I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, lines 9 to 14, to delete subsection (1), and substitute the following:
"(1) Section 1 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the definition of `general dog licence'.".
In the principal Bill there are two types of dog licences provided for, the first is an individual dog licence and the second is a general dog licence. The Bill endeavours to tighten up the definition of a general dog licence and to confine it to a number of dogs at a specific location so that it would not be possible to have a general dog licence for a number of dogs located in different kennels, premises or whatever.
The amendment which Deputy McCartan and I tabled seeks to remove the definition and concept of the general dog licence. The reasoning behind this is that we do not think there should be a bulk licence for numbers of dogs. There is a general problem with the licensing of dogs, something which Deputy McCartan mentioned earlier. At the moment about three-quarters of the dog population are not licensed. Only a minority of dogs are licensed and I suspect that the problem regarding the control of dogs has more to do with unlicensed than licensed dogs. It is fair to say that people who go to the trouble of licensing their dogs, generally speaking, take care of them. The problem in local communities and housing estates in regard to harassment of animals, by and large, come from the three-quarters of the dog population which are literally wild. They are wild in the sense that they are not licensed and are running wild.
We are talking about quite a large dog population. The Minister said there are 750,000 dogs in the country and about 600,000 are unlicensed. It is an enormous population of uncontrolled dogs. There should be a licence for every dog, that is the best way to identify the dog population and to control it. I cannot see the justification for a general dog licence or a reduction for numbers. Two situations have been suggested to me, one is where animal welfare organisations who take in dogs get a general dog licence to cover them. Unfortunately, in the Bill, the Minister will not allow for that because it will eliminate the possibility of a general dog licence for dogs kept in different premises. The second situation which arises is where dogs are kept for commercial reasons. It appears that the bulk of the general dog licences issued are for people in that category. The most recent figures I have relate to 1990 but I do not suppose they are greatly different in their general profile for 1991.
In most local authorities the numbers of general dog licences is in the order of three or four. In Dublin county there were three or four issued to security companies and commercial organisations who were keeping large numbers of dogs for commercial use. The big incidence of general dog licences is in Cork county, Limerick county and, to a lesser extent in Tipperary South-Riding and Kerry. I suspect that is because of the greyhound industry, for which I have great affection. However, there should not be class distinction in regard to dogs, whereby dogs owned for commercial purposes, either by security companies or by greyhound owners and breeders, have a reduced licence. The individual dog owner, for example, a householder, should not have to proportionately pay a larger licence fee.
The reason we tabled this amendment is to tease out why an advantage is being given to commercial interests who are making money out of their dogs. Security companies do quite well from keeping dogs for commercial reasons. The greyhound industry would probably argue very strongly — with some justification in recent years — that there is not much money to be made from their industry. Nevertheless, businesses which keep dogs for commercial purposes should not have an advantage when it comes to licensing. People should not be able to place a bulk order, so to speak, for licences so that 20 or 30 dogs could be licensed effectively at a reduced rate.