Vol. 200 No. 10
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (1), lines 27 and 28, to delete "subsection (17) of section 8,” and substitute “a provision referred to in section 6(1),”.
This amendment is necessary, as a number of offences are specified in section 6(1) as being summary offences only. Why should all of these offences, instead of the single offence of failing to display a certificate, not be capable of being dealt with by an on-the-spot fine? We ask the Minister of State to consider the matter.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. Section 8(17) provides that, if a dog breeding establishment does not prominently display its registration certificate, it shall be guilty of an offence. The proposed amendment would expand the number of offences included in section 8(17) to include offences already listed elsewhere in the Bill. These include offences provided for in section 8(16) — providing false information — and section 17(5) — obstructing or interfering with an authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána and non-co-operation with a request for information.
While I do not propose to push the amendment at this stage, I reserve my right to consider doing so on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (3), line 34, to delete "3 months" and substitute "12 months".
We are proposing this amendment to qualify our general view. In principle, Fine Gael supports the Bill, since there is an obvious need for regulation of dog breeding establishments. However, we are seeking ways to improve the legislation and enhance the standard of current facilities. It is with this in mind that the amendment has been proposed.
On Second Stage the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government referred to the three-month lead-in time. He stated:
This lead-in time will allow dog breeding establishments to meet the necessary standards and avoid the problem of having to dispose of a number of unwanted dogs ... The Bill provides that a period of up to three months will be provided from the commencement of the Act for dog breeding establishments to be registered.
While we agree with the notion that there should be a lead-in time, the newness of the Bill means breeding establishments might not be aware of its full implications. They should be given a reasonable opportunity to put their houses in order and, if necessary, the proper standards in place. The Minister has acknowledged the opportunity for establishments to address their standards, as he has allowed three months in which to do so, but Fine Gael believes a period of three months may be unreasonable in the light of the implications. For example, there may be planning implications if a breeding establishment has to apply for planning permission to bring the structures it currently uses to house its brood bitches up to standard. We agree that proper standards of housing for brood bitches and dogs of all types should be in place.
The amendment which would allow a lead-in period of 12 months is reasonable. We are open to the Minister of State's suggestions, but three months is too short a period in which to deal with any planning consequences as a result of these regulations. Let us take as an example a traditional farm that has entered the dog breeding business. That farm might be run to a very high standard with those dogs receiving the best of care but the old buildings that might have been used to house the dogs might not be up to the standard required in these regulations. There may be a need for that business to apply for planning permission. We all understand that planning permission is not granted quickly and that objections and so on may be submitted. It is a reasonable amendment, therefore, to provide for a 12-month period, during which all the consequences of the regulations regarding planning or otherwise can be considered, to give people the opportunity to put their house in order and have proper standards in place when the regulations and inspections commence.
I said during the debate on Second Stage that we need buy-in to this legislation from all the stakeholders. We need people to understand and agree to the regulations coming into place. One of the best ways to do that is to provide a reasonable opportunity for people to comply with the regulations and their consequences for establishments.
We propose this 12-month period to give people adequate time to apply for planning permission or otherwise to get their establishments up to the required standard. The Minister of State has already acknowledged that a lead-in time is reasonable. We are merely saying that should be extended to a period longer than that provided in the section. We have specified 12 months, but if the Minister of State was to provide for six or eight months, or longer, we would be happy to consider that.
I will be interested to hear the Minister of State's response. This is a reasonable amendment. It is tabled in an effort to be inclusive to try to involve the stakeholders, the very people to whom these regulations will apply, to get them to buy in to the legislation and not to give them any reason to complain that they were not given reasonable time or an opportunity to put in place the necessary requirements that will be needed as a result of these regulations.
I agree with the proposed amendment. Senator Coffey outlined the problems that might be perceived by people who are trying in good spirit to meet the regulations this new law will define. The problems are not just related to planning, although planning issues are a concern. They could be related to budgeting. People often put in place a budget for the year. They could be related to obtaining credit from banks to do any necessary upgrade or remedial works.
The three-month period provided is too short. We all want these establishments to be registered. The provision of a 12-month period is eminently suitable. If the Minister of State is not happy with this amendment, he might change the legislation to allow a staged process whereby if, after three or six months, institutions showed an itemised plan of work they intended carrying out over the subsequent six months, that would suffice. I would be concerned about enshrining in law the requirement to complete any remedial works within three months because it would be very difficult in the current climate to achieve that timescale. It may have the effect of driving some establishments underground or some people out of business. We all appreciate the need for this but I ask the Minister of State to have some thought for the difficulties a three-month limit might impose on breeders.
I do not propose to accept the Senator's amendment to this section. The proposed amendment would extend the period in which dog breeding establishments have to register from three months to 12 months. It could be argued that the five years that have elapsed since the report on the working group should be considered an ample lead-in time for the new regulatory regime. However, I am seeking to ensure a smooth transition to full registration while also keeping the period allowed for registration meaningful. Therefore, I propose to retain the three-month period for registration provided in the Bill.
This measure is for registration purposes. There is no restriction on a local authority carrying out an inspection and issuing an improvement notice. The local authority can and will have an itemised list if it is necessary but it may not be. Planning permission comes under a different code. It has nothing to do with this.
Are all the regulations, standards and so on that would apply to these breeding establishments published? Are they all in the public domain to ensure anyone who has a dog breeding kennel knows exactly the standards that will apply to them once this legislation is enacted, or is there more to come? Given that this legislation is significantly different from the recommendations of the dog breeders working group that was established, perhaps there might be a need to extend this period because the full information is not available even as we speak?
The Minister of State said that it could be argued that the working group was sitting for five years but, with due respect and in fairness to all involved, not every breeding establishment would have been privy to what was or was not said in the working group. That was a steering group set up to inform the Minister and his Department on drafting the legislation, and it made some excellent recommendations. It is not reasonable to say that breeders might have been aware of this legislation and its impact for over five years.
The thrust of this amendment is to try to bring reason, to get buy-in from people in order that they would accept the need for regulation, and to give them ample time to address whatever shortcomings they may have. The Minister has acknowledged as much by allowing for a period of three months. Senator Hannigan made a valid point, with which I agree, that many of these breeding establishments might have been traditional farms or otherwise and then went on to develop into a rural business. Many of those businesses would have year-on-year accounts, capital expenditure and day-to-day expenditure. To get the necessary people to buy in to this legislation and to win the trust of these stakeholders, the most important people to have involved, to ensure we do not drive this activity underground and have people hiding from registration because they might not have the adequate facilities, why not give them the opportunity at the outset to put their house in order and give them a 12 month lead-in time to do so? They could be given six months or eight months — we are open to consideration on that — but, from a planning perspective, we believe three months is too short. In the event that a well-established breeder's premises was not up to the required standard, as Senator Twomey said, and if information on the technical sizes for kennels for the dogs, breeding bitches and pups was not available to breeders, they would not have prior knowledge of the requirements with which they would have to comply.
This is a reasonable amendment. Will the Minister of State consider again accepting it? If he does not do so at this Stage, he might consider it at a later Stage to ensure there is more buy-in into this legislation. We do not want to be exclusive or give a message that could drive underground people who will not comply because they have not been given a reasonable time to meet the required standards. I appeal to the Minister of State in the interests of inclusiveness, which is what legislation should be all about, to extend the period provided. If he does not want to accept the Fine Gael amendment, he might table an amendment to extend the timeframe to give people a reasonable chance to comply with the regulations given the effect they will have on these establishments. That is what good legislation should be about, namely, getting people to buy into it, to accept what the law seeks to do and to comply with it. Extending the period provided would help in that process. I genuinely request the Minister of State to consider doing that.
I concur with everything Senator Coffey said. The Minister of State said that the details of proposed legislation have been known for some time, but what is the overriding need to limit this period to three months? What is the concern? Why can he not accept a period of 12 months? The argument why we desperately need a three-month limit has not been sufficiently made. What is the overriding need for it and why will he not consider the change proposed?
The working group's deliberations are available to the public and are on the website. It might be helpful if I were to explain to the House that once the legislation is enacted, there will be a public consultation period which will be announced by the Minister. Not until after that public consultation period will the regulations be written, with the three months kicking in from that stage. There will be ample opportunity for the public consultation process.
Once the regulations are in place, every establishment has three months to go to the local authority and register. After that, any of the issues raised here will be a matter between the establishment and the local authority. An improvement notice, as provided for in the legislation, must be issued and a timeframe has to be agreed with the establishment and the local authority. That could be related to planning permission or other matters. This will not be thrown on establishments the minute we are finished in both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I thank the Minister of State for his response but it still does not alleviate the concern we have on this side of the House. I accept his view that the three-month period will come into effect after commencement.
