Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 3 Jul 1992

Vol. 133 No. 13

Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, 1991: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Miss Harney)

This Bill is of particular interest to the House today given that there were sniffer dogs here last night. I share the views expressed earlier, even though it is not in order for me to do so, and the concern expressed by Senators and their willingness not to be deflected from their duty by threats of this kind.

The primary purpose of this Bill is to amend the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, to provide additional powers which will more effectively deal with the problem of dangerous dogs. The Bill also provides for increased licence fees and for varying licence fees by regulations and it makes amendments to certain provisions of the 1986 Act which have been found in practice to be deficient.

A number of incidents both here and in Great Britain in the last 12 months have highlighted the threat which certain types of dogs present to humans. We have read about and seen on our television screens cases of some horrendous injuries inflicted by dogs, not just on children but on able bodied adults as well. From recent statistics available to my Department, I can tell the House that in an 18 month period to November 1991, local authority dog wardens recorded over 1,000 incidents as part of their daily routine. Over 70 of these incidents were classified as serious and resulted in hospitalisation and medical treatment for the victims concerned. A further 240 incidents resulted in the victims receiving some form of first aid. The recent attack by a German shepherd dog on a young boy in Blanchardstown, in which he sustained serious head injuries, is an example of the type of case to which I refer.

These statistics pose some questions about the responsibilities of dog owners and of the need for the State to ensure that these responsibilities are respected. As a general rule, I believe that people should be entitled to enjoy their dogs without undue interference from the law.

Unfortunately, not all dog owners act responsibly. Large dogs are often kept in confined conditions without adequate exercise. Problems of temperament result. These dog owners are thoughtless and irresponsible, but there is a more sinister type of irresponsibility which is worrying and calls for decisive Government intervention. I refer to the people who breed dogs specifically to produce strains with vicious tendencies. They do this out of a strange sense of wanting to enhance their own image, to further criminal activities or to engage in the reprehensible practice of dog fighting. These dogs represent a threat to public safety and this Bill will enable that threat to be comprehensively met.

It is worth mentioning, while dealing with the issue of extremely dangerous dogs that the United Kingdom Government have taken measures to deal with their dangerous dogs and, in the process, have highlighted how deficient were our laws. New legislation enacted last year banned certain particularly unsavoury types of dogs. One of the ways of complying with this legislation was to export the animals concerned, in other words, to remove them to another country such as Ireland, and we are powerless to prevent these dogs from coming here. This Bill will provide the necessary power to ban the importation of such dogs.

The public concern expressed at the time of last year's serious dog attacks and the public demand for action highlighted the limitations of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986 in terms of mounting an effective and suitably targeted response to the problem. The Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991, which require the muzzling, leashing and identification of specified dogs when in a public place, are a rather blunt instrument, but they were the best we could do under the 1986 Act to meet the concerns of people about the risks from certain types of dogs. This Bill allows a much greater range of options to be taken. It will, therefore, enable a more flexible and effective response to be mounted. It will also permit urgent action to be taken should future circumstances so demand.

Our objective is to establish an effective system for the control of dogs. While the restrictions imposed by the 1991 regulations go a certain way to deal with the immediate problem, we must consider what other measures should be used in securing public safety. To this end, the Bill now before the House will enable the Minister to make regulations prohibiting certain dogs from public places or specified public places, prohibiting the ownership, keeping, purchase, disposal, abandonment, allowing to stray, breeding or importation of dangeorus dogs, requiring the insurance of certain dogs and, ultimately, requiring the destruction or sterilisation of dangerous dogs.

This is an ideal opportunity to refer to a matter which is not directly dealt with in this Bill but which, nonetheless, will be affected by some of its provisions, that is, the subject of dog fighting. This Bill is concerned primarily with the safety of the public and of livestock rather than with the control of dog fighting, which is dealt with under protection of animals legislation administered by the Department of Agriculture and Food. Nevertheless, the powers which I have just mentioned give us a much greater capacity to address this problem and will, ultimately, make it much more difficult for those involved in dog fighting to operate.

I think it is worth mentioning here that we have received a very substantial amount of correspondence from dog owners, clubs and other bodies criticising the muzzling regulations and criticising this Bill. I should also say that we have received a considerable volume of correspondence from people who supported the measures. There is a balance to be struck between these interests but the primary aim must be to safeguard the public at all times.

Apart from dealing with the matter of dangerous dogs, the Bill also provides for increased licence fees and provides wider power to vary licence fees by regulations. It also provides for higher fines and for wider use of on-the-spot fines. It will, thus, provide power to deal with dogs in a variety of different ways having regard to the level of threat which the different types of dogs may present to the safety of people.

The enactment of this legislation also offers the opportunity to make a number of amendments to provisions of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, which have been found in practice to be deficient. These include restricting a general dog licence to dogs kept at one premises, providing for multi-annual licences, requiring the production of a dog licence before recovering a seized dog, empowering a dog warden to enter premises where a guard dog is kept — he can only enter premises where more than five dogs are kept at the moment — and a tidying up of offences provisions.

I would like now to deal in some detail with the main provisions of the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, 1991.

Section 1 is a standard definitions section, while section 2 provides a new definition of "general dog licence" as a licence entitling a person to keep a number of dogs at a premises specified in the licence. The present general dog licence under the 1986 Act is too loose in that it covers dogs kept at different premises. Relating the general dog licence to a particular premises, as proin that it covers dogs kept at different premises. Relating the general dog licence to a particular premises, as proposed in the Bill, will eliminate certain abuses of the present dog licence system where dog owners may get around the licensing provisions by an umbrella organisation obtaining one licence to cover all dogs registered with it.

The tighter form of general licence now proposed will better serve the purpose for which such a licence was intended, that was, to enable genuine kennel owners to operate legitimately at a reasonable cost while ensuring that security firms and the like will have to licence separately dogs kept at different locations. Minor amendments, consequential on the new definition of a general dog licence are also provided for in this section as well as a transitional provision to protect old style general dog licences current immediately before the commencement of the section.

Section 3 provides for dog licences with a life of more than one year. The main argument for a multi-annual licence is that it will remove the need and bother of having to buy a new licence each year.

Dog owners will now have the choice of an ordinary dog licence or a general licence for the standard 12 months period set out in the 1986 Act, or of a longer life licence. This should be a big help, too, in improving the level of licensing; I am sure many people simply forget to get a new licence when the old one expires.

Section 4 will increase the level of licence fees from £5 to £10 for an ordinary dog licence and from £100 to £200 for a general dog licence. The section also clarifies the power to vary licence fees by regulations and to prescribe different fees for different classes of dogs. This is an important power. It provides, for instance, the option of graduating licence levels to reflect the fact that certain kinds of dogs — the ones with the most potential to inflict injury on members of the public — require a higher level of policing by the dog warden service and this, in turn, may also encourage dog owners to opt for more benign dogs. Section 4 also provides that the fee for a multi-annual licence will be the appropriate multiple of the annual fee.

I would like to make a few general points about the increased licence fees. A reasonable level of licence fees is required to enable local authorities to operate a proper and effective dog warden service. In practice, almost all local authorities are incurring deficits on the operation of their dog control services because of the comparatively low level of licensing and the public demands on the dog control services. The present licence fees of £5 for an ordinary dog licence and £100 for the general dog licence have been in operation since 1984. Clearly, the static level of the fees over the last eight years has curtailed the development of the dog warden service. The increased fees will go a long way towards remedying that situation. Indeed, they will be doubly beneficial in that they will improve the capacity of the local authorities to tackle the problem of unlicensed dogs.

The effect of section 5 is to require a person when claiming a stray dog to produce a current dog licence in respect of the dog or a general dog licence. Under the existing arrangements, any person claiming a stray dog must satisfy the local authority or the superintendent of the Garda Síochána, as the case may be, that he is the owner of the dog or has been authorised by the owner to claim the dog and pay for any expenditure that may have been incurred in respect of the seizure and detention of the dog. The production of a current dog licence is a logical and reasonable requirement which will help to establish the bona fides of the person claiming the dog and will also help to combat the very real problem of unlicensed dogs.

The purpose of section 6 is to remove the requirement that a local authority must obtain the consent of the Minister for the Environment before they can make certain arrangements for the carrying out of their functions under section 15 of the 1986 Act. This is in line with the general approach now being adopted by the Government of giving local authorities more discretion and removing unnecessary ministerial involvement in local affairs.

Section 15 of the 1986 Act allows local authorities, with the consent of the Minister, to enter into arrangements with any person for the provision and maintenance of dog shelters and for the exercise of the functions of the local authority under the Act in respect of the acceptance, detention, disposal and destruction of stray and unwanted dogs. It also provides that a local authority may enter into arrangements with any other local authority or with the ISPCA or with a person connected with animal welfare for the exercise of all or any of its functions under the Act other than those under sections 17 or 30. The consent of the Minister is required in relation to the entering into such an arrangement with "a person connected with animal welfare" but not otherwise.

There is no need for the consent of the Minister for the Environment in these two instances. The local authority would always be in a better position to judge the best approach at local level in relation to these matters and the Minister should not, therefore, be involved. I am satisfied that this is the correct way to proceed.

Section 7 extends the powers of dog wardens to enter premises for the purposes of examining dogs and their accommodation and deals with the problem of holding detained dogs. Under present legislation, a dog warden may only enter premises if he believes more than five dogs are kept there; he does not have power to enter premises where a guard dog is kept. This is a serious defect which this section will remedy. Section 7 also deals with the problem of holding detained dogs. At present, unclaimed strays can be held for five days before they can be put down but dogs detained in connection with breaches of the law cannot. This can place an undue burden on local authorities. Under section 7, dogs seized for breaches of the Acts or regulations, and held pending court proceedings may be put down unless, within five days, the owner agrees to pay the reasonable costs of keeping the dog pending the decision of the District Court.

Section 8 substitutes a new section for section 19 of the 1986 Act. This section is effectively the engine of the Bill. Section 19 of the 1986 Act empowers the Minister to make regulations in relation to the registration and operation of premises in which dogs are kept, the regulation of the use of guard dogs, the muzzling and identification of dogs, including licence identification, and the exemption of certain classes of person from the requirements of regulations made under the Act. The Guard Dog Regulations of 1988 and 1989, which provide controls over the use of guard dogs and cover the construction, registration and operation of guard dog kennels were made under section 19 of the 1986 Act. The Control of Dogs Act (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991, requiring the muzzling, leashing and identification of 12 specified types of dogs in public places were also made under that section.

Broadly speaking, the new section will enable regulations to be made for all or any of the following purposes: to make provision for the registration and operation of premises where a guard dog or more than five dogs are kept. The existing powers under the 1986 Act relate only to premises where more than five dogs are kept; to make provision for the regulation of the use of guard dogs; to make provision for the muzzling of dogs or specified classes of dogs, either generally or in specified circumstances; to make provision for the prohibition of specified classes of dogs in public places or specified public places; to make provision for a ban on the ownership, keeping, purchase, disposal, abandonment, allowing to stray, breeding or importation of specified classes of dogs which, in the opinion of the Minister, have such characteristics as to cause them to be a danger to the public; to require the sterilisation or destruction in a humane manner of certain dogs; to make provision to require the owners of dogs or specified classes of dogs to effect insurance against injury or damage caused by the dogs to persons or property; to make provision for the identification of dogs or specified classes of dogs and of their ownership either by details attached to a collar or by other means; to make provision for certain exemptions from all or any of the regulations and to classify persons or dogs for the purposes of the regulations.

The Bill will, thus, provide power to more effectively discriminate between the different types of dogs in relation to their potential to inflict injury. It is obvious that different types and levels of controls would be appropriate to different classes or types of dogs. We could, for example, prohibit one type of dog from public places while prohibiting the ownership, keeping, purchase and so on of another type. We could, in extreme cases, require the destruction of all dogs of a type known to exhibit savage tendencies as well as prohibiting importation, purchase, etc., or we could make all the other prohibitions but allow existing owners to keep their dogs provided they were sterilised and insured and complied with other restrictions, such as not being in public places.

Section 9 simplifies the offences provisions of the 1986 Act and provides for a maximum penalty for all offences of £1,000 and/or up to three months imprisonment. Sections 10 and 11 make minor amendments to various sections of the 1986 Act consequent on the redefinition of offences. Section 10 will enable on-the-spot fines to be imposed in respect of prescribed breaches of regulations. I consider this provision in relation to on-the-spot fines to be particularly important from the point of view of effective enforcement of the new legislation. The wider application of the on-the-spot fines system envisaged under section 10 of the Bill will allow greater scope to effect proper dog control on-the-spot where it matters. This has been a problem, for instance, with the regulations requiring the muzzling, leashing and identification of specified classes of dogs introduced last summer. It is not possible under the present legislation to include breaches of these regulations under the on-the-spot fine system.

Finally, section 12 sets out the short Title and provides for collective citation, construction and commencement.

Senators will note from what I have said that the general thrust of the Bill is to take power to deal with dogs by type. Many would disagree with this approach. There are those who say that a dog should have a proven record of violence before action can be taken — the first bite principle. I say to those people that I could not argue their case to a parent whose child had just been seriously injured by a dog — even if the dog had no previous history of violence. Public safety demands that we be prudent and try to anticipate problems. That is not to say that injuries can be prevented. No system can ensure that, but we can deal with the more obvious threats to public safety. This is what this Bill proposes to do. All dogs can bite but not all dogs have the capacity, because of size limitations or otherwise, to inflict serious injuries. We must, therefore, have the capacity to discriminate between types of dogs; and this Bill gives that capacity.

The Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, 1991, is an enabling one, and regulations will be required to bring the more substantial provisions of the Bill, once enacted, into force. In framing the new legislation, it is important to get it right. To this end, it is desirable that all interested bodies have an opportunity to give their views and advice. My Department wrote in July 1991 to animal welfare organisations and other concerned groups informing them of the intention to introduce legislation to provide additional options to deal in a comprehensive manner with all aspects of dog control, and inviting their views on the most effective methods of implementing the legislation. Submissions were also invited from concerned individuals.

This Bill is a comprehensive approach to the problem of dangerous dogs. It is an enabling Bill and, in formulating the regulations necessary to implement it, account will be taken of the submissions and of the extensive consultations which have been held with various organisations and individuals in relation to this matter. We now have over 12 months' experience of operating the muzzling regulations and we can learn from that too.

Finally, I want to assure Senators that in implementing this Bill, I will not be placing unacceptable restrictions on the vast majority of dog owners who are responsible and entitled to enjoy their dogs without undue regulations. This Bill, however, enables me to deal with the irresponsible dog owners in a measured and flexible way.

I am happy, therefore, to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome the Minister to the House and support what she and others have said regarding security threats to this House. I am sure I speak for us all when I say we will not be deflected from doing our duty.

My party support this Bill even if there are question marks over some aspects of it to which I will refer. What we are aiming to do here is deal with problems caused by a minority of dogs, but more importantly, a minority of dog owners. I known many very responsible dog owners who do all the right things when it comes to looking after their dogs but, unfortunately, some individuals are irresponsible. I know the comment was made in the other House that this was not one of the more important pieces of legislation. Maybe it is not, but when we remember the horrific pictures we saw in the media last year and the year before and the incident in Blanchardstown where children and young people were mauled and scarred for life, we may revise that opinion. Considering the experiences people have had with pit-bull terriers and other ferocious dogs, we have a duty to ensure that such incidents will not happen in the future. An incident like that would leave the individual and their family with horrific memories for the rest of their lives.

A less serious matter is the problem of loose dogs roaming the streets. These dogs can cause accidents and many people have been killed because of them. Furthermore, in built-up areas adjacent to farmland — such as in parts of south County Dublin and Rathcoole — dogs travelling in packs cause a great deal of destruction — killing sheep or leaving them half dead. This means a big financial loss for farmers. Therefore, it is very important that we bring in legislation to control dogs.

There is also the question of security companies which have guard dogs. We should be asking how they are maintained, if they serve the purpose for which they are provided and how they are controlled. We should also ensure that people who run kennels are not doing it on the cheap. Breeding some species of dog is big business. Certain dogs, particularly show dogs command high prices. We should also remember the very worthy work done by the National Council for the Blind. Many individuals would be unable to go out and enjoy life to the full if they did not have their guide dogs. I hope no undue difficulties will be placed in the way of people using guide dogs. These dogs are not the ferocious breeds to which we have referred and it is important that no extra burden should be placed on people who are blind.

We should also consider how the regulations brought in last year are working. The Minister has suggested that, 12 months down the road, there should be some feedback from the local authorities. I hope that when replying or on Committee Stage she will tell us the response her Department had from the Irish Kennel Club and from the other organisations about the legislation which introduced muzzling. For many people the muzzling of dogs, particularly vicious dogs, was a difficult matter to deal with but we have to protect the public particularly when people bring ferocious dogs into crowded areas. We must ensure that the public are protected, particularly children, who are less aware of the risks involved in patting a Doberman or an Alsatian.

This legislation is necessary. I hope that owners who are found to have been in breach of the regulations, who have mistreated dogs or ignored the legislation will be dealt with very severely by the courts. The vast majority of responsible owners will not take offence at this legislation. I do not think it is draconian. When one sees the horrific pictures of children scarred for life one must agree that the Minister was right to bring in this legislation. If there are aspects of the regulations brought in last year or further regulations the Minister is going to bring in on foot of this legislation, which need to be reconsidered, she should do so. I would be interested to know if the Minister has met any of the organisations interested in this matter or considered any of the representations that have been made and what response or changes she envisages?

While it is not directly dealt with by this Bill, the question of dog fighting has been mentioned. As I understand it, in certain areas of this country where it is prevalent, quite large crowds gather in barns and remote places and large sums of money are placed on the outcome of a fight between two dogs which are primarily trained to fight and try to kill each other. Perhaps the Minister would indicate if she is satisfied that between the dog wardens, the Garda Síochána and the dog units, investigations are going on to ensure that this practice is stamped out. I am glad to see that some people were recently brought to trial and convicted. I understand that after one of these fights at least one of the dogs is usually dead or dying. Apparently the money generated on these dog fights is quite considerable and I ask the Minister to ensure there is no let-up in pursuing the individuals organising these dog fights and to try to have the practice stamped out.

In relation to section 5, I think it is a good idea that a licence has to be produced where a person is reclaiming a dog. Does the Minister envisage any difficulty in ensuring that dogs have identification tags? Will a tag be made mandatory so that if a dog is found wandering there will be some way to trace it back to its owner? Well and good if they want to reclaim the dog, but they might be in breach of regulations in allowing certain dogs to roam around.

With regard to regulations which may be made under the Bill, we must look at the operation of some security firms. While some are straightforward and efficient in their operation, I am aware of areas where guard dogs have been neglected and undernourished and where no proper dog control exists. The whole operation of security firms should be looked at. People should not be able to just don a uniform, acquire a guard dog and operate as security guards.

In relation to regulations under section 6, I suggest that the Department should look into the operation and running of security firms, kennel clubs and kennels where owners leave their dogs while they are on holiday. Some are run very well, but others leave much to be desired. Some of the dogs are undernourished. Proper control should be exercised in this area.

The Minister mentioned the difficulties of local authorities and the numbers and cost of dog wardens. Is the Minister satisfied with the operation of the system throughout the country? To be realistic, we are probably more interested in problems in built-up areas and obviously the problems in country areas are more likely to affect farmers. Is the Minister satisfied there is adequate cover in areas in relation to dog wardens so that people who make a complaint about dogs can have that complaint dealt with as expeditiously as possible?

We welcome this Bill as we believe it is necessary. We are out to get a minority of people who neglect dogs and should not have them. We are not aiming at the majority of people who enjoy and look after their dog. The people we are aiming at are those who neglect animals, who wilfully disregard regulations and their neighbours and allow dangerous dogs to roam, thus endangering adults and particularly our children. We do not want to see what happened in Blanchardstown and in England happen again in this country.

Perhaps the Minister in her reply would give us some up-to-date information on the discussions she has had with the representatives of various organisations concerned and any feedback from dog wardens, individuals or even from the courts in the past year in relation to operation of the legislation in regard to use of muzzles.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am pleased this legislation is before the Seanad today. It is approximately a year and a half since I spoke on this matter following a number of incidents, in particular one in which a member of the Garda Síochána in the course of his duties was attacked by a dog let loose by somebody who intended to prevent the Garda from doing his duty. I understand that drugs may have been involved. If an officer of the law could be subjected to that treatment, it was time for some regulation or law to be introduced to change that situation. Also, at that time and subsequently attacks were made on children by neglected dogs.

There are people who, for whatever reason, obviously monetary, breed and cross-breed dogs to fight and they place bets on which dog will be killed first. It is unfortunate that any Parliament has to consider a Bill such as this. Human nature should be such that we should not need legislation of this kind but, unfortunately, it is necessary because a minority of people have no respect for animal welfare and, in some cases, for human welfare. I welcome this legislation. It is an amendment to the 1986 Act and it is necessary. In response to the situation I highlighted, the Minister of the time spoke publicly on the matter within 48 hours and subsequently brought in regulations. However, these regulations are not sufficient and for that reason we have this Bill before us today.

Basically, the purpose of the Bill is to protect the public. As legislators, we have a duty in that matter. It is important that we respond to a situation where the public are endangered by people with little or no public conscience. To some extent we are dealing with a gangster element. It is important that we are not afraid to speak out on such matters. There are people who think that for their own gain, they can expose children and the public generally to dangerous situations by their activities and their abuse of what can be and is to most people a most lovable and beautiful animal. It is unfortunate that there are in our country, and indeed worldwide, people who are prepared to use dogs in a way that was never wished for by the public generally. Very few people in this country want to see a dog fight. Dog fighting is about money, it is about gambling, and the illegal activity of the cross-breeding of dogs for fighting is reprehensible. I am glad that under this Bill, a dog warden will be able to enter a premises and have greater powers than under existing regulations. We have given him a weapon to deal with people who abuse the law and public safety.

Ideally, all dogs should have identification tags similar to greyhounds. It is unfortunate that that should be necessary but we cannot be complacent about this. There is too much at stake. I am personally aware of many attacks which have been made by dogs particularly on children, and I have seen the consequences of four and five year old girls with a lip torn or another major injury which they have to carry through life all because of an unreliable owner. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible.

Dr. Upton

They do not pay their licence fees.

Mr. Finneran

That is a matter for the local authority. Every Senator, with the exception of five or six, is elected by members of local authorities. We should carry out our task responsibly and local authorities should implement the law. That is their responsibility.

Dr. Upton

There is the matter of money.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McKenna)

Senator Upton will have an opportunity to speak very shortly. Senator Finneran, without interruption.

Mr. Finneran

I have no doubt Senator Upton's contacts are more widespread than the base of his electorate. In fact, I am told that he is shaping up well for other situations.

I want to emphasise again that the vast majority of people look after their pets in a very responsible way. We would not want to say anything in this House — I certainly would not like to — that would reflect on the way people generally treat their dogs: people who have a dog for company, the farmer who has a dog to help him on his farm and the blind who have guide dogs. Over the years I became involved with the Guide Dogs Association; it can cost up to £2,000 to acquire, train and place a dog in the ownership of the blind person. Those dogs provide a vital service and I am glad they are recognised in regulations and in the Bill.

I should like to refer to another important area, the greyhound owners who traditionally comply fully with the law and always turn out their dogs well and look after them. Generally the dog scene is not bad but I have worries about guard dogs. People who have guard dogs, whether private individuals or firms have them on a lean diet and give them a very small space for exercise. That can add to the ferocious appearance and nature of the guard dogs. Whether that is intentional or it just happens, I cannot say, although I would incline on the side of intent. That is not in order.

The Minister mentioned that there are people who would say that the dog is entitled to the first bite. That belief was held by people who said a dog was classified as docile until he bit somebody. I am not sure if we can allow for that. We need the legislation and regulations. The legislation will not be adequate unless it is followed up by regulations. I hope those regulations will be consequential on discussions with people who are genuinely in the business and who want to get rid of the gangster and the dog abuser. I raised this matter a year and a half ago, and I want to ensure that, under the regulations people who resort to the tactic of using dogs to breach the law will be punished. I want the law and the regulations to exclude those people from that type of activity.

Another area I should like to mention is cross-breeding. I am not sure if this matter has been dealt with in the Bill. We know there have been a number of cross-breeds over the years mostly for fighting purposes. The dog warden in County Laois has drawn public attention to an attempt — or it may have taken place — at cross-breeding between dogs and wolves. When replying, perhaps the Minister would refer to this matter because if it is not covered in the Bill would it be possible to have it covered by regulation? Unless regulations have the full backing of the law, they are worthless. It is very important that we have a good, strong, legislative foundation covered by regulations.

I welcome and commend this Bill to the House. I welcome the Minister to the House and I am glad the Government have responded to a public debate that ranged over a year and a half first by regulation and then by legislation. It is appropriate and opportune that this Bill is before the House. Senator Cosgrave said his side of the House will support this Bill and I welcome that. The regulations should reflect the views and concerns expressed by those parties with a genuine interest in the dogs business.

Dr. Upton

At the outset I should say I do not hold a brief for the owners of uncontrolled vicious dogs. I fully accept there is an obligation and need to put order on those people and to exert proper control on them. There is an added emphasis on the need to control dogs because of the challenge which the opening up of regulations in Europe in 1993 will present to this country arising from the added risk of rabies when there will be free movement of animals, such as dogs, into this country.

At the same time I cannot help feeling that this Bill is essentialy a panic measure arising from tabloid publicity two or three years ago. I think it arises primarily because of the Rucksana Khan case in the United Kingdom. That case received enormous publicity both in the United Kingdom and in this country and I believe that much of the response here to that case has been essentially irrational.

In this country from the period 1990 to 1991 there were in all 72 instances of dog biting which required medical attention. It is not at all clear that this Bill will solve the problems which exist at present, nor is it clear that the regulations which are attached to this Bill and to the earlier Act will solve that problem.

Essentially the response seems to be a panic measure arising from widespread publicity given to a small number of tragic cases in the United Kingdom. The response is not based on any scientific principles or any reasoned assessment of the risks different breeds of dogs pose to the public, to dog owners and to their families. I believe the Minister should rethink much of what is contained in this Bill. In particular, the Minister should rethink her attitude to the indiscriminate muzzling of some breeds of dog being made compulsory in public.

The regulations in force at present take no account of a British survey published in the British Medical Journal of 14 December 1991 which showed that 85 per cent of dog bites which needed to be treated by way of plastic surgery were made by male dogs and more than 80 per cent of all those attacks took place in the dog's own home. I cannot see how muzzling those dogs in public will prevent 80 per cent of all those attacks. In the case of injuries inflicted by different breeds of dogs, 60 per cent of the offending animals were not from breeds covered by the Minister's regulations. It is noteworthy that dogs such as Jack Russell, labradors and collies were responsible for more injuries than many of the restricted breeds.

Data in the Irish survey which I referred to already in relation to the reported attacks by dogs in the period from June 1990 to June 1991 shows clearly that most of the offending dogs did not come from the list of breeds, that is, those breeds the Minister has prohibited from being in public places without being securely muzzled. Of a total of 740 incidents in that period, 259 came from breeds on the muzzling list whereas 481 of the incidents were from unlisted dog breeds. It is clear that many dangerous dogs will still be unmuzzled in public despite the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, 1991.

Restriction on the freedom of dogs in public and in private should be based on a scientific evaluation of the dangers that dogs present to the public and their owners but there is little evidence of such an assessment being carried out in this country. What we see in reality are imported British prejudices, derived from sensational reports in the United Kingdom, which are giving rise to this irrational basis to formulate Irish dog control regulations. It is a pity the regulations and the Bill are based on breed. That is foolish, short-sighted and unscientific. The concerns should be based on irresponsible dog owners, not on various categories of dogs. The approach should be based on the deed, not on the dog. The potential for viciousness exists in all breeds of dogs. By training dogs in a certain manner it is possible to develop that tendency towards viciousness and that can be done regardless of the type or size of the dog. It is also true that many small dogs have a considerable potential to inflict very serious injuries and damage on people and that is not being catered for in the Bill. In relation to the breed of dogs, so far as I am aware, there is no scientific way in which one can definitely establish the breed of a dog.

The whole approach to muzzling is wrong and the Irish Kennel Club does not accept the need for muzzling where there is no evidence of an individual dog being a public menance. It is also implied in the Minister's concession to allow restricted breeds of dogs to appear unmuzzled at shows. In that restriction, and indeed in the concession the Minister has also given in relation to guard dogs, it clearly follows that the Minister accepts the problem lies in the proper control of dogs by its owner and not in the breed of the dog. That is the essential point on which I would like to lay a great deal of emphasis. The whole approach should not be on the deed and not on the dog.

In relation to the enforcement of the various regulations, I have the greatest concern. There are very many careless, reckless and totally irresponsible dog owners here. As I said during Senator Finneran's contribution, something like two-thirds of the dogs in this country are not licensed. There are 52 dog wardens in this country, 21 of whom are part-time, and that number is totally inadequate to enforce the present licensing laws. Two-thirds of the dog population, half a million dogs, are unlicensed. I am unable to accept the point made by Senator Finneran when he said that most dog owners in this country are responsible. If they are responsible, then that responsibility in the case of two-thirds of dog owners does not extend to the point of spending £5 on a dog licence. In the South County Dublin area where I am involved politically, in Rathfarnham, Templeogue, Tallaght and Clondalkin, there is just one dog warden to deal with an estimated 20,000 dogs. In that area I understand that each week under the legislation on muzzling two dogs are impounded and that 12,000 dog owners in that area have not bothered to license their dogs.

I agree with Senator Finneran when he talks about the need for registering all dogs. I would be in favour of either a system of tatooing dogs or, alternatively, a system of implanting micro-chips, although I understand that some of the micro-chips can leave the area in which they are implanted and create a certain risk to the dog. I do not mind which method of identification is used but I firmly believe it is important that every dog in this country should be identifiable and traceable to somebody who ultimately would have to be responsible. Many dogs at present are identifiable. As Senator Finneran said, of the order of 60,000 greyhounds in this country are identifiable as they are all tatooed. There are 200,000 pedigree dogs in the country and they are also identifiable, classifiable and traceable. It is the non-pedigree dogs I would like to see identifiable and it is important that the scheme be extended to cater for them.

I am disappointed the Minister made no mention of education in relation to this Bill. There is great scope for educating the public in relation to how they might treat, handle, feed and care for their dogs in a more humane way. Many members of the public simply do not have an idea about how best to treat their dogs. Many are careless and utterly irresponsible in the way they handle dogs and allow the dogs to wander around as they wish. However, as soon as there are problems, or if having a dog carries a risk, the owner simply does not want to know. They can turn their backs, walk away and say they never had anything to do with that dog. That practice is widespread, it should not be allowed and it is not acceptable.

There is also another minor point, and in many ways it might not even be relevant to the Bill, but many people in this country treat dogs as if they were humans. A colleague in the veterinary college frequently says that a dog should have a dog's life. He is right. It is as simple and as basic as that. There is little purpose in people attaching human characteristics to dogs. Dogs have to be treated a certain way. Handling dogs as if they were a spouse or a child does not work. In the long term it is a recipe for disaster and it is the basis of many of the difficulties that arise with the management and treatment of dogs. It also gives rise to daft associations with dogs and it does not get anybody very far in the long run.

I want to refer briefly to a number of aspects to which the Minister referred, and one of those is people claiming dogs, particularly dogs that have been impounded. There will be no problem about claiming dogs in those circumstances because nobody will claim the dog if it has caused any amount of damage.

I do not have any objection to the increase in the licence fee from £5 to £10, a fee most people can afford. However, I would like to see exemptions for certain categories of people, for example, the unemployed and the elderly. I would be particularly concerned about the difficulties that amount of money might present to elderly people who are dependent on small pensions. The real problem is not the cost of the licence but ensuring that the two-thirds of the unlicensed dogs are licensed.

The Minister went outside the scope of the Bill when she spoke about dog fighting. I could not agree more with what she and Senators Cosgrave and Finneran said about this. It is outrageous that this type of cruelty should go on. A Leas-Chathaoirligh, perhaps you can extend to me the same indulgence you extended to the Minister because I, too, want to go outside the terms of the Bill and refer to the problems which cats, particularly feral cats, present to people in urban and suburban areas generally. There is a big problem with wild cats in parts of south County Dublin. Many people's lives are disturbed by these animals and I understand there is no ready legal framework for dealing with them. The control of Dogs Act does not deal with it.

Acting Chairman

That discussion would be more appropriate to a Bill dealing with cats.

Dr. Upton

I sincerely hope we will soon have a cat Bill. Last week one of my constituents told me he had spent £100 trying to dispose of feral cats — at £10 each — but he gave up at that stage because he estimated there were another 25 to get rid of, at a cost of £250. This gentleman's notion of public service stopped there and I do not blame him.

Mr. Cosgrave

Do they belong to any particular party?

Dr. Upton

I could suggest parties for which those type of cats would be suitable, I could suggest——

Acting Chairman

Senator Upton, please get back to the Bill.

Dr. Upton

The Minister made no mention of the problem or the control of dogs droppings. That is a matter of considerable irritation for many people. Some people take their dogs on to footpaths and let them pollute the area. I do not want to be too pernickety but a sense of responsibility would ensure that people would not allow their dogs to roam and litter the place with unacceptable waste material.

In this country approximately 100 tonnes of faecal material, 300,000 gallons of urine are produced by dogs each year. That is a large amount of waste material. Again, I do not want to be excessively pernickety but I hope some members of the public would be a little——

Mr. Finneran

We will have a waste Bill later in the year.

Dr. Upton

Maybe the waste Bill will cater for that. It is a source of irritation to many people and some restrictions should be imposed.

There is the question of the transgenic dogs to which Senator Finneran referred, in other words, the dogs — I do not know if it is fair to call them dogs or wolves — which are a cross between a dog and a wolf. I am concerned about the potential of that type of breeding programme, and I would like to hear the Minister's views on whether this Bill will control that type of activity because we are moving down the road to considerable developments in that area. The range of dogs available, from the poodle to the Rotweiler, is a clear indication of what can be done by way of animal breeding and shows the enormous potential to breed for different characteristics.

Finally I agree with the comments made about using dogs in a threatening manner. It is unacceptable that members of the Garda should have been attacked by dogs which seem to have been held specifically to prevent the Garda from doing their duty in enforcing the law. There is a wider and more ugly problem to the use of threatening dogs. A certain type of person seems to use threatening, ugly, dogs as an adjunct of their personality. At some time, a certain type of person walked around with a pitbull terrier on a lead and a spiky umbrella in the other hand. That type of behaviour is totally unacceptable. In that sense, I welcome the fact that the Minister has made provision for the control of that type of behaviour.

The Bill is essentially irrational and the present regulations will not cater for most of the problems which arise from dogs biting and injuring people. It must be remembered that most of those serious injuries are caused in the home where muzzling is not required — and would not be acceptable. That is where much of the problem lies. That aspect has not been addressed in this Bill. I am disappointed that educating people in how to treat and care for dogs has not been addressed in the Bill either.

Mrs. Bennett

The Irish, among many other nations, share a passion for one animal above all others and for generations man has lived alongside his best friend, the dog. Unfortunately, not all homo sapiens are responsible pet owners and custodians of animals as we have all too often seen. Only recently a young English child on holiday with relatives in Dublin was savagely attacked by a family pet. Two weeks ago a Sunday newspaper printed horrific pictures of emaciated and ill-treated pedigree dogs which were abused by their owners-breeders. Clearly legislation is required to deal with all aspects of dog ownership in Ireland. The main purpose in implementing this Bill is primarily to protect both the safety interests of the population and to regulate the control and ownership of dogs by amending the Control of Dogs Act, 1986.

The Bill will provide additional powers to deal with the problem of dangerous dogs while also addressing the areas of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, which has been found inadequate and impractical. Under the new Bill, licence fees will also be increased and can be variable. Restrictions enacted under the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulation, 1971, ensure that specified dogs are muzzled and leashed when in a public place. Identification policies were also introduced in order to provide closer monitoring of specified breeds. These breeds include those dogs with a capacity and a tendency to inflict injuries and those which instil fear in the general public when they are let loose at random in public places.

Sections 1 and 2 of the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Bill, 1991, covers several main areas. Section 1 basically is about standard definitions while section 2 defines specifically the term "general dog licence". The term "general dog licence" entitles an owner to keep several dogs at an address as is specified on the licence. Tying the licence to the dogs kept at a particular address will tighten up the system whereby the dog owners will no longer be able to avail of a loophole where an umbrella organisation often obtained only one licence to cover all dogs registered with it.

Under section 3 ordinary dog licences will increase from £5 to £10 and general dog licences will increase from £100 to £200. This section also covers the area of variable licence fees for different classes of dogs. This is perhaps one of the most salient proposals. It gives the Minister the capacity of optionally fixing the licence fee for particular breeds in such a manner as to reflect the cost of additional policing and monitoring by the dog warden service. This single option may even discourage the keeping of potentially dangerous dogs and encourage dog owners to gravitate towards the more even-tempered animals.

Section 4 requires that any person claiming a stray dog from the relevant authorities is compelled to produce a current dog licence in respect of that dog. Section 5 gives additional powers to dog wardens to seize and hold dogs. They can also enter a premises and demand to see a current dog licence. This has particular relevance to premises other than dwelling houses where a warden suspects that a guard dog or more than five dogs are being kept. As the law stands, a warden can only enter a premises if he believes that more than five dogs are being keep there. Also under section 5, dogs being held pending court proceedings can be put down after five days unless the owner agrees to pay the cost incurred in maintaining the dog pending the outcome of the court decision.

The main thrust of the Bill is comprehensively covered by section 6. This replaces section 19 of the 1986 Act, which included provisions rearding the registering and operating of dog premises, the regulation of guard dogs and their use and the muzzling and identification of dogs.

The new Bill will contain a much more extensive range of powers and will be much more flexible. Existing powers governing identification, muzzling and leashing of dogs will be greatly strengthened. The Bill will also allow the Minister much greater discretion and latitude in dealing with various breeds of dogs which may be considered a threat to the public well-being.

The guard dog industry can also be reviewed as the Minister deems necessary under the new Bill. The Minister can also prohibit the ownership of particular breeds of dog. He can ban them from public places, prohibit the importation or breeding, the sale or keeping of any dog considered detrimental to public safety. However, the Minister can allow that existing owners of outlawed breeds keep their dogs, provided they abide by certain restrictions such as sterilising and insuring their dogs and other conditions as determined by him.

Offences under both the 1986 Act and the new Bill are dealt with in section 7. The maximum fine is £1,000 or three months imprisonment. Sections 8 and 9 pertain to amendments made to the 1986 Act concerning the actual definition of offences. Section 8 allows for spot fines to cover any breaches of the law. The provision in the new Bill for on-the-spot fines does probably more than any other section of the Bill as regards enforcement and control on the street. On-the-spot fines will give instant enforcement of breaches in the law governing muzzling, leashing and identification of these dogs. Section 10 governs the short Title and sets out provisions for construction, commencement and collective citation. Many pressure groups and interested parties may feel that some of the measures in this Bill are a little harsh. They should bear in mind that not all dog owners are responsible citizens and, unfortunately, it is necessary to legislate for these elements who are not abiding by the recognised guidelines. Many have become involved in breeding and crossbreeding strains of dogs that have vicious and nasty temperaments. Some are involved in dog fighting and animal baiting and using savage dogs as a form of violent weapon in criminal activities.

Only a few short months ago a garda was set upon by a vicious fighting dog while trying to arrest drug pushers in south Dublin and the garda in question sustained severe stomach injuries. There are now over a thousand instances of dog attacks in the 18-month period to 1991. Senator Upton said that at one time it was fashionable for youths to have a vicious dog on a lead. Some years ago in Henry Street that was the case. I was managing a store and I remember a youth coming in with a young girl, standing in the middle of the store and saying to her: "What do you want?" She picked out the coat she wanted, walked over to the rail and took up the coat. When I went to stop her the youth instructed the dog to grab me by the ankle and they walked out of the shop with the garment. When they got to the door they called the dog, who obeyed. Needless to say, I did not go after them and by the time I rang the police they were well away. It is a practice that one does not see in the city now, but it is used in some of the shops in the suburbs.

Others are breeding large dogs, originally intended for hunting, in built-up urban areas and in environments totally unsuitable for their temperaments. Small wonder that problems ensue. I have no hesitation in recommending that this House support this Bill in the interest of the general well-being of the public and in the best interests of the animals.

Mr. Hourigan

This amending legislation is very appropriate to the legislation on dog control introduced in 1986. In suburbia in particular it is very difficult in practice for persons to keep dogs in what might be regarded as their own patch. Technically, if a dog strays outside the owner's garden or front lawn, he or she has violated the law and is liable for prosecution.

It is virtually impossible to keep timid and controllable dogs in these confined spaces. What precisely can be done about this? There should be a degree of latitude, in that if a dog strays onto the road in a quiet suburban area where there is not much traffic it would not immeddiately be regarded as an offence.

The licensing provision is reasonable, provided that the money from the fees is used for the control of dogs. The dog population dropped drastically after the 1986 legislation was introduced. It is far too high. We have many mongrel dogs that are neither pets nor dogs of any utility roving around. This is not good for the country or for the individual and it serves no purpose. Very often these dogs are hungry and in need of care and there is a risk of disease and various other problems in that regard. I strongly advocate that male dogs, as far as possible, be neutred where they are not required for breeding and that the females be spayed. This would be a major factor in ensuring that dogs would stay as near as possible to their own area.

Any dog of a vicious nature, or bordering on a vicious nature, that offends even once in this regard should be put down. If a dog bites a person once, no matter how mild the bite might be, that dog is liable to do so again. A dog bite is very worrying. People must get medical attention by way of an injection to ensure that no disease is suffered. The safety of the public is of paramount importance.

I move on very briefly to the question of responsibility for straying dogs. There is a grey area here. Sometimes dogs are believed to have caused damage in the rural area but they may not have caused damage. I know from previous legislation and the amending legislation that the dogs must be found on the spot. They do not have to be attacking an animal or animals, but if they are about to attack that is sufficient evidence for the warden or someone in that position to have them exterminated. I agree with this because over the years dogs have been a major menace in the context of sheep and other animals. Nothing one could say could over-emphasise the importance of ensuring that there are no major losses or risks suffered by the owners of livestock as a result of attacks by dogs.

Regarding dogs kept as pets in the city environs and suburban areas, I believe there are many dogs wandering around and they should be dealt with in the proper fashion and put out of the way. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the fact that it is virtually impossible strictly to obey the law to the letter in a suburban area. The ordinary suburban house will have a small garden at the front and back and the dog or dogs must be confined within that space. If they go onto the road or outside the fence the owners are breaking the law.

There is a grey area here that needs to be looked at and it presents a major problem for dedicated dog lovers and people who want to have dogs. For many families with young children, pet dogs are very important. Incidentally, dogs in rural areas must be positively about to attack or be attacking animals before any blame can be put on the dog owner.

I would like the Minister to address her attention to the whole question of dogs in suburbia where it is virtually impossible to have dogs controlled. I further recommend that male dogs be neutered and female dogs be spayed whenever breeding is not an objective. This would help enormously to control the dog population.

This amending legislation will tighten matters and help to bring about a better situation.

Mr. McKenna

I welcome this legislation which is definitely not before time in the whole area of dog control. I am at a loss to understand how anyone could object to this type of legislation which attempts to control an area that has been causing many problems in urban and rural area for a considerable time.

Senator Upton in his contribution mentioned there were only 72 incidents of people who were treated for dog bites but he would have to accept the fact that there were 72 reported incidents. I know of numerous cases in my own constituency where people have had to be treated because they were attacked by dogs and I believe the statistic of 72 incidents is not strictly correct. It would be far more if everybody reported these incidents. We should not underestimate the difficulties in relation to people who have been attacked. Every day of the week there are cases where people are attacked by dogs. Those large dog breeds are definitely a public menace and I do not think anyone could suggest they are not. Breeding of this type of animal for whatever reason, either for guard dogs or for the despicable purpose of fighting, has to be deplored. No one could justify that type of an attitude.

I want to refer, briefly, to the greyhound breed with which I have had a lifetime association. The greyhound looks a fairly vicious type of animal and the general public who would not know about or have any dealings with greyhounds may incorrectly believe they are vicious. They are far from being so. The greyhound, as far as the human being is concerned, is a very docile animal and from my lifetime association with them I cannot recall any incident where a greyhound attacked or bit a human being. Any responsible person in charge of a greyhound has the animal muzzled at all times, in the kennel, in a public place, when they are being trained or let out in the fields. The only occasion they are not muzzled is when they are being fed. In view of the professional approach adopted in the treatment of greyhounds, I cannot see why that same kind of approach cannot be used in regard to other large animals who can do ferocious damage if they attack people.

Greyhounds do not suffer one bit by being muzzled. They become accustomed to the muzzle and it is part of their everyday life. It is not detrimental to their welfare and does absolutely no damage to them in any way. If you have a couple of greyhounds in the same kennel it protects them from biting. Even when greyhounds are racing on tracks they are still muzzled. It is not to prevent them from attacking individuals but from attacking other greyhounds. When a greyhound is running on a track, if it attempts in the course of a race to attack another greyhound, the stewards meet and they suspend that greyhound. It will not get clearance to race again until it has done a number of trials with other greyhounds. It is a very black mark on a greyhound that does that.

We have to put this into perspective. I cannot see how people can put concern for dogs before concern for human beings. There is a ridiculous notion that you wait until an animal attacks somebody before you do something about it. In many cases that is far too late. There must never be a possibility of that type of attack taking place.

I want to compliment the Minister on bringing in this legislation because we have all mentioned that it is terrible to see either a young child or an adult being attacked. People have been maimed for life as a result of attacks by dogs.

Large animals, such as the Doberman and the Alsatian, are very docile for three to six years, and there is no problem, but many of these dogs get very jealous, particularly of young children, when they have been treated like a child, and they do not like attention being given to somebody else. When a small child comes into the household and the attention is being focused on the child and not on the dog, they become very jealous and at the first opportunity they will attack, with disastrous consequences. I cannot understand how anyone would object to the muzzling of that type of animal. Surely we do not place the life of an animal before the life of a small child or any human being.

I want to compliment the Minister on bringing forward this legislation. I recognise the problem that Senator Upton has with the number of unlicensed dogs, but that is not a problem for this Bill, it is a problem for the local authorities, who have the power to seek out the people who have unlicensed dogs. I would be 100 per cent behind the suggestion regarding tags and registrations as the greyhound has. The ear of each dog is tatooed and that can be traced back to the owner. This issue is for another time, but we should give serious consideration to it. Tagging the ears of greyhounds causes no great difficulty. When a litter of pups is born they are tagged and there is a corresponding certificate. I would advocate introducing a system where all dogs are tagged so that we can refer back to the ownership for whatever reason.

I welcome this legislation and I commend the Minister for bringing it forward. I look forward to an unanimous passing of this Bill in the House.

Mr. Harte

I welcome the Bill. Senator Upton's point was that of a total of 740 incidents, 259 involved breeds that under the regulations should be muzzled whereas 481 of the incidents involved unlisted dog breeds. How do you describe a dangerous dog? Is it a dog which attacks people or dog that bites? This is the point he was trying to make. He was also trying to emphasise the fact that a national registration scheme should be introduced for all breeds of dogs.

The Minister for the Environment has issued regulations restricting the freedom of a number of breeds of dangerous dogs. The argument by many breeders was that the dogs listed were not dangerous. I accept that we have to be vigilant in dealing with the control of dogs. In the other House, there is a Member who had two very bad injuries from dogs in the course of his employment before he became a Deputy. Maybe he thought there were no dogs here. He is here now, and is not being bitten any more. Not only children are being attacked. At election times when we are canvassing, if a dog rushes out we feel afraid. In that respect, we believe in control. Control should not just mean the muzzling of certain dogs which are considered to be a dangerous breed. I am a dog lover, but I always liked small dogs. You can get a nip from a small dog as quickly as from a big dog. The figures that Senator Upton put on record proves that.

The real problem is that there are many irresponsible dog owners. Senator Upton gave an example of the man with the pit bull terrier, years ago it was the Kerry Blue — fighting man, fighting dog, walking along the street provoking everybody. Other people let dogs out and lose control of them. We can go back to the period when dogs ran in packs and molested sheep, etc. That builds up a lot of emotion but we must have regard to the fact that many breeders and dog owners are very responsible and we have to take their views on board.

Senator McKenna says the muzzling of a greyhound does not seem to trouble it. I cannot argue about this but if I was talking to a dog expert and I knew the dog owner was a very responsible type and kept his dog under control, I might be inclined to listen to his argument about the question of muzzling. I am not saying I would fully agree with him but his view has to be considered.

The other point raised is the question of cross breeds, and here I seek information, I am not sure about the cross breeding of German Shepherds with timber wolves. There has been an argument that this makes a more docile animal. Perhaps the Minister when replying could give us some information on it.

Senator Upton mentioned rabies. I would like to know the arrangement with the cross-channel authorities, particularly the UK, regarding dogs imported from the UK or the Channel Islands. What information is there about cross breeds, about the possibility of rabies, etc? These are matters of concern to me.

I am pleased to see the legislation and I welcome it. Senators should not be amazed by the fact that some Members disagree with part of the legislation. There would be no point in bringing it before the House if we cannot hold different views. The Senator who has just left the House seemed to be astonished that somebody would have a different point of view but that is the nature of the system.

The control of dogs is important and I agree that vigilance is necessary in that regard. I would welcome the appointment of more dog wardens. There are only 52 dog wardens employed at present, with 21 of them employed on a part-time basis. They could co-operate with the local authorities in dealing with the problem of pollution on our streets. We should not brand every dog breeder the same. Although I made the point about small dogs being as quick to give one a nip as bigger ones, I would not like to see a Yorkshire Terrier or a Jack Russell muzzled. Nevertheless, controls are necessary and I am sure the Minister, who is a very enlightened person, will consider all the contributions that have been made.

Mr. McMahon

This is an important Bill. I have been interested in dog control for a long time. Would this legislation have been initiated had it not been for the legislation passed in Britain? I make that point because it has taken a great deal of lobbying to make the authorities recognise the serious dog problem that exists. However, the Minister was honest enough to admit that the legislation was introduced to some extent because the legislation passed in Britain might result in breeds of dogs that are banned there being brought into this country.

The Minister will be aware of my interest in this problem over the years as a member of Dublin County Council. It is just over 20 years since I put down my first motion before Dublin County Council regarding the control of dogs and in the subsequent nine or ten years I have put down 15 motions before Dublin County Council and the county committee on agriculture, on which I served for a number of years. A number of other councillors also raised the matter. It is only fair to say that Dublin County Council have been in the forefront in seeking legislation regarding dog controls. However, the control of dogs is given low priority by local authorities generally and this is regrettable.

I made an effort this morning to obtain up-to-date figures regarding the licensing of dogs and prosecutions in that regard. The latest figures available to the public are for 1989 and are published in an ENFO leaflet on the control of dogs. I understand they have figures for 1990 but they are not yet available to the public. I telephoned about five different offices this morning but I was unable to obtain the 1990 figures before coming into the House. Perhaps they are in my office now. This is an indication of the low priority given to dog control, not only by local authorities but also by the Minister's Department. I hope the Minister will be more vigilant while she is in that Department to ensure that greater attention is given to the matter. It is not good enough that the latest available figures regarding a simple matter such as dog licensing are for 1989. Much of the blame rests with the local authorities, but some blame must rest with the Minister's Department. Surely the figures for any year should be available in January of the following year?

There are three tables in this most informative and excellent leaflet. The first gives the number of individual and general dog licences issued in 1989, the second gives the number of dogs surrendered or reclaimed and the third relates to enforcement of licensing and control. Surely the figures for last year should be available by now? Perhaps the Minister has them but I was unable to get them this morning from the Department or from my own local authority, Dublin County Council.

Are we serious about dog control? I hope this legislation will be acted on and that we will see an improvement as a result. I welcomed the previous legislation with regard to dog control. I believe it has had the effect of reducing dog numbers but we do not know because we do not have the figures.

People are now more conscious of the responsibilities associated with dog ownership. Previously it was a matter of parents buying a pup for a child as a Christmas present, not realising that the dog would require more space as he got older. This was a serious problem especially in city areas. Many people then upset their children by driving into the country and abandoning those dogs. That happened to a great extent in former years; it is not happening to any great extent today but a problem still exists. Previous legislation has had the effect of reducing that problem.

The Minister's speech did not provide adequate information. If she has the information I was unable to obtain this morning, why was it not included in her speech? Normally when a Minister introduces a Bill, all the relevant information is given in the speech, but the Minister's speech today made no reference to licensing figures or if there has been a reduction or an increase in the dog population over the years.

There were 158,000 dog licences issued in 1988, 172,000 in 1989 and 186,000 in 1990. The number of licences is increasing each year, but having regard to an estimated dog population of well over half a million, I do not think we can say we have taken the dog problem seriously since the legislation came into operation in 1987. I regret I cannot provide figures for later years but, perhaps the Minister will give them to us. There was an increase in the number of dog licences issued from 158,000 to 186,000 in two years based on an estimated dog population of between 500,000 and 700,000. The Minister should have apologised for the lack of information. Most of the problems regarding the control of dogs still exist.

The legislation regarding the muzzling of dogs has proved very unpopular. If a person is attacked by a dog and horrific photographs and reports appear in newspapers and on television of course there will be cries to do away with or to muzzle all dogs. However we must be reasonable. As the Minister said, she received a great deal of correspondence and representations from interested people on both sides, but I wonder if sufficient attention has been given to such representations? How long will we have to wait for further legislation relating to dog control to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas? I hope the Minister will be as vigilant in this area as she was in tackling the pollution problem in our city and county because it is not being solved in the present Bill.

A suggestion was made in the other House that a joint committee should be set up to formulate legislation or amend the present Bill. The committee could tease out the arguments for and against the muzzling of dogs or the banning of certain breeds and the Minister would have an opportunity to put to the committee the views expressed by interested parties. This problem is serious enough to warrant the establishment of a joint committee which would be welcome having regard to our legislative record on the control of dogs.

I agree with the muzzling of certain breeds of dogs. There are 12 breeds mentioned in the regulations but, in my view, not all require to be muzzled. It is understandable that because of the publicity at that time, the Minister had to name the 12 breeds to ensure that he had included all dogs that could be a danger to citizens, but that list should be reconsidered. Bulldogs are one of the 12 listed but I have not seen a bulldog muzzled since the regulations came into operation, I do not believe I have seen a muzzle that would fit a bulldog. A bulldog is harmless. I have never heard of a bulldog injuring or attacking a person. Anomalies are bound to arise when legislation is rushed through because of public pressure.

All dogs, irrespective of breed, should be on a leesh in public places. Not all dogs are dangerous, but many people are afraid of dogs, particularly children. Many families believe that owning a dog help the children and other members of the family to get used to animals. Not everyone holds that view and when they go to public places they do not like to see dogs without a leash. We have all seen children run from one side of their parents to the other when they see a dog coming down a footpath. If those dogs were on a lead children would get used to them, and more people would bring their dogs into public places. At present, dog owners are reluctant to bring their dogs out on the street because of unleashed dogs. If a bitch is in heat, no matter what whistling or calling one does she will not take any notice if there is a male dog in the area. It would be beneficial to everyone if all dogs were on a lead in public places.

Dublin County Council were the first to appoint dog wardens, followed by Waterford County Council. These appointments were made following pressure from myself and other councillors, including the Minister, because of the proximity of our constituencies to sheep farming areas. It is with some pride I say that it was following pressure from our local authority that legislation was introduced regarding the tagging of dogs, the appointment of dog wardens and so on.

The dog wardens are doing an excellent job in Dublin city and county and I am sure the same is true in other parts of the country. There is a danger there will be a cutback in the dog warden service next year because of scarce resources and this must not be allowed to happen. I am glad it is the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, who is in the House because I know how she feels about the dog problem and how she reacts when faced with a problem. The ISPCA will be under-funded next year. I hope the Minister will ensure that local authorities step up their funding for the dog warden service.

One of the best provisions in the Bill relates to on-the-spot fines. Dog wardens were at a disadvantage in not being able to deal with the problem on the day but, thankfully, that is now being rectified. The Garda are often called to premises where there are dogs and they are reluctant to enter the premises. They contact a dog warden but he is not named on the warrant. The dog wardens resent this and I agree with them. The Garda have a warrant but the dog wardens enter such premises under the supervision of the Garda. They should be able to enter on their own right and should be named on a warrant. This happens frequently in the Dublin area, up to four times a month. I hope the Minister will take note of the anomalies I have raised in the matter of dog control and give some consideration to the points I have made.

The problem is by no means resolved in the Dublin area. Another Senator indicated that the killing of sheep by dogs was a thing of the past, but it is still happening. I heard of a case less than two months ago where dogs attacked sheep. No matter what legislation we pass we are still going to have incidents of some kind or another. When we pass this legislation we should not sit back, but ensure the regulations are made and put into effect. It is one thing to have legislation permitting the Minister to make regulations but it is another to leave the warden service with insufficient funds to implement the regulation. I appeal to the Minister not to relax and feel the job is done when this Bill is passed. We should have further legislation to deal with other matters that are not dealt with in this Bill.

I favour the suggestion made in the other House that a committee should be established. When an incident occurs, such as in Blanchardstown, it is easy to say that every dog should be muzzled, but that is not the way to deal with the problem. I am disappointed the Minister did not give us the up-to-date figures in her opening speech.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

The Senator has already made that point. He is being repetitive.

Mr. McMahon

I hope the Minister will note my points. If they cannot be dealt with in this Bill, I hope they will be covered in future legislation.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Miss Harney)

I thank Senators who contributed to this debate. I appreciate the general support for the Bill, although some Senators have problems with parts of the legislation and I hope to deal with that in my response.

In response to Senator McMahon, I know he telephoned my Department this morning and spoke with an official who offered to give him the 1990 figures, but he was not in a position to give a fax number and said he would telephone the official later. I have the figures and I will give them to the Senator. When introducing a Bill of this kind, one is given so much information it would be impossible if we were to have any kind of meaningful debate to put all the statistics on the record. Obviously, Ministers have these figures at their disposal and when Senators or Deputies query them they have the figures at hand and can give them. I am pleased to do that now.

The number of dog licences increased from 172,850 in 1989 to 184,000 in 1990. The figure for general dog licences — this is for groups of dogs — increased from 143 to 169. We estimate that there are between 500,000 and 700,000 dogs in the country; that means between one-quarter and one-third are licensed which is extremely disappointing. I will deal with that in a moment.

The number of on-the-spot fines increased from 6,314 to 6,809. The number of prosecutions taken increased from 650 to 660 and, unfortunately, the number of convictions decreased from 351 to 281. The level of fines imposed by the courts ranged up to £250. The licence fee income for 1989 was £688,200 and for 1990 it was £734,400, that is net of the administrative cost for An Post which works out at £1.10 per licence. I hope that goes some way towards satisfying the Senator's requirement for statistics, but if he requires other data I will be delighted to give it.

Mr. McMahon

Does the Minister have the 1991 figures?

Miss Harney

Unfortunately, I have only the 1990 figures. Due to the manner in which we — not just in my Department — receive statistics generally from local authorities or semi-State bodies where we do not have a good computerised system, there is always a very long time lag. It is the intention of the Minister and the Department to improve the situation so that we can have the most up-to-date facts and figures.

Acting Chairman

May I interrupt the Minister? It was ordered today that we would have a sos at 1 o'clock. I look to the House for advice.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Would the House agree to continue and dispose of the Bill?

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Will the House agree to taking Senator Costello's motion on the Adjournment immediately afterwards? I understand the Minister will take the motion on the Adjournment also.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Miss Harney

I thank the House for their co-operation. Before I begin to give some detailed replies to the queries raised, I wish to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. They do a fantastic job under very difficult conditions and with limited resources. Their enthusiasm never ceases to amaze me. Many of them are elderly but they give everything to taking care of animals, particularly dogs. I also pay tribute to the Irish Kennel Club, the German Shepherd Club and the many other organisations involved in animal welfare. We are fortunate to have such committed people at the disposal of local authorities. All but six local authorities allow the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to run the service for them.

Senator Upton thought the problem of dogs attacking people was a minor one and that this legislation was in response to stories in the tabloids. I dispute that. When the regulations were introduced in 1988 and 1991 it was always made clear that more substantial enabling legislation would be introduced. Work on the preparation of this legislation and the introduction of regulations were in advance of the British legislation. The British legislation bans certain types of dogs and there will be a temptation to export them to the nearest country. Therefore, Ireland would suffer enormously in that regard. Even if we had not intended to bring in legislation we would have needed to do so.

In the 18 months to November 1991 the dog warden service came across 1,000 different incidents of dogs attacking children or adults. Some 70 people required hospitalisation and 240 required first aid treatment. I am sure that there are many more instances where people just went to their local doctor or hospital and they would not be included in these statistics.

I will instance some of the recent attacks on people in this country. In May 1991 a child of six years was attacked and suffered serious head and chest injuries. In June 1991 a 13-year old child in Clondalkin received 106 stitches in the right leg from an attack by an alsation. In June 1991 an English bull terrier bit a child of two years of age. In August 1991 an adult had a long hospital stay and surgery as a result of the calf of the leg being torn away. In Enniscorthy last August a 12-year old child suffered severe injuries to the back, leg and ankles which necessitated skin grafts. In Cabra, Dublin, a child of seven years had a skin graft and plastic surgery last September as a result of injuries to its neck and face. In Brittas, County Dublin, a child of three years of age had extensive plastic surgery to its face and suffered severe injuries to its head and arms. They are just some examples.

What we have tried to do in the legislation is to strike a balance between having effective legislation to control dogs on the one hand and ensure that the State does not unduly interfere with the enjoyment people get from their pets. I think we have struck an even balance. It was never the intention to require the muzzling of dogs in private houses.

However, many people are careless in relation to their pets. Reference was made to an incident in Britain where a nine-year-old child was killed by three family pets. One of the dogs was a German Shepherd and they are not known to attack family members. They usually attack strangers. The psychologist who gave evidence in that case said that no child under 12 years of age should be left alone unsupervised with a dog, no matter what the breed of the dog. It is important to recognise and acknowledge that. Many people are careless in that regard and leave large animals with small children. Even if a dog does not bite it could knock over a small child and injure them. Dogs that do not empathise with children can be provoked. Their temperament can change with serious consequences. People need to be more vigilant in this regard.

I agree with the points made by Senators McMahon, Cosgrave and others in relation to the way people in urban areas leave animals locked up in small spaces. Many of them go to work and leave the house unoccupied for the day. In many cases neighbours have to put up with the dog barking. That is quite common and is unfortunate. It comes down to people recognising that they have a responsibility to ensure that their animals are properly taken care of and that it is cruel to confine an animal to a small space for long periods without exercise and so on. In many well-managed apartment blocks people are not allowed to keep animals of this kind and that is good. Apartment blocks do not have the kind of facilities which would allow a dog to be taken care of properly.

Senator Finneran mentioned dog fighting and I share the views he expressed. It is a most horrific act and is very much part of the sub-culture of the underground world. It is held in secret and we need the co-operation of the public if we are to deal adequately with the problem of dog fighting. Although this Bill does not deal with it specifically, there are many provisions in it which could be brought into effect to limit dog fighting. The Minister will have power under section 8 of the Bill to make regulations banning the importation of certain breeds of dogs and the breeding of certain strains. He will be able to order the sterilisation and so on of certain breeds. That will be extremely effective in combating dog fighting.

Senator referred to the need for a proper registration system and I share that view. The 1986 Act provides for that. Regulations can be made to provide for registration. As the House knows, the control of guard dog regulations allows for the registration of guard dogs. Such registration is conducted by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Some 750 guard dogs are registered, 520 in the Dublin area. They are registered by way of the micro-electronic implantation system. It is a very effective system and will be one which the Minister will consider.

We could also have tattooing which is common in most European countries. It was introduced in order to deal with the problem of rabies. It is cheaper to tattoo a dog, the cost being about £8 as opposed to £20 for micro-electronic implantation. However, the advantage of the latter system is that it would allow a link to registration, licensing and ownership. A simple hand device in the possession of a dog warden would allow him to establish immediately who was the owner and whether the dog was licensed. It would also enable us to send out renewal notices for dog licences. This is a problem at present because the system is not computerised. Some Senators asked why people were not reminded when their licence had expired. The reason is that licensing is not computerised. Registration would have to be brought in on a phased basis.

Senator Finneran referred to crossbreeding. The Minister can control the breeding of dogs, prevent the breeding of certain strains, ban the importation of certain dogs, have certain dogs sterlised and so on. Senators Cosgrave and Finneran were anxious to ensure that guide dogs, which are of invaluable assistance to blind persons, would not be placed at a disadvantage in any way. As the Senators know, the regulations made last year requiring the muzzling of dogs exempted guide dogs used by blind persons, dogs used by the Garda Síochána and dogs used to look for missing persons and so on.

Senator Finneran raised questions in relation to guard dogs. There was an anomaly in the regulation in the 1986 Act that somebody supervising the enforcement of the regulation could not enter a premises to monitor the enforcement of the law if there were not five dogs on the premises. This meant where there was only one, two, three or four dogs the enforcement or the monitoring could not take place. In many situations there might be only one guard dog, certainly there might not be as many as five. That loophole is being removed through this legislation.

If we are to have effective enforcement obviously we will need more dog wardens. Some Senators think that would cost more money. I do not accept that. Local authorities have enormous powers under the 1986 Act. They have been given even more substantial powers under this Bill in that the Minister will not have to be consulted before they enter into agreements with other persons to take over their responsibilities and so on. This is a function that local authorities can make self-financing. I have no doubt about that. The doubling of the licence fees to £10 for a regular licence and to £200 for a general licence, the enforcement of on-the-spot fines and the taking of prosecutions can and should be self-financing. The general taxpayer should not have to subsidise or subvent the enforcement of dog control legislation. I would encourage local authorities to make by-laws, which they have the power to do, if they want to go further and to make certain regulations that would affect their functional area.

Last week I had the pleasure of addressing the General Council of County Councils annual meeting in Donegal. Most of the comments made by councillors are to the effect that they feel they have too little power. This Bill seeks to give them more power in matters which affect local areas. They have substantial powers to make by-laws and to enforce the law on a self-financing basis and I would encourage them to do so.

In relation to excrement, dogs urinating and so on, what Senator Upton called dog droppings, Dublin Corporation recently initiated by-laws under section 17 of the 1986 Act. Those by-laws have been confirmed by the Department and they will be put into effect. Effectively they will require the owner of the dog to take away the droppings to a safe disposal place and not to just put it anywhere. I would like to see by-laws of that kind enforced throughout the country. Somebody referred to a waste bin. It is a very difficult area to deal with and I get frequent complaints from members of the public about it. Responsibility must rest with the owners of the dogs.

Senator Upton referred to the fact that most dogs do not attack people in public places but in their homes. I do not disagree with that but it would be an infringement of the privacy of the individual and their enjoyment of their pets if we were to require very stringent controls on pets within the family home or dwelling. That would be a gross interference on the part of the State. It would be unwarranted and could not be justified. What we are seeking to do is to strike a balance to protect the public. Anybody in a public place is entitled to assume they will not be attacked by a dog or in any way to be intimidated by an animal that is not properly muzzled and leashed. That is why the regulations in this legislation have been brought forward.

I cannot accept Senator Upton's view that it is only when the dog commits the deed, the first bite principle, that proceedings should be taken. It is far too serious. We cannot wait until somebody is killed or badly injured before we have the kind of controls that would allow us to implement the law. That would be grossly irresponsible and we would be failing in our duty to the public.

This is enabling legislation and much of it will only come into effect when the regulations are made. Last summer my Department wrote to many interested bodies asking them for their views and many of them submitted their opinions. We have not closed off the possibility of receiving other submissions and if there are people, including members of this House, who have views in relation to the making of those regulations — the form they should take, whether we should have a multi-annual licence, the types of dogs that might be banned and so on — they should make their views known to the Department because careful consideration will be given to the making of these regulations which, in effect, will enforce this legislation.

I thank the House for the courtesy with which it has dealt with this Bill and I look forward to the remaining stages of the Bill being passed in the next five minutes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I thank the Minister and the Members of the House for their co-operation in disposing of this Bill. It is proposed to sit on Tuesday next at 2.30 p.m.