Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: Discussion

We received requests from several groups to meet the committee. I am pleased to note we are joined by Members of the Oireachtas who are not members of this committee but who wish to participate in today's discussion to air their concerns regarding the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill before the Oireachtas. I am pleased to welcome Mr. Mark Beazley, Ms Orla Aungier and Mr. Peter Wedderburn, representatives of the Dogs Trust. We are also joined by Mr. Mort Cronin, Mr. Conor Power, Mr. Pat Herbert and Mr. D. J. Histon of the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation. We are also joined by Mr. Donal Boyle, Mr. Jim Murphy, Mr. Des Crofton, Mr. Barry O'Driscoll of the Hunting Association of Ireland and RISE!. I will ask the Dogs Trust to make the first presentation before hearing from the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation and concluding with the Hunting Association of Ireland and RISE!. The format will involve a brief presentation from each group before Members of the Oireachtas put questions.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of evidence they are to give this committee. If directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and a witness continues to so do, he or she is entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of the evidence. The witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, witnesses should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Dogs Trust to make a presentation.

Mr. Mark Beazley

On behalf of Dogs Trust, Europe's largest dog welfare charity, I thank the members of the joint committee for the invitation to address them this afternoon. I am pleased to represent the views not only of Dogs Trust but of a coalition of long-established groups associated with dogs in Ireland, including the Veterinary Ireland Companion Animal Society, VICAS, and the principal animal welfare organisations within the State, DSPCA, ISPCA and the Irish Blue Cross. I am accompanied by Ms Orla Aungier of DSPCA and Mr. Peter Wedderburn representing VICAS. We have joined together to highlight our support for the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill, currently passing through the Oireachtas.

The animal welfare charity Dogs Trust is Europe's largest dog welfare organisation and was founded in 1891 at the first ever Crufts dog show. Today, Dogs Trust has 18 rehoming centres in Great Britain and Ireland. In 2009, we looked after just over 16,000 dogs. Dogs Trust was established in Ireland in 2005. This happened because of the close links we had developed with Irish welfare organisations who wanted to see more being done to deal with general dog welfare in Ireland.

Dogs Trust, together with our animal welfare colleagues, has recently highlighted our support for the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill. We are somewhat concerned at the stance taken by certain groups on the Bill, which is intended to regulate unscrupulous dog breeders while protecting those who breed with high welfare standards. We are increasingly concerned that hunting and other issues unconnected to breeding are being brought into the debate and muddying the waters of a serious and ongoing animal welfare issue.

Why is the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill important from an animal welfare perspective? Ireland does not have standards for the intensive breeding of dogs as in other western European countries, thus facilitating unscrupulous intensive breeders who can take advantage of our lax controls. This situation has and does lead to widely reported incidents of over-breeding of animals in poor welfare conditions. This legislation is not targeted at small scale breeders or conscientious breeders. A breeding establishment is defined in the Bill as having six or more bitches. Those with fewer will not be affected by the legislation. Likewise, well-managed, well-maintained dog breeding premises have nothing to fear from the new proposals. The legislation will enable the appropriate authorities to deal with sites where dogs are bred intensively with little or no consideration for their welfare and where puppies are considered to be products, mass produced to create maximum profit for the breeder.

Conditions in these puppy battery farms are often crowded, dirty and poorly lit. The dogs sleep on bare floors with little or no bedding. The breeding bitches have a litter every season, often two litters a year, and are kept pregnant on a continuous cycle, nursing litter after litter until they are physically exhausted. The pups have minimal human contact. Some are not let out of their cage and do not see the outside world until they are sold. They are usually not vaccinated or treated for worms and are likely to be taken away from their mother before they are six weeks old, which is considered by most vets to be too early. This fast turnover is the key to ensuring that the breeder only has to spend the absolute minimum on feeding the pups.

This type of intensive breeding typifies a battery farming operation. Not all puppy battery farms will be on a grand scale. However, they will all share one characteristic — a willingness to compromise the welfare of dogs to maximise profit. That is the sole reason this legislation is required.

The Bill has nothing to do with hunting, angling or wider country pursuits as claimed in certain quarters. The purpose of the Bill is to safeguard the health and welfare of dogs, a subject of serious concern to the vast majority of people living in the countryside, as well as those in urban areas. The Bill is not part of a specific Green Party agenda. The process was started by Fianna Fáil more than four years ago following widespread concerns about animal welfare abuses in puppy battery farms. The legislation is essentially implementing many of the recommendations made by an expert committee convened by Fianna Fáil.

Some dog breeders and interested parties have expressed fears that the legislation will be enforced by unqualified animal welfare workers. In fact, members of the Local Authority Veterinary Service, LAVS, a professional body of State vets employed by individual local authorities, will oversee fair and reasonable implementation of the Bill. The authorisation of officers to enforce the Bill will be carried out by local authorities. Trained and qualified members of the ISPCA and DSPCA have been authorised by local authorities under the Control of Dogs Act and the Control of Horses Act for a number of years, some as far back as 1986, and have provided a professional and valued service during that time. Furthermore, the groups I represent fully endorse the need for balance between animal welfare and the freedom of individuals to enjoy the companionship of domestic animals as pets, as well as the rights of responsible breeders to maintain a livelihood. We strongly subscribe to the notion of preventive measures as the best means of promoting and protecting animal welfare and the experience of the DSPCA and the ISPCA of operating under the Control of Dogs Act 1986 and the Control of Horses Act 1996 is that, given the right authorisation, organisations such as ours can educate and negotiate better care for animals by their owners without necessarily resorting to enforcement.

I will move on to the question of exemptions from the Bill. During the course of the deliberations of the expert group to review the management of dog breeding establishments, which reported in June 2005, it was decided that the legal definition of a dog breeding establishment must be clear and unambiguous to ensure that regulations were enforceable. It was felt that a definition based on the number of female dogs with breeding potential present on the premises would be a more practically enforceable option. It was recognised that such a definition could bring non-commercial breeding establishments and some non-breeding establishments within the terms of the proposed regulatory system. The possibility of making a decision between commercial and non-commercial breeding establishments was discussed but the working group felt that such a distinction would be difficult to enforce.

The Bill proposes that hunt kennels will be exempt from paying fees. However, if such kennels include six or more bitches of breeding age they, too, must register and be subject to possible inspection. There is no logical reason any kennel that breeds dogs should be exempt from reasonable standards of animal welfare and there is a major concern that if some premises are allowed to be exempt from inspection, a loophole will be created that may be exploited by individuals attempting to avoid all regulation.

With regard to greyhound kennels, the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 is solely about identifying and regulating greyhound racing — it does not mention welfare or breeding. The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill will not result in double taxation or double regulation. There is an existing inspection system for greyhounds but this does not extend to the breeding establishments, nor does it involve the inspection of dogs that are not being raced — which make up the majority of greyhounds held by breeders and the racing establishment. More than 1,000 of the 10,000 stray and unwanted dogs euthanised in Ireland's dog pounds in 2008 were greyhounds, one of the highest levels of any single breed. They are at least as much a part of the dog problem in Ireland as any other type of animal. There is no justification for any exemption from reasonable, affordable regulation of breeding.

The alleged high cost of regulation amounts to a pro rata sum that is a maximum of €400 per year for six or more breeding bitches, or less than €70 per breeding animal. If each bitch produces only seven puppies a year, though many will produce more than this, it will amount to a maximum cost of €10 on the price of a puppy that may be sold for €600 or more. This is a balanced and reasonable price to pay to ensure that minimal standards of animal welfare are upheld, especially as breeders’ organisations admit that the industry is worth in excess of €29 million per annum.

There have been suggestions that the legislation is somehow part of some larger, anti-countryside conspiracy. This could not be further from the truth and is clearly not the case. Animal welfare is the central aim of the legislation and it is vital that the public are given the truth. The legislation is quite simply about bringing our laws into line with international best practice, improving Ireland's international image and protecting the welfare of animals. The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009 is a necessary piece of legislation that will ensure Ireland will no longer be referred to as the puppy farm capital of Europe. I thank members for their time.

Thank you, Mr. Beazley.

Mr. Mort Cronin

We welcome the opportunity to put a submission before the committee. Many members of the joint committee come from rural constituencies and know people who keep greyhounds, who treat them well and enjoy their sport. The Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation, IGOBF, is the national representative body for the grassroots of the greyhound industry — the greyhound owners and breeders. We operate on a completely voluntary basis and our position is recognised by the fact that we are a nominating body on the agricultural panel for elections to Seanad Éireann.

The IGOBF broadly welcomes the proposed Dog Breeding Establishments Bill and is fully supportive of the need to regulate the practice of intensive puppy farming. However, the IGOBF feels that, due to the nature of the wording of the proposed Bill, unnecessary burden is being placed on those owners who keep dogs for sporting or hobby purposes, rather than focusing on those establishments that engage in breeding of a commercial nature. In the particular case of greyhound ownership and breeding, the proposed Bill will introduce a duplication of regulation, administration and cost as the practice is already strictly governed under the Greyhound Industry Act 1958.

It would have been the preference of the IGOBF, and the wider greyhound industry as a whole, that any concerns over welfare and standards were addressed in the form of amendments to the 1958 Act, and that exemptions were made in relation to the proposed Dog Breeding Establishments Bill.

We intend to highlight the particular points contained in the proposed Bill which are of the greatest concern to our members and to suggest amendments which would make for a more practical and workable piece of legislation. This, we believe, would encourage greater participation and co-operation from those owners keeping dogs for sporting purposes. We include the relevant background information outlining the existing regulations which must be adhered to by greyhound owners and breeders to conform to the Greyhound Industry Act. We provide the facts that unequivocally dismiss claims that there are widespread welfare problems within the practice of greyhound breeding and racing, and illustrate the financial realities of breeding racing greyhounds as opposed to other more commercial breeds.

We have taken a pragmatic look at the wording of the Act and suggest some amendments which my colleague, Mr. Power, will present to the committee.

Mr. Conor Power

The definition in the Bill of a breeding bitch as being a bitch of the age of four months, and of a dog breeding establishment as being a premises at which six or more such bitches are kept, is the issue of greatest concern to our members. The current wording of the proposed Bill allows for a kennel that does not produce any puppies to be classed as a dog breeding establishment. It is most unlikely that a hobby breeder, breeding even one litter every two years, would manage not to be classed as a puppy farmer under this proposed Bill. A commercial breeder of pet dogs will be permitted to breed five litters per year and, provided that all the bitch puppies are sold prior to reaching the age of four months, they will avoid the proposed regulations altogether.

The IGOBF feels that the only fair and equitable method of classifying a kennel as a dog breeding establishment is to base this classification on the number of litters produced therein. The Minister has previously stated that this would not be practical but our written submission clearly illustrates that, in the case of greyhounds, such information is readily available and that, in fact, this information is regularly published.

The Minister has further stated that the reasoning behind the classification of a breeding bitch as being a bitch over four months old is that bitch puppies will have been sold prior to this point unless being kept for breeding. Our submission clearly shows that, due to the regulations imposed under the 1958 Act, greyhound pups cannot be sold until that stage. In section 14 it is stated that it should be ensured that bitches should not give birth to more than six litters each. We contend that a fit and healthy bitch may be quite capable of producing more than six litters in her lifetime. Should the proposed wording be allowed to stand, the result will be that successful brood bitches will simply be exported out of the jurisdiction on production of their sixth litter.

Similarly, it is proposed that not less than 12 months elapse between the birth of a litter of pups to a bitch and the birth of that bitch's next litter. The reproductive cycle of a bitch will not necessarily conform to the human calendar. A bitch whose cycle is a period of 50 weeks would only be legally bred from every 23 months under this proposal. A successful bitch will, in this scenario, most likely be farmed out to a kennel in another jurisdiction for every other litter.

An unfortunate possible side effect of both of these scenarios is that a hobby breeder may choose to breed from a bitch of lesser quality in place of his or her preferred bitch. The breeding of lesser quality bitches leads directly to the production of lesser quality, and ultimately unwanted racedogs. In spite of protestations to the contrary by proponents of this Bill, section 16 clearly makes provision for the appointment of "persons connected with animal welfare groups" as "authorised persons". The overwhelming majority of our members maintain their kennels on the premises of the family residence. Given the stance that some of these groups take in relation to our sport, both track racing and coursing, it is surely understandable that our members might have an objection to such persons entering their property.

The Bill recognises that authorised persons do not have the right to enter a dwelling, however this does not go far enough, and consider it a home owner's right to refuse entry on to any part of their property in a scenario whereby the owner is fearful for the security of his or her dogs and safety of his or her family. We suggest that the local authority have a panel of authorised persons, and that breeders have the right to object to a particular member or members of that panel, provided they are willing to co-operate with an alternative member of that panel. We also suggest that authorised persons, as prescribed under the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 be recognised as members of such a panel.

In response to suggestions that the greyhound industry is calling for self-regulation, we wish to point out that the Irish Greyhound Board is a semi-State body and as such, where officials representing that semi-State body carry out an inspection, it cannot be regarded as self-regulation.

In regard to micro-chipping, we note that in spite of the working group's recommendation that greyhounds be exempted from micro-chipping, and their acknowledgment of the effectiveness of the ear-tattoo method currently employed, greyhounds are not to be exempted. The reason the Minister has given for this is that there is a possibility that such a law may be introduced in Britain. We wish to highlight an experiment conducted in Australia where micro-chips were successfully switched between two racing greyhounds. This experiment proves that micro-chipping is not a sufficiently robust method of identification as to be considered an effective protection of racing integrity. As a result of this, racing greyhounds will need to continue to be ear-tattooed and DNA profiled, along with the proposed new regime.

We also note that it is a matter of record that the chairman of the working group declared a personal beneficial interest in a private venture involving data recording systems for the micro-chipping of dogs. It is a matter of grave concern for many of our members that there are suggestions of possible links between the insertion of micro-chips and the development of malignant growth at the site of insertion.

A number of our members have expressed reservations at the fact that the local authority will make available for public perusal, a register of dog breeding establishments. In light of a recent arson attack attributed to anti-coursing elements on a kennel in Northern Ireland, where 11 of the 12 greyhounds kept on the premises lost their lives, the Irish Greyhound and Breeders Federation regard this as a legitimate concern.

The obligation to display certification in a prominent place at a dog breeding establishment is also a matter for security concerns. Both of these issues may lead to incidents of "stealing to order", not to mention placing families at risk from so-called "animal liberators".

In our full written submission we include the specific wording of the amendments we propose and give a more in-depth explanation of existing regulation which must be complied with under the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. We also include additional background information on the breeding of racing greyhounds and the contribution the sport makes to greyhound welfare. The Minister has repeatedly stated his willingness to engage with concerned parties on this Bill. Although the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation have written to his Department to request such a meeting, it has yet to be granted. We call on this committee to recommend that the Minister facilitate us and to recognise that our proposed amendments make for better, more workable legislation.

The Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation calls for the proposed Bill to define dog breeding establishments based on the number of litters produced annually therein. We ask that veterinary advice form the basis for the regulation of breeding matters and that common sense be applied to the other issues we have highlighted. If further information should be required, our contact details are with the committee secretariat and we will be glad to oblige.

Mr. D. J. Histon

I wish to add to Mr. Power's contribution. I will brief members on the role of the Irish Coursing Club and the Greyhound Industry Act. The Irish Coursing Club is responsible for maintaining the stud book and for registered greyhounds and as the integrity and value of the industry is very much dependent on a robust stud book, the Irish Coursing Club has invested significant resources to ensure it delivers this.

The greyhound industry is already effectively regulated. We have members paying fees already to a registration system which supports the maintenance of the stud book, DNA profiling and tattooing.

We are not involved in puppy farming. Section 5(3) of the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 allows for regulation in relation to any matter or thing referred to, to be accommodated under the Act, therefore we argue that because it was decided back in 1958 to award industry status to the greyhound industry that any change to the industry should be reflected under the Act. The industry is made up of many elements and if one tampers with one element without cognisance of other elements it may have a detrimental effect on the industry. I question why it is proposed to oblige a local authority to maintain information on breeders, when the Irish Coursing Club records and maintains a register to all activities associated with mating, breeding, change of ownership and ownership.

Thank you, Chairman.

Mr. Pat Herbert

The Irish Greyhound Board was established in 1958 as my colleague mentioned under a statutory Act, the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. The Act was to promote and develop all aspects of the industry. It currently licenses 17 stadia in the republic and the Irish Greyhound Board welcomes legislation that addresses the issue of puppy farming and indiscriminate breeding.

It is no accident that welfare forms a very significant part of our strategic plan as well. Some of the welfare initiatives developed by and implemented by the Irish Greyhound Board include the establishment of the retired greyhound trust, development of the best practice guide, DNA profiling of brood bitches, extensive sampling testing of greyhounds at race meetings, more than 5,500 per annum, the training and educating of industry participants, and the attendance of veterinary surgeons at race meetings and sales trials. We employ full-time control and suspensory stewards and we are also members of the International Greyhound Forum. Our website has been revamped recently to include many aspects of greyhound welfare and we established in 2007 a control committee and a control appeals committee in the adjudication of regulatory infringements.

The suspensory steward ensures that the integrity of breeding is maintained through visits to breeder's premises and that appropriate standards are met prior to the licensing of public and private trainers as well as ensuring that standards are maintained through regular follow up inspections. They also actively investigate alleged cases of greyhound mistreatment. Control stewards ensure the integrity of breeding is maintained through visits to breeders' premises. Pups are earmarked when they are three months old and they also mark identity cards for saplings at 12 months old. They ensure that the welfare of the greyhound is never compromised through visits to training establishments and through observation of weigh-ins for racing and trials. A suspensory stewards typical day involves welfare inspection, A I inspections, kennel inspections and track inspections. There is also a full-time welfare manager employed by the Irish Greyhound Board, whose role is to initiate investigations into any reported matter concerning greyhound welfare. He processes new applications for trainers' licences and arranges kennel inspections, he monitors track maintenance programmes and procedures at all stadia. He is secretary of the Irish Greyhound Board welfare committee, a committee established to further welfare initiatives within the industry and that comprises welfare groups and industry stakeholders. He is also secretary to the retired greyhound trust and he is a representative of the Irish Greyhound Board on the International Greyhound Forum. The welfare manager is the voice for rescues and sanctuaries at retired greyhound trust meetings. He manages the day to day business of the retired greyhound trust. He sources new rehoming opportunities for retired greyhounds and he liaises with greyhound rehoming agencies throughout Europe. He liaises with greyhound rescues and sanctuaries throughout Ireland and he provides greyhound owners and trainers with greyhound rehoming information. He also tracks ownership of wandering and stray greyhounds should the case arise.

My colleagues mentioned the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. This Act governs all aspects of the promotion and development of the industry and is a legally established statute. It affords the Irish Greyhound Board and the Irish Coursing Club the power to govern and enforce sanctions of all aspects of the industry, including welfare. These powers have stood the test of legal scrutiny since 1958 and there is a long list of sanctions that can be imposed under this Act. We have a long established history of working with the civil authorities such as the Garda Síochána regarding welfare cases and as members may be aware, we now report to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this brief.

My colleague, Mr. Histon referred to section 5(3) of the Greyhound Industry Act which empowers the board to make regulations "in relation to any matter or thing referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed." This provision within the Act gives the board the latitude to deal with any issues that may be raised regarding the welfare of greyhounds, kennel conditions, welfare situations and inspections and so on.

The work of control and suspensory stewards has been detailed and this inspection regime has stood the test of time and legal challenge. If issues need to be addressed, we suggest they be addressed under the 1958 Act, which may be amended if so required. We are more than anxious to work with any relevant Department on that.

The greyhound industry is fully cognisant of concerns regarding indiscriminate breeding procedures at puppy farms and is willing and capable of engaging with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to draft regulations in compliance with the 1958 Act to address any concerns. The greyhound industry does not have a problem with uncontrolled breeding or welfare cases. We have clearly demonstrated this in parliamentary meetings in the past.

The 1958 Act has stood the test of time and challenges and is the only template which should be address any issues which may arise. As I mentioned, the Irish Greyhound Board and the Irish Coursing Club are more than anxious to work with any civil authorities, such as the Garda, dog wardens or district veterinary officers, to remove any party which is engaged in poor welfare practices from the industry and ensure prosecution. I thank the Chairman and committee.

Mr. Tim Gilbert

The board of IGB welcomes this Bill and anything which will protect mistreated pups in puppy farms. Greyhounds, as my colleagues said, are regulated under the 1958 Act and five amendments thereto. Welfare is managed in ICC and ICG at a very senior level and implemented by dedicated specialist staff. We have a welfare committee, which is a pan-industry group of experts on welfare concerns and the operation of a welfare system. All welfare issues go before this group. It will recommend any changes for final approval by the boards of IGB and ICC. Under this arrangement serious issues can be addressed quickly without the need to wait for new legislation.

These welfare standards are forensic, as can be seen from the IGB website. The requirements for pets would be totally inadequate for greyhound management and control. It is not fear of improved inspection or standards that concern us, rather, it is the negative impact that reduced standards would have on our industry and activities. The greyhound family will always seek a way of doing things better. We will take knowledge and advice from whatever source is available. Pride will not get in the way of accepting recommendations.

We are concerned about multiple regulation, multiple independent inspectorates with different rule books and multiple fees. What happens in a conflict between the different regulations, where a dog warden could overrule a dedicated welfare specialist? All we ask is that we be strictly managed under one Department and this, as my colleagues have suggested, should be based on the 1958 Act.

Our real concern is to keep people in the industry. At the current time 11,000 people make a living in the greyhound industry. No more than the rest of the population, they are not immune from the poor times we are now experiencing. The new costs and additional inspections will have an impact on such people. This is heaped on top of the 23.6% cut in founding which will drive more people from our doors. When all is taken into account, these jobs are secured at virtually no cost to the taxpayer.

The Bill has more implication for the industry than mere cost. The definition of a "breeding establishment" will have a detrimental effect on the population of bitch pups. Pup rearers are already reluctant to accept bitch pups for fear that when they reach a level of six pups that they will be classed as a breeding establishment. This will, in the short term, eliminate the market for bitch pups. In the future it will leave us short of bitch pups for breeding to sustain our industry. Bitch pups will vanish like Chinese female children.

Micro-chipping, which is held up as the panacea, has the potential to decimate the industry. It could have the complete opposite effect to the panacea it is perceived to be. Greyhounds are performance dogs. Prize money and gambling are the stuff of success. A handy way to produce winner will be to change chips from a bad dog to a better dog; this is the way to produce winners. Changing the chip will be a way to guarantee results in poorer grade races. This will destroy the integrity of greyhound racing. What happens to a dog without a chip? I would have major concerns about the welfare of such dogs because such changes will affect poorer dogs.

As my colleagues pointed out, only the best bitches will breed more than five or six times and will be exiled, as will dogs which breed in a period of less than 12 months. Such dogs are high performance dogs, on which our industry prides itself. The pups will be born and registered elsewhere. There is no question of maltreatment in such cases; a veterinary surgeon is always close at hand for such activities. These dogs should not be exported; they should remain Irish.

I would like to invite a delegation from the committee to visit any greyhound establishments in order that it can examine first hand how the establishments operate.

The committee will consider the invitation at the conclusion of its deliberations. We will move on to the Hunting Association of Ireland and RISE!. We are joined by Mr. Donal Boyle, Mr. Jim Murphy, Mr. Des Crofton and Mr. Barry O'Driscoll.

Mr. Barry O’Driscoll

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for affording us the facility of addressing them today. I acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Pat Neary from the secretariat in setting up the meeting. I wish to clarify that the delegation is from the Hunting Association of Ireland, the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU and the National Association of Regional Game Councils. We have produced and circulated an analysis which was prepared on the proposed Dog Breeding Establishments Bill by the RISE! campaign, with whom we are affiliated.

The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009 is an example of how not to enact reforming legislation. The Bill has a worthy objective, namely, that of eliminating puppy farming, an outcome that all reasonable people support. However, the drafting of the Bill, and its passage so far through the Oireachtas, has been marred by a lack of representation by field sport bodies in the composition of the working group set up to review the management of dog breeding establishments; the absence of submissions to that working group from interests representing field sport bodies; the important written commitments being broken by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley; a complete failure on the Minister's part to consult and engage with key stakeholders such as the Hunting Association of Ireland, HAI, and the National Association of Regional Game Councils, NARGC; ignoring key recommendations of the Department's working group which reported in 2005; imposing a dual registration scheme on greyhounds, which are already strictly controlled by the Greyhound Act 1958, thus endangering a business that is worth €500,000 to the economy and sustains 11,000 full-time and part-time jobs; drafting a Bill that ranges far beyond the requirements needed to eliminating puppy farming; and alienating the key stakeholder groups.

There have been broken commitments. When the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Dick Roche, set up the working group in 2005 he assured HAI, representing hunt kennels, that: "You are not part of the problem, therefore you do not need to be part of the solution". This was a recognition on his part that kennels affiliated to HAI do not engage in puppy farming and therefore do not need to be regulated by the Bill. On 15 February 2008, the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, made an explicit commitment in writing to his Cabinet colleague, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, which stated:

Given that the primary objective of the regulations was to regulate commercial dog breeding and, in view of the strict standards which apply to members of the Hunting Association of Ireland, it is my intention that groups affiliated to the HAI be granted an exemption from the requirements of the regulations.

The Minister gave a similar written commitment to another Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy O'Keeffe.

Despite those assurances to his colleagues and the HAI, the Minister proceeded with his plans and introduced a Bill that covers members of the HAI. In so doing, he has misled his Cabinet colleagues and the members of the HAI. He has offered no explanation for his U-turn. This has led to speculation that this change of mind was forced on him by the Green Party's animal welfare group in a quid pro quo for its support for the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Senator Maurice Cummins of Fine Gael, the first Member of the Oireachtas to raise the issue of puppy farming, has documented this in the Seanad debate on the Bill and the Minister has never refuted it.

There is a simple, straightforward way to remedy the fundamental flaw in the Bill and to make it truly anti-puppy farming legislation, if that is what the Minister genuinely desires. This is the addition of the words "for sale" to the definition of a "dog breeding establishment". The suggested wording is based on the United Kingdom Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999. A draft amendment on these lines is included in appendix 1 in the document circulated to members. The Bill raises a range of other serious issues for voluntary hunt kennels and these are also addressed in the amendments contained in appendix 1.

I refer the Chairman and members to the principal suggested amendment which states that the definition of a dog breeding establishment "means a premises used for the purpose of breeding for sale, at which bitches that have not been sterilised are kept not less than six of which are; (a) more than 12 months old and (b) capable of being used for breeding purposes and (c) and from which pups are offered for sale."

I will pass over to Mr. Des Crofton of the National Association of Regional Game Councils who will add to my comments.

Mr. Des Crofton

I will make few short comments. I represent the game shooting community. My association has 28,000 members and, therefore, could be regarded as one of the largest groups of dog owners in the country. We contribute €50 million to the Exchequer each year, of which more than €10 million is spent on dogs and dog care.

I assure the committee that some of the conditions described in the first presentation are alien to the people my association represents. However, the assertion has been made that we have nothing to fear from this legislation. At best, that is naive and at worst, it is silly. Not only have we not been consulted about this legislation but we have been excluded, despite being the largest group of dog owners in the country. That concerns me very much.

The legislation includes inspections by bodies, some of which have among their objectives the abolition of what we do as game shooters. That is totally unacceptable and it is fanciful for somebody to think we could accept that. I do not intend to delay the committee anymore as those are the principal points I wish to make.

I thank the three groups for making diverse presentations. There are almost 30 Oireachtas Members in attendance, so I ask them to be brief. After a number of questions, we will revert to the three groups rather than after each member asks his or her questions.

Everybody is very familiar with the reasons behind the legislation. I am interested to know whether each group met the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government before or after the legislation was published to discuss the matters raised today. If so, when?

I welcome all the groups. I appreciate the fact all of them, irrespective of from where they are coming, acknowledge the need for legislation to govern puppy farming and that the legislation itself is worthy. It is very clear that we then enter into more difficult territory.

I preface my remarks by saying there is a feeling in the countryside among those involved in sporting pursuits of a rural nature that this legislation, while welcome in some respects, is the thin end of the wedge and there is a great fear that it will lead to further legislative measures which will, ultimately, interfere with, if not destroy, some rural sporting activities.

This is accentuated by the fact that some groups feel they were excluded from the examination of this legislation and, therefore, it is of fundamental importance that those who feel they were excluded from the drafting of the legislation should be included and given the opportunity to say what they have to say if they feel they have not had that opportunity. Incidentally, it is important that rural life and the sporting pursuits of rural people are protected.

I admit having an interest in the greyhound industry which is as old as time itself. A very strong argument has been made that the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 governs the greyhound sector. It should be noted that the 1958 legislation was for the governance of an industry which has been extremely successful and that if regulation is required in regard to that industry, the legislation should be amended and that there is no necessity for further regulation of the industry through separate legislation.

There seems to be a difference of opinion between Mr. Beazley on the one hand and those representing the greyhound industry on the other, which I would like them to address. On the one hand, Mr. Beazley is of the view that the legislation of 1958 is not adequate in so far as regulation is concerned but the greyhound industry is adamant that the regulation is already in place under the 1958 Act and that at the very worst, the 1958 Act could be amended in order to "better" the situation, if that is the word.

I have been involved with rural people all my life as a rural Deputy. The Hunting Association of Ireland and its membership have a greater deal of respect than most for animals because they are close to nature and to the field sports in which they not only participate but love. This is something which people often do not appreciate. I would like to hear Mr. Murphy of the Hunting Association of Ireland in that regard and on this legislation because he has travelled the country to ensure people are informed about what is in it.

In short, the view of the greyhound industry is that it is already regulated, that it already has a fee paying registration system in place and that it employs full-time personnel to ensure welfare is considered before, during and after a greyhound's racing career. These issues must be addressed. The Minister, on a number of occasions, has stated that this Bill is not the thin end of the wedge and it is not his intention to destroy rural sporting pursuits. It is very clear, however, from the submissions made today that representatives of rural Ireland and rural sports are not convinced. It is important that they are so convinced before the legislation proceeds any further. We saw what happened in Britain where people were excluded and rural sports were ultimately affected. While it is not the wish of the Minister to sow doubt in people's minds, he has a bounden duty to reassure those in rural Ireland of their rights and the future of their sports.

I will be brief as I am interested in hearing the views of the groups before us and the many other members present. I welcome all the organisations in attendance. The consistent message to emerge this afternoon is that all these groups have canine welfare at heart. That is not up for question.

I do not agree with the representatives of Dogs Trust in Ireland that the definition in the Bill is specific. Its vagueness is one of the difficulties with the Bill.

This legislation was first introduced to address puppy farming, an issue on which the organisations before us and both Houses have a clear and unified view. However, ambiguities emerged when the legislation moved into what could be described as non-commercial areas of canine care, such as the activity of the Hunting Association of Ireland which breeds dogs to replenish stocks and does not engage in commercial activity.

I must challenge the contention that this debate is about an urban-rural divide. I grew up in Ballyphehane where what we described in Cork city as "going out along" was and is done on an ongoing basis. This debate is not a rural versus urban issue but relates to animal welfare. Rather than being drawn into a discussion on hunting, I will focus on what is best for dogs.

The Bill is full of ambiguities and became a bad idea when various additions were made to it. On the requirement that registered dog establishments have a certificate, I am trying to imagine people I know in Fair Hill who have four or five dogs in the back garden placing a certificate at the front of the house. This is one example of the nonsense in the Bill.

I was interested to note, in respect of the maintenance of bitches, that a definition is required of what is such an establishment. What are the views of the organisations before us on this issue? Anomalies will arise in this regard. In Cork city, for instance, many of the Hunting Association of Ireland clubs keep their dogs dispersed. In other words, 20 or 30 dogs are not kept in a single location but moved around and cared for by individual members of the club. Dogs from the same club may be cared for in Douglas and Ballyphehane which means they will come under two different local authorities.

We heard that a quid pro quo arrangement was in place regarding the Lisbon treaty and the passing of this legislation. I seek further information in that regard.

I have a copy of the letter referred to in one of the contributions. Dated 15 February 2008, it is from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, to the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Given that this issue had been doing the rounds since 2005, why did the Minister, in a letter written in 2008, state that the primary objective of the proposed regulations was to regulate commercial dog breeding and that, in view of the strict standards which apply to members of the Hunting Association of Ireland, it was his intention that groups affiliated to the HAI be granted an exemption from the requirements of the regulations. What happened between 2008 and 2010?

A working group established in 2005 was very clear about the direction in which the legislation was moving. The findings of its report, of which I have a copy, were reflected in the Minister's 2008 letter. Something has changed 2008 however. What are our guests' views on what caused the change in direction in the two years since 2008?

I thank the various groups for their presentations and the detailed information they provided on their organisations. Having been involved in country pursuits since I was a small boy, I have the interests of the organisations before us at heart. They understand country pursuits and, as Deputy O'Donoghue noted, have the interests of animals at heart.

When this legislation was first mooted, its stated purpose was to control commercial puppy farming. As others have noted, it was welcomed by all those who have animal welfare at heart. It is now in danger of becoming badly bogged down. I will point the Minister towards a way to circumvent this legislation on puppy farming. If I want to keep five bitches, I will not be subject to any regulation and my wife could do the same down the road and my son could do the same up the road without regulation. If the Minister wants to introduce proper legislation for commercial puppy farming, he should consider that issue.

Hunting kennels can have 25 or 30 dogs in their premises at any given time. It is ridiculous to require that they only keep five bitches by providing that establishments which keep six or more bitches will be treated as breeding establishments. It is important that we get the legislation right. Who advised the Minister? I understand that none of the bodies before us was involved in drawing up the Bill. Surely those on the ground who know at first hand what is involved should have been involved in drafting the legislation.

Reality must click in. The legislation, if done correctly from the outset, could be beneficial for the commercial side of the puppy farming business by allowing it to expand.

As the delegation from the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation pointed out, they are already regulated. Why is further regulation being imposed on them if they run a perfect business? Relevant people will have to be brought in to speak with the Minister. At the very least, the amendments that have been suggested here by Mr. Barry O'Driscoll and the representatives of the greyhound industry will have to be taken on board.

I welcome the delegations to the committee. It was very interesting to listen to their presentations. I am involved to a small extent in the greyhound industry, and I am a frequent visitor to dog tracks in my own locality. My yard is used by a few good friends to rear greyhounds. Any people that I know who are involved in the greyhound industry are excellent breeders, have an excellent management record, and I compliment them for the marvellous work they are doing.

We all know that puppy farming has been abused in the past. We have seen on television the cruelty that took place. We all are agreed that legislation needs to be enacted in that area. However, none of the different organisations here should have been included in this Bill. They all have a love for their animals. I have two hunt kennels in my area, the Meath Hounds and the Ballymacad Hunt, and I know that the way they care for their animals is second to none. When we visited the Ward Union Hunt, I felt that the management of their animals was second to none.

Deputy O'Donoghue has spoken for us all today. The Minister should go back and meet the excluded groups before this Bill goes any further. I do not know who is advising him, but he is being wrongly advised. I may have a fair idea who is advising him, but I will not mention it today. Mr. Beazley from the Dogs Trust in Ireland says that over 10% of the dogs that were taken into the dog pounds in the last 12 months were greyhounds, which is one of the highest levels of any single breed. That may be happening in Dublin 4, but it is not happening in rural Ireland. That is very wrong.

I was a member of a county council for 29 years and I was a member when Meath County Council brought in a dog warden to the county because of the amount of stray dogs. Any destruction that occurred, especially to flocks of sheep, was not caused by greyhounds.

I will try not to go over what has already been said. I apologise for missing some of the presentations, but I have read them. This legislation has been debated in the Seanad already. I compliment the delegations for enlightening the debate further, because there is little understanding by the Minister of the real consequences of this Bill if it is enacted.

I welcome the introduction of legislation to regulate puppy farms. It is generally agreed by everyone that it is long overdue. This Bill is straying into other areas that will have a serious effect on industries that are well established and well regulated. In a letter to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in February 2008, Deputy Gormley clearly outlined that he was willing to exempt the Hunting Association of Ireland from this Bill. I presented this letter to the Minister in the Seanad and I asked him why the goalposts had changed since the letter was written. I did not get an adequate response.

The Bill has changed substantially to include hunting kennels. These are not for commercial use, but are there to replenish the stocks of hunting dogs to keep alive a hunting tradition and culture that is indigenous to this country. I hope to see this culture continuing.

The 1958 Act has been thrown around by both sides in the debate on the greyhound industry. Mr. Beazley from the Dogs Trust in Ireland mentioned that animal welfare or breeding is not mentioned in the Act. A section of the Act states that it provides for the reconstitution of the Irish Coursing Club and its recognition as the controlling authority for the breeding and coursing of greyhounds. The club is the recognised controlling authority under the 1958 Act, yet we are now trying to implement another law that introduces anomalies and will cause serious legal argument in the courts. There is a stack of regulations that accompany the Act, but if they are not adequate, as members of the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation have said, then this is the Act to address it. The Act is well established and it is under the auspices of the relevant Departments and Ministers, so why are we now trying to stray into another area and bring in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on top of existing legislation? We need to answer this question before we can go further with this Bill. There is a clear statement in the Act that the Irish Coursing Club is the controlling authority for the breeding of greyhounds. That is our law since 1958.

The definition of a breeding bitch under this Bill is a bitch of four months old. Anybody with a greyhound, Jack Russell or any other breed of dog will scratch his head and wonder how a breeding bitch can be four months old. Where does that definition come from? I asked the Minister about this and he told me he got it from expert advice, but I still have not heard who were the experts advising him that a breeding bitch should be defined at four months. If we are going to have breeding establishments, it is a reasonable proposition from the Irish greyhound owners that they should be based on the number of litters produced. The anomalies in this Bill mean that an owner could have five bitches and any number of dogs but would not come under the legislation, while another owner could have six bitches that are not breeding at all, yet he would come under the legislation. They might only be pets.

I sense from the presentation given by the witnesses from the Irish Greyhound Breeders and Owners Federation that they have much fear about the authorised persons. I would like them to elaborate further on that. They acknowledged that they have no problem being inspected by an official from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or by a recognised local authority official, and that is a very reasonable stance in respect of animal welfare. What is the real fear? Do they feel that many people associated with Animal Welfare belong to animal liberation groups? There is a great fear that much of the policy of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is being informed by the animal liberation wing of Animal Welfare, rather than the people before us who I acknowledge are doing very good work on the issue of animal welfare. Unfortunately these other people are giving the breeders a bad name.

As a Senator from a rural constituency I will not accept that people with no bona fides — we do not know their background or history as it is not contained in the Bill and we do not know what will be implemented — can be allowed go into the establishments such as those of members of the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation and the Hunting Association of Ireland, and yet they are quite publicly opposing such sports and activities. That is not fair. The law is meant to be fair and equitable. How can it be fair and objective to have people with a biased view going into inspect an establishment. I would argue it is not.

We shall continue with short questions from members and then allow those who made presentations to reply.

I do not see this Bill so much as straying as trying to create a level playing pitch. It is based on a long drawn out process of negotiation on the programme for Government. It has been stated already that it predated this Government and so has had a fairly long gestation. I believe Mr. Histon will know about it from being on the working group. It is important to acknowledge that there has been consultation. Not everybody will be happy. I do not believe any legislation exists where people are happy with the full extent of consultation. I believe it is still a result of considerable consultation and international comparisons. As in many aspects of our farming industry, we depend on exports to a large extent. Greyhounds are exported and there is a need to take account of the rules and regulations in the UK for example, where the authorities want to fully implement micro-chipping. If we are to be dealing internationally we also need to take account of that aspect.

I do not understand some of the comments that were made. Mr. Cronin said the Bill will not focus on dog breeding establishments. It very much is about dog breeding establishments first and foremost and trying to get to the heart of what we know has been an unregulated area. We need to keep our minds focused on the subject matter of the Bill. To those who suggest that there are no significant welfare problems with greyhounds, I say that the figures are there. If more than 10% of the dogs being put down are greyhounds, that is hardly acceptable in any reasonable way. There is an issue that needs to be addressed in the fairest way possible; ignoring it will not address it. We need to be upfront about that. As we export greyhounds, we are talking about a large industry that is important in Ireland and in how we relate internationally. We need to recognise that and not see it as a bad consequence.

I took exception to the inference that people who are concerned about animal welfare are one step away from terrorists. That is an outrageous slur on people who give voluntarily, very often at enormous personal cost to themselves, to an area in which I acknowledge there is insufficient resourcing. A succession of governments have turned their backs on animal welfare. We need to go back to the Protection of Animals Act 1911 for anything comprehensive in animal protection. We have a considerable amount of catching up to do. In the meantime people concerned about animal welfare have been holding a very difficult situation together with animal abuse not being addressed. That needs to be acknowledged rather than castigated. To say that somebody who is concerned about animals is somehow a risky prospect is not appropriate. People have carried out atrocities in the name of so-called republicanism. Does that mean everybody who claims to be republican is somehow suspect? Does it mean that anybody who opposes abortion is a potential arsonist? It is an outrageous association that people think they can get away with. I hope they realise that people who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare are the ones who deserve respect rather than being castigated. Let us just keep a balance on this. If any laws are being broken the Garda needs to deal with it. Everybody in the Green Party would support the law being upheld. We are a non-violent party having evolved from a peace movement. It is outrageous to have that suggestion made here.

I want to ensure that people accept that when the Minister, Deputy Gormley, mentioned the exemption, he was trying to be fair in not levying fees on bodies that are not commercial bodies but at the same time we cannot have exemptions that will then become loopholes to be exploited. As Deputy Christy O'Sullivan said, even the point about a person with six or more breeding bitches being regulated and a person with five or fewer breeding bitches not being regulated could become a loophole. Somebody could be so mischievous as to set up with four breeding bitches in several separate locations. That is not the spirit of the legislation. The spirit of the legislation is to allow people who from a voluntary or small-scale point of view are not in the same boat. The same is true of the artisan food producers with whom I worked in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are not in the same boat as somebody in a large industrial situation. We need to recognise that. It is an attempt to be fair. Rather than see it as a problem the Government is trying to be fair and I hope it will be recognised as such.

Why was there not consultation with all the interested parties?

There was widespread consultation. The Deputy should ask Mr. Histon about the work of the working group. From the Irish Greyhound Board and now Irish Coursing Club, there is a considerable amount of consultation that is not being acknowledged, I am sorry to say. However, that consultation took place.

I accept the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 mentions breeding and therefore it should have been more proactive in that area. However, how many inspections of greyhound breeding establishments have been carried out under that legislation? We know it regulates track events and is focused on the industry and developing the industry. That is fair enough. However, it is not sufficiently comprehensive to do the job that needs to be done, particularly given the statistics we have.

Deputy O'Donoghue reflected some of the comments. I also hear these comments which are very annoying. We are implementing a programme for Government that is agreed. It is not a wedge in any door. It is a programme for Government — end of story. We did our negotiations and signed off on those negotiations.

I believe the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has been as fair as possible. He has given out more licences for hunting and fishing than most Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have. I regard myself as someone interested in animal welfare, but I have gone shooting rabbits and have been fishing. The Green Party is a broad church comprising people who want to improve society. That includes animals but also the safeguarding of a very important industry on which we all depend. God knows, in these economically straitened times we must ensure standards are maintained and that we can trade internationally as well as in Ireland, just as we do in every other area. We know the amount of taxpayers' money that goes into protecting us from foot and mouth disease and all sorts of other diseases, as we know the amount spent because we did not keep up sufficient standards, taking BSE as an example. It is important that we address the issue of good standards and ensure they are in place across the board, that there are no loopholes. There is a disagreement about the 1958 Act. I do not believe we would have this legislation applying across the board if the 1958 Act was adequate. However, the statistics indicate it is not, in terms of breeding issues.

There is no cross reference.

(Interruptions).

The next speaker please. I call Deputy McGrath.

I welcome the representative bodies of the many different associations and organisations. First, I acknowledge the tremendous work done by the ordinary members of these groups. They are ordinary, hard-working decent people who give their voluntary time. They enjoy rural pursuits and nature, the situation that pertains in our country and want to maintain this. They have done more to maintain our bird life and animal life than any of the so-called activists or johnny-come-lately people who came to this situation and now want to regulate everything. They understand and accept the regulations and have abided by them. They are the real carers who look after our environment. I welcome them and thank them for their presentations. I have engaged with many of them at different functions, even one last night.

There may be a great deal of scaremongering going on but people are worried about whether this is the thin end of the wedge. They have a right to see it that way. I have the quotes from that letter to the Minister, Deputy Gormley. I challenged the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy O'Keeffe, on this and asked them to exempt certain organisations. However, now, when it is presented to him the Minister has gone back on it. Deputy Sargent may talk about the programme for Government. I shall have to read the Bill again tonight, using a magnifying glass to see the parts he spoke about now that they are going to legislate for all these matters. What is in the Bill will be honoured; there will be no straying from it and what is not there will not be put in.

The Deputy always defends the animal welfare activists but some are nothing short of terrorists. I saw what they did to our greyhound track in Clonmel some years ago. We can all speak about republicans being called terrorists. If the Deputy wants to call those people reasonable, sensible or sane it will be hard for him. He cannot defend what they did because it is indefensible to put broken glass on the track before the greyhounds were to chase their prey, which was not a live hare. Can one call that sensible? People have received some atrocious innuendo in letters, by way of threat. The Garda rightly investigated this. It is not all squeaky clean and glas agus glan in áit amháin. There is a great deal of unclean business on other sides too. These people must be stopped.

The economy depends on rural pursuits and the rural economy which are powered by ordinary families who generate business and an industry on their own, with no support from the IDA or anybody else. All they want is to carry on with their basic desire, namely, to protect nature, carry on their rural pursuits and be allowed to do so. In addition, by doing this they are providing good education and a good environment. Above all, they provide a huge contribution to the economy of rural Ireland. I ask the Minister to get down from his high horse at this point and get back into meaningful consultations with these groups, to whom he should talk. Too often in this country there are study groups and working groups but the wrong people get on to them. They are not the ordinary people who should be there, who have the information and the knowledge. Most times these people are not invited and are not seen to be relevant. They are very relevant and important and have a contribution to make. They must be listened to in this case.

I want regulation and good standards just as Deputy Sargent does. I compliment him on his work in his last departmental brief but I do not want regulation and agendas to push legislation that will stifle and cripple by being too rigid, imposing too much bureaucracy. People will be forced to walk away from their labour of love which also makes a huge contribution to the social environment and economic life of this country.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee and welcome the groups present today although I am not a member of the committee.

In his submission, Mr. Beazley states that four years ago Fianna Fáil was responsible for developing this legislation. I have no difficulty in taking the credit for that but at the time, under the then Minister, Deputy Dick Roche, the legislation was intended to regulate puppy farms and dogs bred for commercial purposes only. Deputy Roche would reiterate that today. The working group of that time cannot be the same group which is in place now. I would like those who have been involved in the working groups to elaborate on that point.

In the letter of 15 February 2008, signed by the Minister, Deputy Gormley clearly stated it was his intention that groups affiliated to the Hunting Association of Ireland, HAI, be granted an exemption from the requirements of the regulations. Since then something has happened in that Department. I asked the Minister for clarification on this but he has not given me an answer as to what happened that changed the thrust of the legislation which originally had concerned only commercial establishments but now includes non-commercial establishments. Who is in the working group now and who is advising the Minister? The legislation has changed.

I am somewhat concerned about the cost of vets and those who will inspect establishments where dogs are kept, both commercial and non-commercial. The volunteers are represented here by all the groups. One person will say it costs at least €100 per hour for a vet to inspect any place where animals are kept. The Minister said this would be self-financing but these are huge costs to be imposed on people who are volunteers and lovers of the countryside and of nature, as my colleague, Deputy O'Donoghue, noted. They are always working in the interests of animals. When do we hear of any member of these voluntary groups being brought before courts for maltreatment of animals? It simply does not happen.

I am also concerned about hunting dogs which are a different breed altogether. They eat, sleep and hunt in packs. Who will lay down the regulations as to how much square footage is required for dogs of the hunting groups? We have heard nothing about that but surely the regulation for those dogs must be different to that for poodles or other dogs. That kind of nitty gritty detail has not been ironed out. It is essential that the Minister should get that information and be fully informed before this proceeds any further.

Let us be clear about this. The programme for Government brought about the ban on the Ward Union Hunt without prior consultation with the backbenchers of our party. It is well-known that the preference of the Green Party would be to ban hare coursing and fox hunting. That is its members' belief as we know from The Animal Voice, the magazine of the Anti-blood Sports Council of Ireland. That was stated before the party’s election manifesto for 2007. However, that is not part of the programme for Government, or certainly not part of the programme of the Government to which I agreed. We must be very clear about this to restore confidence in rural Ireland, as mentioned by Deputy O’Donoghue. We must listen to the people who came here today, who represent thousands throughout the country. They are adamant they will continue their hunting and coursing and we must ensure we represent them adequately.

I welcome the representative groups which attended today. Like my friend and colleague, Deputy Hoctor, I, too, am not a member of this committee but am glad to have the opportunity to address it, primarily because I come from rural Ireland, from County Leitrim. I admit that greyhounds are a rather rare species in my county although when I was a child there was a greyhound breeder in the town of whom I was always in awe as he walked his dogs in the evenings. Therefore, I am not beyond being aware of the importance of the greyhound industry although I defer to the greater expertise of many of my colleagues around the table who already contributed. Like other Senators, I was caught with votes in the Seanad throughout the afternoon, which necessitated us being upstairs rather than here. The delegates might forgive me for not being here for all the presentations, although I have most of the written submissions.

As somebody from rural Ireland and a member of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, I know there has been intensive and extensive debate on this among colleagues. Speaking as a backbench Senator, I refer to Members on the backbenches who have brought this to the attention of various Ministers regularly at meetings of our parliamentary party. The issue has been kept on the agenda. I point this out as there may be a suggestion or perception that we have acquiesced in the matter without going into the details or respecting the various vested interests involved in the discussion of the Bill.

Amendments have not yet been produced all the same.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, addressed the parliamentary party and there is a good working relationship with him and the Green Party in Government, notwithstanding the difficulties that many of us have. With all due respect to my colleague, Deputy Trevor Sargent, there is a widespread perception in rural Ireland that this is the thin edge of the wedge.

I know people who have been lifelong supporters of Fianna Fáil in my county and they are outdoor people. They hunt, fish and are members of shooting clubs. They are good people. They look after nature and ensure the welfare of animals and birds. The area is looked after in the best possible way. These people are so concerned that I have had the experience which I never expected, of seeing people rooted in rural Ireland, who have been lifelong supporters of my party, questioning their continued support of Fianna Fáil because it seems to support an agenda driven by those who do not have any empathy with their way of life.

I say to Deputy Sargent and members of the Green Party that we all know the cliché of perception being all in politics. Whether it is true, it is difficult to respond to people who think the Government is nobbling the greyhound industry, dog breeding and the various pursuits. Such people ask if they will be stopped from fishing, as animal welfare groups might argue that fish are sometimes hurt when they are caught in a hook. It may seem bizarre and absurd to people living in Dublin 4 but it is a great reality to those of us living in the country. That perception is as much a difficulty as the reality.

There seems to be a great deal of obfuscation or complicated debate surrounding the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. It is spelled out in the presentation made. I know we have had contributions that seem to address the issue but somehow there seems to be something wrong with this Act and the proposed new Act; there appears to be areas of duplication and I would be grateful if somebody on the greyhound side would bring some clarification to the matter.

I acknowledge what has been said by many of my colleagues about the consultative process. Whatever the truth is about consultation — I do not for a moment doubt Deputy Sargent's bona fides — it is written in black and white by those involved in the industry that they have not been consulted. The Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation operates under a separate Act and is a nominating body to Seanad Éireann, and it has not been consulted. It argues that this would be duplication of an existing Act and that it is unnecessary. I would like some clarification on that.

Democracy is based on consensus but there does not appear to be widespread consensus on this Bill. These groups represent a significant number of people across the country and they do not give the impression of consensus. That element must be addressed if the Bill is to succeed.

My final point is back where I started. I spoke about perception. If the right perception is not out there, why do our friends from Dogs Trust in Ireland state that the dog breeding Bill "has nothing to do with hunting, angling or wider country pursuits as claimed in certain quarters." Why would this be inserted if the perception did not exist?

Like some previous speakers I am not a member of the committee but I will make a few short comments. Most of the issue has been analysed at this stage. We are all united in our pursuit of animal welfare and in trying to uphold the highest standards, although we are obviously divided on how best to go about that. We should all strive to introduce legislation which is fair, reasonable and balanced. We are missing that element in this Bill.

If we bring this Bill closer to fruition, the local authorities will not have the required competencies to implement the main thrust of the Bill in any event. The authorities already have a responsibility for dog licensing which they are patently incapable of implementing across the country.

I have had a number of discussions with the Minister; he knows my views and we all know his views and those of his officials. They are misinforming the Minister. There is nobody here who can answer the questions I pose but perhaps the committee could take note of them and discuss them with the Minister and his officials at the appropriate time. The debate is being clouded with issues relating to the disposal of dogs of any breed when they go beyond their useful life. We are talking about dog breeding and dog disposal is a completely different area.

We did not get clarity from the Minister's officials on the issue that concerns me the most. Deputy O'Donoghue raised the idea of the thin end of the wedge with regard to cost. A registration fee is proposed but when I and others raised it with Department officials, we also posed the question of commercial rates. If an inspector calls to a dog breeding establishment, will the next call be from the valuation officer to put a rateable charge on a premises? We were unable to get an answer as we were told it was a matter for the Valuation Office.

I put the question of people getting a call from somebody who will levy a water and wastewater charge on the premises, and if there is a possibility of a planning official calling with regard to kennels. In the horse industry, horse gallops are exempt under the Planning Act but if a person develops a dog gallop, it is not specifically mentioned in planning legislation. There are many anomalies and the Bill as proposed is riddled with them. For me, the thin end of the wedge relates to charges and there is a back-door mechanism that could facilitate charges being visited upon people unnecessarily.

It is a privilege to be here today when there is such significant interest. We are united. There is a certain level of consensus given that we are present because of an interest in the Bill, which deals with dogs. Various people have mentioned the thin end of the wedge, which I would like to address. I have read the Bill in detail and coming from Galway, I am well versed on the topic of dogs and rural life. There is nothing in the Bill relating to stag hunting, fishing, shooting, turf cutting, one-off rural housing or horses; it purely relates to animal welfare and dog breeding establishments of six breeding bitches or more.

There has been no animal welfare legislation in this country since 1911, so it appears that there has been no animal welfare legislation brought forward by any Government since the foundation of the State. It is about time we dealt with the issue and this Bill intends to consider the breeding of dogs in a positive and proactive way.

The item I wish to address most of all relates to comments made by a Deputy with regard to terrorists. He mentioned somebody throwing glass on a dog track. Nobody in this room would support that act, which is reprehensible, and such behaviour should be punished immediately. A person involved in throwing glass on a dog track does not believe in animal welfare. There is a suggestion that local authorities are likely to appoint such people as inspectors with reference to this Bill but that is ludicrous. I have more faith in local authorities than the Deputy seems to have. It will not happen.

A famed gentleman and British MP, Richard Martin, called Humanity Dick, lived in my county. He was famous for introducing animal welfare legislation. Our country has a great tradition of animal rights. Humanity Dick was integral around the time of the formation of the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals SPCAs, which are organisations of considerable integrity that have established themselves in every area of Ireland. The GSPCA is the group in my area. SPCAs work hand in hand with local authorities and, given the scant resources, it is difficult for local authorities to manage dog pounds and the problems relating to stray dogs. The GSPCA and other SPCAs play a large role in society.

As Senator Mooney stated, it is important that we reach consensus on this matter. It is vital that we work hand in hand with animal welfare organisations, dog breeders, the greyhound industry, beagle owners and so on. Every dog breeding establishment should be able to work for proper animal welfare, which is the key point of this discussion. None of us around these tables can legitimately claim he or she is not in favour of animal welfare. It is crucial that the Bill pass and that there be consensus on it. We need proper animal welfare legislation, since we all value dogs and their contribution to society. I hope that we can work together to reach the consensus required to have the Bill passed. I support the Bill's passage.

Senator Dearey is next. He will be followed by Deputies Doyle and Tom Hayes.

Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to contribute. I will make a couple of points on the legislation, not the misplaced perception of a Green Party agenda to put an end to a way of life. I would like to set that idea aside, since some of the statements in that respect are gross exaggerations and I do not recognise them in terms of my position on rural pursuits.

I do not know whether Mr. Histon knows Mr. Mat Ginnety from Dromiskin coursing club, a cousin of mine. The people in the club are great people and I get on well with them, but it is not my game. However, he and I are family and have agreed to disagree and I have no agenda to put him out of his pursuit. For people living in certain areas, this is the brass tacks. There is no big green agenda. The Bill does what it says on the tin, in that it is to regulate and control dog breeding establishments. People may pick holes in various aspects of it, but trying to present it as the thin edge of a wedge is disingenuous, dishonest and does not reflect the Green Party's position on it. We are dealing with the reputation of the dog breeding industry in Ireland, which has suffered negative commentary in the UK press because we do not have the type of regulation people can use to assess it.

Regulation has costs, but there are also up sides in terms of the ability to trade in a quality market with quality product, if everyone will excuse me referring to living, sentient beings as product. I am speaking in purely commercial terms. As I understand the situation, the costs of regulation are relatively small and, if my information is correct, I would argue that they could amount to less than €20 per pup bred per year, given that the cost per bitch will be between €40 and €70 per annum. This is a relatively minor cost, given the considerable advantages that will accrue to compliant breeders as they seek to gain traction in the market.

Across all sectors, there are up sides to regulation in terms of presentation of product to the market. No one likes increased costs. I am in business and do not like them, but I recognise the need for regulation in my sector and I pay to be compliant. It is the reality of business and it is not excessive. Were it so, I would say it. The introduction of these regulations could serve the industry well even though they need to be paid for within the industry.

I have been watching these proceedings from my office and am conscious that many people have a genuine interest in this area of animal welfare. As someone who has been calling for some time for the introduction of legislation to address the abusive treatment of puppies, I am glad this debate has come to the fore. Since September 2007, I have been asking the Minister about when he would act upon the recommendations of the working group, which presented its findings in August 2005. I am mindful that some of those were majority recommendations while others were minority recommendations, so they were not unanimous.

An animal welfare Bill that is on the list of proposed legislation proposes to harmonise the control of animal welfare, including non-farm animals. As a farmer, if I produce a bovine or a sheep and it leaves my farm, the bovine will need an identity card or the sheep will need an identification number and movement certificate. Under the new regulations on sheep tagging, farmers are the ones who attach the tags. There is a fear that a monopoly will be created by requiring the shipping of all animals to be carried out by the veterinary profession and that the producer will not be trusted to handle the identification. If every animal is tagged and has accompanying paperwork when leaving a premises, it is traceable.

As pointed out to me by people with a serious interest in animal welfare, particularly the issue of pets given to children as Christmas presents, if an animal is chipped and later abandoned in the Wicklow Gap, the Sally Gap or wherever or it is stolen, it could be retrieved. If the animal was given as a present, its owner would be registered. If it was abandoned, sanctions could be applied. With the best will in the world and despite high-profile advertising at Christmas time to limit this occurrence, it still goes on.

Why can we not use the animal welfare Bill? Under EU regulations, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can become the body in charge of animal welfare, so I am unsure why we would want to divest that function to 29 local authorities, as happened to the fire service, and have a disjointed regime. Would it not be better with the Department, which has one official per 30 farmers and is well resourced in expertise? Why has the Department not taken ownership of all animal welfare?

Regarding the statistics quoted, people say, "Lies, damned lies and statistics". I know nothing about the greyhound industry, but I assume that greyhounds and other animals that would be considered hostile to petting are not exported. Do the animal welfare people send abroad only animals that are capable of being domesticated? Are the animals left behind greyhounds, other hounds, Alsatians, and so on? Does this skew the statistics relating to the animal euthanasia to some degree? I am only asking a question. I do not know, but I would speculate that if 100 dogs come in and 20 of them are greyhounds, 50 will be exported and none of the greyhounds will be sent to a better home.

Like other non-members of the committee, I thank the Chairman for affording us the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

People who live in urban areas seem to imagine that those who live in rural areas do not care about animals. I live in the heart of County Tipperary, where one can find any number of horses, dogs and other animals. People make their livelihood from the animals they breed and are hugely dependent on them. If the animal-breeding and horse racing industries and the rural sports — the national coursing meeting is held in Clonmel — in which people engage were removed, the economy of south Tipperary would be greatly diminished. That is one of the most important aspects of this matter.

Last night I attended a meeting at which approximately 500 to 700 other people were present. These individuals are greatly concerned with regard to their livelihood. They have invested to a major degree in their dog-breeding, horse racing or fishing businesses. I listened to people's genuine concerns for more than two hours. Green Party members have stated that this is not the thin end of the wedge and that this is a small item of legislation which merely regulates the position. I accept that. However, a clear message must be sent to the people who attended the meeting to which I refer. People are attending such meetings in droves because they are concerned that this legislation will be pushed through the Dáil and that a guillotine will be used. It is important that a guillotine should not be used to push the legislation through during the last week in June when there might only be an hour or two available in which to discuss it.

If the Green Party is serious with regard to taking action — I accept its bona fides in this regard — then the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should make a statement on this matter in the Dáil in the coming days to alleviate the major concerns of the people to whom I refer. These individuals are genuine and have invested a large part of their lives rearing animals such as horses, dogs, and so on.

The debate has moved far away from reality. The Chairman should approach the Minister to obtain clarification as a matter of urgency and time must be set aside for a statement to be made in the Dáil in the near future. The level of hysteria on this matter is beyond belief. I hold my constituency clinics at a location in the heart of County Tipperary — which is probably more prominent than any other in the context of breeding horses or dogs — and I am aware of the concerns.

As a non-member of the committee, I also welcome the opportunity to contribute to these proceedings. I spoke extensively on the Bill when it was dealt with in the Seanad. Most of the aspects of this Bill were probably covered earlier in the meeting. When the Bill was introduced in the Seanad, the Minister was very poorly briefed on it. In addition, it was not cross-referenced with the 1958 Act. We cannot have legislation relating to the control of dogs, namely, the 1958 Act and the Bill under discussion. It is ridiculous that in a country with a population of 4 million these two measures will give rise to two charges and two inspection regimes.

It is obvious that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government did not engage in discussions with the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation, the coursing clubs and the other organisations represented here. A commonsense approach must now be taken and the Minister must meet those groups so that agreement can be reached.

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute. The issue of puppy farms must be addressed. I was delighted to hear colleagues from the various parties refer to rural Ireland. I welcome the many organisations represented here. Banning of the stag hunt in my constituency is a massive issue. Some 7,500 individuals have signed up to support the people who live in County Meath and who engage in rural sports there.

I cannot understand how anyone or any political party could become involved in drafting legislation without first consulting the people who breed greyhounds or engage in coursing, hunting, fishing or shooting who will be directly affected by it. I am under no illusions about this matter and it is all very well for certain individuals to engage in soft or nice talk in respect of it. Three to four weeks ago, there was a presentation in the AV room attended by only four or five Deputies. However, 73 Deputies and Senators were in attendance when RISE! held a meeting. It is quite clear that the agenda is to ban hunting, including stag hunting, and coursing. I was delighted to hear colleagues on the Government side indicate that they will exert pressure to ensure that no further bans will be imposed. It is wrong to interfere with stag hunting and the existing legislation. Too many jobs are on the line.

I ask everyone to become involved in talks so that no one will be left out of the equation. I am under no illusions with regard to the agenda in respect of this matter. However, proper legislation must be put in place.

I was impressed by the comments of a range of individuals at this meeting. The second paragraph of the RISE! presentation states that the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009 has a worthy objective, namely, that of eliminating puppy farming, an outcome that all reasonable people support. In fact, everyone wants puppy farming properly regulated. If the Bill, as drafted, is enacted, it will damage the greyhound industry. The greyhound industry has provided enormous benefits and created much employment for many years. As politicians, we must ensure that nothing will happen to damage that. This matter could be dealt with adequately under the 1958 Act. We must protect the greyhound industry but we do not need double regulation to protect it. Moreover, I have a fair knowledge of the greyhound industry at various levels, as well as a good knowledge of hunting. While I do not hunt, all my extended family are involved in hunting. Were anything done to damage this, it would be a great loss to rural Ireland.

Deputy Joe Carey has just arrived and wishes to make a brief comment.

I will be brief. I wish to put on record my opposition to this Bill and its knock-on effect on the greyhound industry. The Irish greyhound industry is a world leader and it has been allowed to grow and develop under the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill will tamper with and have a very negative effect on the greyhound industry. The Minister and the Green Party are badly informed regarding this Bill and I appeal to the Chairman to achieve a consensus within this committee and then to seek a proper debate on this Bill in the Dáil.

Deputy Cregan has also just arrived.

I apologise for my late arrival and will be quite brief. I understand that many of the delegations that appeared today have expressed concerns regarding the forthcoming legislation. At the outset, I welcome the legislation in principle. Were everyone to abide by the law in every walk of life, neither regulation nor legislation like this would be needed. While the vast majority of dog breeders and dog owners do a fantastic job with regard to welfare, unfortunately problems arise in a minority of cases and these must be addressed. Unfortunately, all members have seen evidence in this regard. However, in so doing, one must be cognisant of the genuine concerns expressed by all the groups represented here today and that they have valid reasons for requesting some changes. I am quite supportive of the Minister giving consideration to a number of such changes and recently have forwarded my concerns, as well as those of many of my colleagues, to the Minister for his consideration. I hope he will examine them as favourably as possible because many genuine concerns exist that must be addressed.

As I entered the room, reference was being made to the 1958 Act, which was put in place to legislate for the greyhound industry. Having spoken to members of the Irish Greyhound Board and to greyhound owners and breeders, I note they are rightly concerned regarding the additional bureaucracy being placed upon them. As many other speakers have remarked, one can argue there is no need to examine welfare issues within the greyhound industry in particular. However, if one assumes for a moment that a need exists to address some issues of concern, the sensible way to so do would be to amend the 1958 Act. I understand that when that Act was put in place, no consideration was given to breeding or to greyhound breeding establishments. If this issue must now be addressed in the context of addressing all dog breeding establishments, I certainly support and appeal to the Minister to consider favourably the proposal to amend the 1958 Act and to deal with the issues there. Those who have genuine concerns would welcome and seek such a development and I am highly supportive of it.

Other groups also have genuine concerns and I note that I am pursuing such concerns at every available opportunity. Ultimately, I hope a position can be reached whereby this legislation can be welcomed by all, once a common sense approach has been adopted and the important issues concerning the viability of these different groups have been addressed.

I will conclude, as people will appreciate the various questions. I thank the Deputies and Senators who have contributed as in the space of one hour and 20 minutes, the joint committee has heard from 20 Oireachtas Members. While it might have seemed like a long time for the witnesses, from my perspective, it is quite good work to get 20 Deputies and Senators to begin and end their contributions within less than 70 minutes. I now propose to ask each group to respond to the questions it considers to be relevant to itself. If there are supplementary questions from Members of the Oireachtas at the end of the round, I will take some quick supplementary questions. However, there will not be a crossfire. While members may agree or disagree with what is being said, the witnesses are entitled to give their answers. I reiterate that there may be some supplementary questions. As Mr. Murphy has indicated repeatedly his willingness to respond, we will begin with him and will then turn to the other witnesses.

Mr. Jim Murphy

First, I refer to a comment made here by Deputy Sargent to the effect that the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill is part of the programme for Government. My understanding is that it most certainly is not. Second, it is suggested that we are scaremongering about the threats to us this Bill will bring. One must first consider the Green Party, which was founded by a British animal rights activist and which has stated on its website that it is the only political party that has an animal rights philosophy at its core. Deputy Sargent himself has been quoted on the website of the Irish Council Against Blood Sports as being a member of that organisation, which of course he is entitled to be.

I thank Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Jim Murphy

However, the Green Party has stated that this Bill should act as a disincentive to people to breed hounds and this is what we must fear. We were informed that we would receive an exemption from the Minister, Deputy Gormley. However, he then did a U-turn on this and how can one trust anyone who does a U-turn? Second, before we were informed that we would not get an exemption, Bernie Wright, who is a member of the Green Party's animal welfare policy group, was able to tell all and sundry outside the Dáil that we would not get an exemption. Deputy Sargent talked about people who were involved in their organisations and about terrorists, etc. I refer to a number of people who drew up the Green Party's animal welfare policy and whose organisations have brought people such as Robin Webb into this country. Robin Webb has served a term in jail in England for possession of firearms. Moreover one of the Deputy's policy makers went over to attend a seminar by another person, Keith Mann——

Mr. Jim Murphy

Keith Mann.

I do not know him.

Mr. Jim Murphy

Obviously, the Deputy does not. However, one of the Green Party's policy makers went to visit him in England where he was to give a seminar. This event was treated by the British press as being a terrorist training camp. Another member of the Deputy's organisation spoke on Waterford local radio minutes after Robin Webb had spoken on the same programme and had stated that their actions went up to and included arson.

Who is Robin Webb?

Mr. Jim Murphy

He is the leader of the Animal Liberation Front. The Deputy must not tell me that he does not know him.

No, I do not have any involvement and I do not know him.

Mr. Jim Murphy

Anyway, a Green Party member went on radio and expressed support for his actions. Deputy Sargent cannot deny that these people are mentioned on the Green Party website as being its policy makers and yet their organisations have links to such people. Mr. Crofton, who is sitting to my left——

I presume Mr. Murphy will be in touch with the Garda if he has any problems or suspicions.

Questions should be put through the Chair.

Mr. Jim Murphy

This is not a question for this country; as these people have come in from outside. That is what I am talking about.

Mr. Murphy should contact the Garda, which will deal with them as well.

Mr. Jim Murphy

In no way could we trust people who have such policies. If one consults the Green Party's policies on its website, it wants to intervene in circuses, zoos and blood sports. How can the Deputy come in here and state the Green Party has no agenda, when this is all on its website?

Mr. Murphy is confusing the Government with a party. The Green Party is a small part——

No, Deputy Sargent, the witnesses sat for one hour and 20 minutes listening to members' comments and I wish to give them time to respond. Members can respond again thereafter, albeit in due course.

Mr. Jim Murphy

This is a Green Party policy and it is in government. Deputy Sargent cannot deny this as it appears on the party's website and the people who drew up its policy are named. These people seek to implement this right down to fishing. I have debated this point with them on radio myself.

That is not Green Party policy. Mr. Murphy is making it up as he goes along.

We are not dealing with the question and——

Through the Chair, that is not true.

——I will give people an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Jim Murphy

May I ask the question?

No, Mr. Murphy should answer questions.

Mr. Jim Murphy

Deputy Sargent has not denied that he is a member of the Irish Council Against Blood Sports.

Of course I am a member of the Irish Council Against Blood Sports.

Mr. Jim Murphy

All right. It has issued a leaflet stating what it wishes, down to fishing.

I do not write the leaflets.

Mr. Jim Murphy

The Deputy has been distributing them in Winthrop Street, Cork, for quite a number of years. These are its policies.

I ask Mr. Murphy not to personalise his comments. He should make the point without personalising it.

Fishing is not a blood sport.

Mr. Jim Murphy

Now the Deputy is being selective.

If Mr. Murphy seeks a definition, a blood sport comprises setting an animal on another animal.

Mr. Jim Murphy

I have made my point.

(Interruptions).

Does the Deputy now intend to put down all the cats in the country for hunting rats and mice?

Does the Senator do it for sport?

And the sheepdogs.

Mr. Crofton, without interruption.

Mr. Des Crofton

I thank the Chairman and I hope I can make my points without interruption. I have a number of concerns about all of this and I wish to nail one point once and for all. I would appreciate it if people from the Green Party would stop saying that there was a great deal of consultation on this legislation. I represent an organisation of 28,000 people involved in game shooting and dog ownership. My association was not consulted on this. I wrote to the Minister seeking a meeting. I know he got the letter because his secretary acknowledged it and to this day I am waiting to hear further from him. I want the Green Party members to stop saying that we were consulted on this when we were not. That is the first point I wish to make. A question on that was asked by Deputy Hogan.

The commercial aspect has not been taken into consideration. For the information of the committee, under the rules and constitution of my organisation nobody may be involved in any commercial activity in our sport. It is regarded as inconsistent with membership of our organisation. However, one aspect greatly concerns me, that of the inspection process. The Oireachtas passed the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009, which extensively amended the Firearms Act. At the centre of those amendments were the security and safety of the public and the preservation of the peace in terms of firearms ownership. I want to know from those who support this legislation what guarantee I can be given that — all the people I represent have firearms in their houses and it is proposed to inspect those premises — the fact that there are guns in a house will not result in it not being passed. That issue has not been considered or debated. The reason it has not been considered is that we have not been consulted. It is proposed that those who are nominated by local authorities will be the inspectors. I refer to the SPCAs. With the greatest of respect to them, my association has had its representatives turn up and interfere with legal traps designed to trap corvus species, which is a perfectly lawful and legal activity.

What species is that?

Mr. Des Crofton

In the corvus species there are crows and magpies. Trapping those species is a perfectly lawful activity under the Wildlife Act. Those representatives have no jurisdiction over the protection of wild animals in such circumstances. Yet, it is proposed that these will comprise the inspection regime. This has not been thought through, none of this has been thought through. Those are the points I wish to make about some of the matters that were raised.

The security aspect is one issue which affects us. As for the thorny issue of the pedigree of some of the people mentioned earlier, some of the people involved in drafting the Green Party policy — I will not get into an argument with Deputy Sargent about this, we will simply agree to disagree — have been rubbing shoulders with people such as Robin Webb who was mentioned. For clarification, Robin Webb is not the leader of animal rights groups; he is their bomb maker. He visited Ireland and following his visit my office received a bomb threat. He was arrested by the Garda. My office was also attacked. I know who is rubbing shoulders with whom. I do not believe that anybody here can credibly ask us to trust legislation or an organisation brought forward in such circumstances. I simply do not believe them.

Mr. Donal Boyle

I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to put forward our case. To answer Deputy Hogan's question, we have not had consultations nor have we met the Minister, Deputy Gormley, since he did a U-turn on this Bill.

Mr. Barry O’Driscoll

In response to Deputy Hogan's question, it should be noted that the final version of the recommendation was published in August 2005. In an official Government notice on 24 October 2005 that appeared in The Irish Times submissions were invited, for which the closing date for receipt of same was 16 December 2005. We were not consulted because everybody has been working from the final version that was published in August 2005 and the constituents set out in appendix 1 of it were all people who were set up, as it were, when everybody was assured the legislation had nothing to do with hunting but related to commercial dog breeding. The process was led astray by that course and the process has been built on that basis

Mr. Mark Beazley

I and Ms Aungier represent moderate animal welfare organisations. My organisation has been in existence since 1891 and Dublin SPCA has been in existence for 170 years. We are a moderate animal welfare organisation. Dogs Trust is represented on the International Greyhound Forum along with Mr. Histon and Mr. Herbert. There are many areas in which we agree with the greyhound industry and while there are some areas on which we still have to reach agreement, I am sure we will do so. I commend the Irish Greyhound Board and the Irish Coursing Club on the advancements they have made in welfare over the years. I would like to think that we have also had some involvement in that.

My organisation does not lobby on hunting or any other animal welfare issues. We are a dog welfare charity. That is what we are about. Our fear about exemptions to the legislation is that they will create loopholes. We believe the hunt kennels and the greyhound kennels should not be exempt from the regulation to ensure that loopholes are not created. It is worth pointing out that animal welfare organisations such as Dogs Trust will also be liable to inspection under the legislation. Dogs Trust spent €10 million building probably Europe's best dog rehoming centre in Finglas and created 34 jobs in the process. We will be liable to inspection under this legislation and we welcome that transparency.

To respond to Deputy Hogan's question as well, after the Bill was published, the ISPCA, DSPCA and Dogs Trust came together and formulated guidelines that we believe will enhance the welfare inspection of kennels to achieve conformity across the board. I had a brief meeting with the Minister, Deputy Gormley, on that basis. I also requested a meeting with Deputy Hogan but, unfortunately, I did not have that pleasure.

Was that before the Bill was published?

Mr. Mark Beazley

I and the chief executive of the ISPCA were involved in the original consultation process in 2004 and 2005.

Ms Orla Aungier

The Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has been in existence for 170 years, has been looking after animal welfare. It has been recognised today that the primary welfare legislation for animals was written prior to the foundation of the State. We welcome this Bill being moved forward. Similar to my colleague, Mr. Mark Beazley, in the Dogs Trust, our concern is that exemptions to the legislation will open up the opportunity for loopholes. We are at the coalface and see the effect on dogs of the actions of unscrupulous breeders. We were more than happy to accept the Minister's offer that we are not liable for fees, and I understand the Hunting Association has been given the same exemption, but equally we were open to our premises being inspected. We will happily open our doors to inspection. Unfortunately, the individuals involved in some of the more unscrupulous breeding of puppies will use any method. This is a lucrative business and they will use any opportunity and loophole within legislation. It is because there is no legislation covering this area that we have this industry and that is the reason we are recognised as a puppy farm capital of Europe. If we create legislation with exceptions we will open up the opportunity for abuse. That is why we support the legislation going forward. It is purely about dog welfare, nothing else.

One or two people referred to the percentage of greyhound dogs that arrive in the DSPCA. I do not know the figures. Perhaps Mr. Beazley will tell us the number of dogs that arrive at the SPCA and Dog Trust organisations each year and how many of them have to be put down.

Mr. Mark Beazley

The figures quoted in my document are from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in respect of dog pounds. The figures quoted are from 2008 and show that of just over 10,000 dogs destroyed in local authority pounds more than 1,000 were greyhounds.

Ms Orla Aungier

They are not shelter related. For example, the Dublin SPCA would not have huge numbers of greyhounds simply because of our location in the city. However, we know that our colleagues in other parts of the country would take in more greyhounds. We take in a great number of lurchers. As Mr. Beazley stated, the numbers quoted are from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Mr. Conor Power

I will leave some points to be addressed by the representatives of the Irish Greyhound Board and the Irish Coursing Club. The first and most important point with which I want to deal is that of consultation. The Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation, as outlined in its submission, is a nominating body to the Seanad Agricultural Panel. I am aware that Mr. Crofton's association is also a nominating body to that panel. Neither of our associations were consulted on this Bill. Our position as nominating bodies clearly shows we are not organisations that sprouted overnight like mushrooms after a shower of rain. We were not consulted at any stage in spite of repeated requests for consultation. It remains our position that we wish to speak with the Minister on this Bill. We hope he will agree to the proposals we have put forward by way of amendments.

Deputy Sargent stated that the Bill focuses on dog breeding establishments. Our submission also shows that the Bill will affect premises that do not breed dogs, which can hardly be classed as clear focus. At last night's meeting, as referred to by Deputy Hayes — this goes to Deputy Sargent's point of the Green Party being a broad church — a speaker stated that he had applied for membership of the Green Party. He produced a letter rejecting his application for membership. Deputy Hoctor was also present at the meeting, as was Deputies Coonan and McGrath. When the speaker, being a law abiding person, inquired as to why his application for membership had been rejected he was told that he did not need a response because it was the Green Party's prerogative, as in the case of any organisation, to refuse membership. The man decided to Google his name on the Internet to see where they might have found a reason for his exclusion. The only answer he could up with was a picture on his Facebook page of him holding his daughter on a horse. He stated that given the Green Party's well publicised familiarity with social networking sites, this must be reason for his exclusion.

This is outrageous and ridiculous.

Mr. Power cannot prove that.

Mr. Conor Power

I would like also to refer to the moderate animal welfare groups——

I ask Mr. Power to refrain from referring to personal cases.

Is this an attack on the Green Party or is Mr. Power making a serious point about the legislation?

Mr. Conor Power

I have made numerous serious points about the legislation.

Mr. Power is making political points.

Mr. Conor Power

May I reply?

Stick to the legislation.

On a point of clarity and information, I dislike cruelty to politicians just as much as I dislike cruelty to animals. I must remind speakers that the Bill we are discussing is Government legislation. While people may have difficulties with the Green Party, I remind them that the Bill before us is a Government Bill and should be referred to in that respect.

I ask Members and delegates to stick to the legislation.

Mr. Conor Power

I referred to the specific point made by Deputy Sargent in regard to the Green Party being a broad church.

A law-abiding broad church.

Mr. Conor Power

I am not disputing that.

I say that just in case Mr. Power has any other thoughts in that regard.

Mr. Conor Power

Absolutely not. Reference was made to moderate animal welfare groups. Included in our written submission is that the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Association supply, through a deduction from prize money, €200,000 in funding to moderate animal welfare groups. This figure is matched by a contribution of €200,000 from the Irish Greyhound Board. This is aside from additional fund raising carried out by our members. We have no objection to moderate animal welfare groups and outlined clearly in our submission our wish to have an opportunity, should a particular authorised person be objectionable, to seek an inspection from another authorised person.

Mr. Mort Cronin

There has been much mention of the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 which has served the industry well in the interim. We believe further legislation from the point of view of the greyhound industry should be addressed by way of amendment to that Act. Various changes have been made to that Act, such as the amendment in regard to artificial insemination as passed by the Oireachtas. Where further amendment of the Act was required this was done and will continue to do done. The industry has been totally regulated by the ICC and IGB.

Deputy Sargent asked about inspections. I can only respond from my own experience. I have one brood bitch, which because she breeds reasonably good dogs, I breed annually. Prior to being mated she is inspected by a vet. She then comes back and, hopefully, has her puppies after nine weeks. When the puppies are 12 weeks old the ICC steward comes and marks them. He notes where they are living and sleeping and earmarks them. I can then rear them myself, following which at 12 months old, the ICC steward takes their markings and issues their identity cards. There is much inspection. The kennels are inspected and nothing is being hidden. This is the reason we are so concerned about the provision relating to bitches. I have spoken to several small breeders in Cork who are concerned about what will happen if their bitches have seven bitch puppies. One is not guaranteed the sale of bitch puppies. One could be left with them and have to rear them to 12 months but, if one does so, once the puppies reach four months old, one is then classified as a breeding establishment. If that is law, the law is an ass. I apologise, but that is a fact. We are here to represent ordinary breeders. I appeal to Members to take on board our comments.

Mr. D. J. Histon

I will try to address the questions raised which I documented as people were speaking. Deputy Hogan asked about consultation. I will come later to my involvement in the working group at which point I will address Deputy Sargent's comments. We have had no direct consultation with the Minister on this Bill since it was debated in the Seanad but have met in the past fortnight with departmental officials.

Deputy O'Donoghue sought clarity in regard to the Greyhound Industry Act. The words "control" and "develop" are documented in the Act. Integrity and welfare are an integral part of "control" and "develop". I reiterate that if there are deficiencies, we are willing to discuss them by way of amendment to the 1958 Act. As stated by Mr. Beazley, the ICC and Irish Greyhound Board are members of the International Greyhound Forum, which is an amalgamation of welfare groups. We have an excellent working relationship with all the bodies associated with that group. I do not want people here today to think that Dogs Trust and the ICC and IGB do not have a good working relationship. We have an excellent working relationship. I would advise anyone to visit their facility in Finglas which is second to none.

On Deputy Sargent's comments on my involvement in the working group in 2005, as custodians and administrators of the industry, the Irish Coursing Club and the Irish Greyhound Board were represented by me during my employment at that time with the Irish Greyhound Board. On conclusion of the group's work, I issued a report on behalf of the industry documenting all the concerns raised here today. I also, at that time, highlighted the 1958 Act. I also indicated my availability in terms of being involved in the framing of a Bill because a working group is step one of the process in reaching an end document which in this case initially was to deal with puppy farming. Unfortunately, we are discussing hunt kennels and greyhound establishments only and our eye has been taken off the ball completely, but the hope is we will work through this and sort it out. The greyhound industry is not looking for an exemption; we are merely seeking an accommodation, which is totally different.

Deputy Sargent made reference to the gestation of the Bill, but gestation does not equate with communication. I am not necessarily speaking about the greyhound industry; I am speaking about the hunting bodies and the National Association of Regional Game Councils, NARGC.

The "Prime Time" programme depicted the flaws in the Bill, as it stood. A greyhound breeder from County Meath had a litter of six pups, a brood bitch and two or three saplings for the coming year. At the end of the programme Deputy Sargent stated such a person would not be covered by the regulation. However, at that point in time, the breeder was considered to be a puppy farmer because he met the criteria of the definition of "breeding establishment". Today the gentleman concerned would not be part of a breeding establishment because he disposed of a number of the pups by selling them.

To clarify on the statistic of 10% for dog pounds mentioned by a number of people, it is important to recognise that there is no distinction between dogs which are and are not tattooed. It captures all greyhound look-alike breeds. There are no house checks and vetting by dog pounds to allow greyhounds to be re-homed; therefore, one could end up with indiscriminate breeding and illegal hunting which would perpetuate other problems rather than solving them. Equally, there is no distinction between stray and surrendered dogs. The dog pounds which are run by local authorities in some instances exist to provide a service and it is a legitimate action to surrender a dog and have it disposed of in a humane manner, as opposed to it being given to somebody for illegal hunting or indiscriminate breeding.

With regard to the number of inspections made, as greyhound owner Mort Cronin rightly stated, in 2009 there were approximately 3,500 litters. Each litter is inspected, tattooed, registered and DNA profiled with regard to the brood bitch and the stud dog. Therefore, each breeding premises is inspected by a control steward jointly appointed by the Irish Greyhound Board and the Irish Coursing Club. Added to this, we also make random inspections of brood bitches prior to having pups.

Mr. Beazley mentioned his fear of loopholes. Will he explain to the committee his views on the Hunting Association of Ireland, the Irish Coursing Club, the Irish Greyhound Board and other bodies being exempt from the provisions of the legislation? Does he not trust these bodies?

Mr. Mark Beazley

That is the point I am trying to make. It is certainly not a question of trust with regard to any of the organisations here. I have had no dealings with them, but I am sure there is no reason to mistrust them. I have had many dealings with Irish Greyhound Board and the Irish Coursing Club and there is a lot of mutual trust in this regard. My concern about the exemptions is that they might facilitate unscrupulous breeders in taking advantage of them.

Yes, I can see——

Mr. Mark Beazley

They could claim to be breeding dogs on behalf of hunt kennels.

No, hunt kennels have their own registration system with an all-Ireland body. The Irish Greyhound Board has been well established for a number of years. We are not discussing people setting up kennels in their own right; they must register if they are part of the scene.

Mr. Mark Beazley

Our fear is that if exemptions are allowed, people will try to create loopholes. A person could state he or she was breeding greyhounds, thus disallowing an inspection, whereas if greyhound and hunt kennels were not exempt, it would not create such a loophole.

Mr. Mark Beazley

From our point of view, this is not aimed at either hunting or greyhound groups. We are merely concerned with dog welfare.

Ms Orla Aungier

Equally, we would have concerns if rescue groups were exempt because, again, it could be seen as an opportunity.

The two bodies before the committee have been in existence for a very long time. At one stage they were told by the Minister that they would be exempt. The issue of loopholes can be raised, but I doubt if either of the two bodies would have an interest in trying to get around anything in that respect.

Mr. Mark Beazley

I have made that point already. This is not aimed at the organisations mentioned, rather it is aimed at unscrupulous individuals who could take advantage of the loopholes created. In no way am I, representing Dogs Trust, or Ms Aungier, representing the DSPCA, suggesting the groups attending this meeting might take advantage of such loopholes; that is simply muddying the waters. It is not the case.

I suggest the amendments proposed by both bodies be taken on board. Such a Bill would satisfy everybody involved and everyone who has an interest, as we all do, in animal welfare. If the amendments were taken on board by the Minister, progress could be made and we could all work together for the betterment of animals.

I did not make an contribution previously, apart from asking a question and the answer I received was interesting. I must apologise to Mr. Beazley for not meeting him, but I did not meet any other person either. I received documentation and spoke to him on the telephone. I did not consult anybody else about these matters either. Therefore, while I apologise to Mr. Beazley, I also apologise to the other delegates also. They will be glad to know that I am able to make up my own mind about these issues and will do so. All I am concerned with is animal welfare, not distractions. Unfortunately, there are distractions and, to an extent, the matter has been politicised, not through the fault of Mr. Beasley but that of others. It is up to the Government parties to resolve the matters involved.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food transports greyhounds and other dogs out of the jurisdiction. It would be interesting, therefore, to receive a report from it on the manner in which these matters are regulated and policed. Those in the lorry cabs are well regulated, but I wonder how well regulated are the dogs in the back of the lorry. We should seek a report from the Department on these matters if we are seriously concerned about them.

Has the Irish Greyhound Board been consulted? There seems to be a view that no organisations have been consulted. I have seen a long list of consultees and understand there have been extensive consultations with the Department through written submissions and meetings with the Minister.

Mr. Pat Herbert

At the time we reported to the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism and the first it had heard of the Bill was in November 2009. A brief meeting was subsequently held in February between our chief executive, Mr. Adrian Neilan, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. Recently, with the Irish Coursing Club, we met officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I thank all of the contributors, as this meeting has been very helpful. The Bill was debated widely in the Seanad and today we have heard further views and observations. It is welcome that there has been consultation and that Bill has been properly debated. However, from the committee's perspective, it is important that a strong message is sent to the Minister that serious stakeholders in dog breeding have not been consulted on what will be a new law that will have wide implications and consequences. When legislation has such implications, it is only fair that the stakeholders concerned are properly consulted and their views are taken on board, irrespective of whether those views are reflected in the Bill. That is the first point I wish to make and the committee will have role in that respect.

As the main Opposition party, Fine Gael is fully in favour of legislation to regulate animal welfare on puppy farms. It is welcome and it needs to be seriously followed up, a point to which Mr. Histon referred. It is a shame that the focus has moved from that and that we are straying into other areas that are already well regulated. It is important to note that the 1958 Act covers the greyhound industry. If there are inadequacies in that legislation, we should debate that and identify the inadequacies or shortcomings in it and amend the Act to deal with them. The Irish Coursing Club is recognised in that Bill and in the long Title of it as the controlling authority for breeding greyhounds.

I have great sympathy for the position of the Hunting Association of Ireland. I am sure its members probably look after their dogs better than the owner of any pet dog. Their only reason for breeding dogs is to replenish and look after their pack. I would argue with any inspector that if he or she were to call to any of that association's premises that the dogs in them are probably better fed than many of the families who keep them. I do not say that lightly. This debate is very welcome. We need to move forward the debate on the Bill and ask the Minister and his officials to properly inform themselves to ensure we have a consensus to tackle the problem we all want to tackle, that of illegal puppy farming and the prevention of cruelty to animals on puppy farms. The other regulations cover other areas and we can amend them if necessary.

To follow on from a point made by Deputy O'Sullivan, the two bodies appearing before the committee are nominating bodies to the Seanad and they have to qualify every year in that respect. They have to meet certain criteria, produce accounts and have to have a track record. Mr. Beazley said that a loophole could be exposed in the legislation, a problem Deputy O'Sullivan articulated. It seems the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation and similar bodies could be at a disadvantage in terms of the creation of a loophole in the legislation. Could Mr. Beazley illustrate how exemptions to the provisions of the legislation could give rise to loopholes?

Mr. Mark Beazley

I gave an example of that already. A simple example is that an authorised officer in a local authority could call to what he or she believes to be a breeding establishment and the owner of it could claim that he or she is breeding greyhounds and, therefore, is exempt from inspection and the fee that applies. Our fear is that unscrupulous breeders would take advantage of this exemption. I am not saying that any of the gentlemen representing the Irish Greyhound Board or the ICC would be involved in such behaviour. My concern is that a loophole could be exploited by a person who claims to be breeding greyhounds and who would therefore be exempt from the provisions of the legislation. Our fear is that by having exemptions to the legislation, loopholes will be created. In this respect, our emphasis in on dog welfare, it has nothing to do with hunting or the greyhound industry. It is purely about not allowing loopholes to be created in the legislation.

I have no doubt Mr. Beazley is genuine in what he said about dog welfare. If there was a cross reference in this Bill to the 1958 Act, it would address this issue and close any such loophole.

Mr. Mark Beazley

The only legislation, of which we have had sight is the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009, and it is from it we are working.

There is the Greyhound Industry Act 1958.

Yes, the 1958 Act.

Mr. Mark Beazley

We are familiar with the 1958 Act but we consider it does not cover to the same extent the inspection regime proposed in that 2009 Bill. I understand from the Irish Greyhound Board and the ICC that they would need to put forward amendments to that Bill. We are reasonable people. Obviously, we will consider what is put on the table but as of now we have not had sight of this.

I will take a brief comments from Mr. Power to be followed by Mr. Herbert.

Mr. Conor Power

On the issue of somebody trying to obviate the rules, we have a stud book which captures every registered greyhound in the country. If somebody states that he or she is part of the greyhound industry and they are not listed as a registered owner in the stud book, that person is not part of our industry. It is possible to cross-reference claims of ownership with the stud book and if a dog owner is not registered on it, he or she could would come under another umbrella.

Mr. Pat Herbert

I would mention that section 5(3) of the Greyhound Industry Act states: "The Board may make regulations in relation to any matter or thing referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed." Therefore, we have the power to make regulations and amend that Act if there is a need to do so. That is all we are seeking.

Mr. Conor Power

In our specific proposed amendment covering the authorised person, we advocate that there be a panel of authorised persons, which would include authorised persons as prescribed under the 1958 Act. It would provide that where a control steward of the Irish Greyhound Board visits a kennel, if he or she should find dogs of other breeds, he or she would have no problem liaising with other members of the panel and clarifying that there are dogs other than greyhounds in that kennel.

Mr. Des Crofton

I have two dogs that are microchipped and have pet passports because I bring them on holiday with me every year. Therefore, I do not need a lecture from anybody about taking care of my dogs. However, what is as plain as a pikestaff is that only one side has been consulted on this legislation. For legislation to survive any test, it needs the support of all of the parties it purports to regulate. This legislation clearly does not have that support. There is nothing in it that has any stamp or any recognisable colour of the organisations — I use the following words for want of a better phase — on this side of the house. Therefore, I predict that serious trouble will be encountered ultimately in implementing it, unless that situation is dramatically changed.

Mr. Barry O’Driscoll

It us worth noting that under section 16 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 any dog warden may enter any premises. Therefore, our hunt clubs are not exempt in that respect in case anybody believes that they are.

I listened to Mr. Beazley's point but I do not believe it stacks up. Every greyhound in the country is registered in the system and every hound is registered with the HAI. The majority of dogs deemed fit for puppy farming purposes are breeds such as the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and the Chihuahua. The people who breed these dogs do so deliberately to make a profit. I agree with Mr. Beazley that what they do is abhorrent. However the breeds of dogs on which they focus are not the breeds related to the greyhound industry or the HAI. Therefore, I do not know how a group could abuse the legislation by claiming to be a greyhound breeding group or a hound breeding group while not being registered with either of the respective bodies, which monitor registration of such dogs. They have family trees of their dogs while many people do not have family trees of their families. They can trace the pedigree of dogs back to the last century.

I thank all the representatives for appearing before the committee. Representatives of the Canine Breeders of Ireland appeared before the committee a few months ago and that is the group that will probably be most affected by this legislation. Those representatives welcome the Bill in terms of how it will relate to them. The Labour Party called for the introduction of legislation to regulate puppy farming a decade ago and mid-way through the last decade we got our thinking right on this issue. A committee examined this issue, a report with recommendations was completed and there was broad agreement that this issue would be dealt with. It would have been preferable if the proposed Bill on foot of that consideration had been introduced in the Dáil rather than this Bill in its current format. We have had meetings on NAMA and banking recapitalisation at which the attendance was not half the attendance at this meeting. We have been discussing an issue about pups for five hours while the country is falling apart. That prompts me to ask what happened with this Bill that caused it to be the subject of such attention.

(Interruptions).

What happened is that somebody threw a ringer——

What is the difference?

In 2008, something happened whereby this Bill took on an entirely different shape and form. We must remember that this is a Government Bill and it will change when the Government changes it. It might be led by a Green Party Minister, but it is a Government Bill. All of us hope that the outcome of today's debate will be that when the Bill comes to the Dáil, where it will be debated in real terms, it will——

It was debated in real terms in the Seanad.

With respect to the Senators, the laws of this land are passed in the Dáil.

And in the Seanad, in case the Deputy did not know.

No matter what the Seanad passes, it must come back to the Dáil. The Senator is here long enough to know the legalities of Dáil Éireann.

We are getting tired now.

The outcome of this will be what the Dáil will decide. What is decided in the Seanad at present is a moveable feast. The issue is when it is debated in the Dáil on Second Stage. I hope the Minister will look at what we debated here today, and that the common sense spoken at this meeting will be reflected on that Stage. I also hope the type of amendments required to move this Bill forward and to deliver on its original intent will be made and that it will get the broad support the initial intention of the Bill deserved. However, if it proceeds in its current state, there will be very contentious Second, Committee and Report Stages on the Bill.

Mr. Beazley indicated that he wished to comment.

Mr. Mark Beazley

I share the Deputy's concerns. I worked previously for the ISPCA and was involved in the consultation process dating back to late 2004. I did not expect to be in a new position debating the issue in 2010 as it now stands. As a citizen, I am somewhat surprised at the amount of debate it has generated, particularly in light of other serious matters in the country at present. However, we will continue to work with the legislation we have to do the best for dog welfare. We are open to suggestions from all groups and we welcome inclusivity and working together. That is what we intend to do. We represent moderate organisations and wish to see the best outcome for dog welfare. This is not at all a partisan debate.

I will conclude on that note. I thank everybody for taking the time to attend the meeting today. We have been here for more than three hours, which is longer than people expected. However, it was very informative. More than 40 Members of the Oireachtas attended in the course of the afternoon.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 May 2010.
Top
Share