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.