floor, not a ceiling, in that we could go even further than what the EU is recommending.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

On the dog breeding establishments point, on whether we can move ahead with revising the current Act before this comes in and on the question of how inspections will be implemented, the Dog Breeding Establishments Act comes under the Department of Rural and Community Development, so that would be a question for officials from that Department. Although we are regularly in contact with them, I cannot answer questions on their behalf here. The Senator would have to put those questions to them.

On the question of the tax issues and Revenue, the scope of this regulation has to do with the Internal Market, and the Commission has outlined that this is the legal basis for this. That is the mechanism that this is based on of having a harmonised Internal Market because quite a few stakeholders have asked if this could not apply to this situation or that situation. In that context, this regulation just applies to harmonising the Internal Market, and tax issues have not arisen with it. It would probably require a different instrument.

So I should ask the Department of Finance if it is going to pursue it at the same time when it is agreed.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

Yes. I cannot answer other than to say that is not the scope of this regulation. They had explained that it is not that they are not interested in these other issues; it is that this is the legal basis for this particular-----

Just so I know in terms of the questions I am asking Dr. Ryan, what have been the proposals on the EU regulations he is here to brief us on? Is the Government's position to support those proposals? DBEs, when this eventually comes into place, will be the responsibility of the Department of Rural and Community Development but he is giving us a briefing on it and it touches on all DBEs. Is he telling us that the Government supports these EU proposals?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

We are engaging as part of the Council working party at the moment. Although it is us and the Department of agriculture who attend that, we do co-ordinate closely with the Department of Rural and Community Development before we go to the meetings and when things come up because it is part of the challenge.

We are not the only member state where things may be split between a couple of sections. We are in that iterative process. We provide our comments on the technical points. That is going on at the Council working party now. Of course, the European Parliament will then have its say after the Council completes its working party discussions. It will then go to Coreper and a decision will be made then. Generally, though, most of the discussions on this issue are technical in nature. I think it would be fair to say there is general support for this proposal among most member states and the discussions tend to be on the specific technical minutiae. The Senator will see herself that it is quite a technical regulation.

Briefly, I have two other questions. One concerns the microchipping and the portal, which is something we have called for at this committee. Is there any move in place to go ahead of the timelines on this aspect and to put it in place? The other thing is that my understanding is that the Eurogroup for Animals has a concern that there is a proposal within this regulation to allow non-veterinary personnel to carry out euthanasia. The organisation has concerns that the Government is supporting this position at Council level. Is this true? Is this element a part of this regulation? It would be very concerning for everyone if this were to be the case, especially if it were to apply to breeding establishments where it would be possible to have non-veterinary personnel euthanise what could be breeding bitches who have served their purpose or stud dogs without there being any veterinary oversight. Is this possibility a part of the regulation?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

On the microchipping portal, the Senator will remember that the Oireachtas joint committee report on dog welfare addressed this issue. It was also part of the control of dogs working group report. In a way, this proposal sort of brings this on. We do already have a version of a portal, of course, because all of the four approved databases and dog microchips in Ireland must be affiliated with Europetnet. A searchable portal, therefore, already exists in Ireland and provides this function. What is proposed in this regulation will largely mirror that system. The Commission proposes that there be something along these lines. We do, then, already have a system whereby we have a single search portal under Europetnet. One can enter a dog microchip number into that portal and it will confirm which specific microchip database a dog is registered with. It would then be possible to contact the database. We do already have this functionality in place.

The other query from the Senator is an interesting one. Concerns were expressed during the discussions if it were to be said that only a vet could ever put down an animal. If an animal were in extremis, in a very difficult circumstance, and no vet were available, are we going to say it would be completely illegal for anyone else to euthanise the animal? This may be of particular relevance for some member states where the nearest vet may be a drive of several hours away and a long time would pass before an animal could be euthanised. The consideration here is if we should say there should never ever be this type of action undertaken unless it is done by a vet, or are there circumstances in which a vet may be hours away and it is just not possible to get one on-scene quickly for an animal in extreme circumstances. Are we going to say that nobody other than a vet should ever be able to put an animal down in these types of situation? There was a lot of discussion about this point. Everybody is united in wanting what is best for animals in those types of circumstances. Part of the concern was focused on what would happen if it were not possible to get a vet and an animal is in extremely-----

Could you sedate the animal?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

For the sake of argument, if an animal is in an extreme situation, what then? This was about reflecting on what would be best ethically in that type of circumstance. There is a lot of discussion under way on this point, but I think it is likely that the text will stay as it is now and that only vets will be allowed to put down animals. It is a wider question whether there would ever be circumstances where, if it were just not possible to get a vet within a few hours, for whatever reason, we should allow an animal to go on suffering if another person has the wherewithal to put the animal down. It was less a discussion about whether non-vets should be allowed to put animals down at will and more so about whether one should legislate to say "never ever" or "never unless there is an extreme circumstance". Again, it is an example of the discussions at this working party. People were in agreement on the generalities. I think, however, that the draft text on this facet of the regulation is likely to remain unchanged after a lot of discussion. It is a nuanced point.

I call Senator Daly

I thank the witnesses for coming in. From listening to the debate here this evening and from what I read before we came in, is there anything in this regulation that is going to impact domestic animals? I know we need to control the imports and exports of animals, and commercial breeding as such, but in a domestic context, the family that load their dog up on the car to take the ferry to go camping in France for the summer, for example, is there anything in this regulation that is going to change this possibility or make it more difficult for people to do that?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

Does the Senator mean families leaving Ireland to go to France?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

No. This would be about inter-community trade, so I think they would already be in the Internal Market.

It is all about trade and not about the movement of animals per se. This regulation would not apply in the case of a trip for a day, a week or a fortnight and it was a dog or a cat going with a family on a journey that was inter-state in Europe in such a short-term capacity. There is nothing in here to change how that happens now.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

No.

There must be a sale involved. There must be-----

Dr. Eoin Ryan

Yes. The focus of this proposed regulation is trade. An Irish family taking the ferry to France and bringing the dog with them would already be within the Internal Market. It would not be a case of importing a dog. I know when we say it, we might talk about importing a dog to France, but it is actually the same Single Market and this context is not within the scope of this proposed regulation. The scope of this regulation includes pet sales, breeding, breeding establishments-----

It is about commercial operations. That was my question. I was wondering if the type of journey with single movement and a return ticket would see anything change-----

Dr. Eoin Ryan

No, not in respect of the scope of this regulation.

Okay. It is purely concerned with import-export commercial trading.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

Yes, exactly.

Okay. That clears that up.

I call Deputy Mythen.

I thank Dr. Ryan for his presentation. I have a few queries. What Department will be responsible for setting up the website or the database?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

Regarding the national data, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has responsibility for dog identification registration and we already have four databases on dog registration. We have four national databases of this type approved by the Minister. The responsibility for dog identification and registration comes under the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Turning to the shared data, I presume it will be shared between all the European countries. Will this be a European-based database or will it be specifically for Ireland?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

The current proposal is that the Commission would set up a centralised index database. I am sure this would be something that it would put out to tender and it would then get the data from each of the approved national databases and this overall system would function as a single, searchable database. This is the proposal. In a way, this mirrors what currently happens with Europetnet. The difference is that this would be a mandatory, European-wide database.

Is there anything that can be done to increase the penalties for illegal puppy farms? Is there anything in this proposed regulation that states these penalties be increased?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

Is the Deputy talking about dog breeding?

These are extremely lucrative businesses. Some of these dogs that are bred are worth €2,000, €3,000 or €4,000 each. Indeed, some are worth even more, up to €7,000 or €8,000. Some puppy farms out there are operating illegally. Is there anything in this proposal that is going to increase the penalties for these illegal puppy farms?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

I do not think the regulation specifies national penalties, but the penalties for breaching the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 are specified under that Act, which itself falls under the remit of the Department of Rural and Community Development. The Deputy could, I suppose, direct questions to that Department about whether there are plans to change the penalties under that Act. I just could not comment on this point. We do not have responsibility for this Act, so it would not be correct for me to comment on it.

This might be a silly question, but I know this goes on. When people are exporting a bitch who is pregnant, they only pay the one fee for the dog but that animal could be carrying a litter of pups. Is there anything in the proposed regulation related to this type of situation?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

Does the Deputy mean exporting outside of the EU?

Yes, anywhere, including into or out of the EU.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

What fee is the Deputy talking about? The Deputy mentioned a fee. Could he clarify the question again, please?

I am sorry. Let us take the example of a breeding bitch. People are exporting this animal but the bitch is pregnant and could be carrying a litter of up to ten pups. How does this type of situation work? Do they just pay the one fee for the dog? I know this type of thing is going on.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

What fee is the Deputy talking about?

The passport fee when going through customs.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

I have to admit I am not familiar with the specific fees that might be paid for export. People pay for the pet passport and they do not have to register a pet passport for puppies that are unborn, so it would just be the pet passport for the dog concerned. I am not aware of any fees for customs for dogs to depart the country.

With regard to the policing of all of this, there is nothing in the regulation. At the moment, many dog wardens only operate on a part-time basis.

Dr. Eoin Ryan

The scope of the regulation is dog breeding, dog sales and shelters. It does not encompass the control of dogs. Specific questions on dog wardens come under the remit of the Department of Rural and Community Development, not the Department of agriculture, so I cannot comment on that.

I apologise if my question came up earlier during the presentation. We are talking about a database that will record the microchips. The previous briefing document sent around by the Department outlined the rules on the number of litters a breeding bitch would have and the Department's worry was how it would be policed. The understanding is that the new microchip database will help to police that. Is it envisaged that the database that is to be put in place will have up-to-date information so we can track the mother, the pup and the stud dog, and we can monitor the information around how many litters each female is having? Is that going to be part of the traceability and enforcement of the regulation around the number of litters?

Dr. Eoin Ryan

The specifics of what will be in the proposed EU database are to be set out in delegated acts. In much of the technical detail that is not in this draft, there is provision for the nuts and bolts to be worked out subsequently, which is reasonable. What the Senator has just outlined is along the lines of what is being thought about. Whether that will be in the final one, I cannot say, but I know a large part of this is to facilitate enforcement of the rules on breeding bitches and pet sales. That is part of it, and the recitals and the draft very much talk about that. It is one of the reasons there is this very close link between identification, registration and breeding establishments. Things like record-keeping, inspections and having to say how many litters are placed on the market each year are all to support the enforcement piece.

While I cannot specifically answer "Yes" or "No", when we look at the recitals in the context of this regulation, it is very much of a piece that the reason for the emphasis on identification and registration is because there is an acceptance that without robust identification and registration, it is difficult to enforce these questions. A lot of the discussions have addressed the point of how we can know how many litters were associated with a certain establishment. That is part of what is envisioned here. I cannot answer specifically because the nuts and bolts have not been ironed out but that is definitely one of the directions of travel.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for their contribution. They have given a very solid briefing on this regulation. As the committee has completed its further scrutiny of COM (2023) 769, I propose that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 6.14 p.m. and resumed at 6.34 p.m.
Top
Share