Joe O'Toole (Independent)

As the Minister was present I felt I should make the point. It is the classic example of getting my reaction in first because I believe the Minister is working on something else behind the scenes.

There is no question of the licence fee paying for the cost of what is proposed. One can work it out. I did the sums a while ago. I worked it out according to the minimum wage and how many people one could employ in a local authority. The dog breeders' associations recommendation of 2004 or 2005 was that each establishment would have to present or produce certain clearances signed by a vet, which would be sent to the Department. From the way the legislation is drafted, it seems that one could not give this additional function to dog wardens, that one has to appoint specific people. That is nonsense because one will not be able to pay them.

If the Minister wants to diminish the importance of the legislation, this Bill follows in a great line of previous legislation. I was present approximately 20 years ago when the dog muzzling legislation was introduced by Pádraig Flynn. I was present approximately 15 years ago, as was my colleague, Senator Norris, when the then Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, introduced the wandering horses legislation. Those Bills were never implemented. Some parts of this Bill will not be implemented either if we do not get it right.

I say with some certainty that there is no justification for not excluding the hunts and the hunt kennels from the provisions of the Bill. It is beyond contradiction that regardless of people's views about hunting or shooting, there would not be a pheasant in north Dublin or east Meath without the game associations. They look after their dogs themselves. I have no doubt whatever about that. In fairness, the Minister should consider that they would follow the rules of the hunt association.

I detect an error in section 15 re the microchip. "The operator of a dog breeding establishment shall cause a microchip to be implanted in each dog kept at that establishment." This is a Bill, which is mainly aimed at bitches. I do not know what is meant by "dog" in this situation but I suspect it is a flaw in the Bill. If the Minister intends bitches then he should specify that. That is obviously what is intended. It could lead to the Bill being ridiculed.

In section 2 where the Minister has a definition of a dog breeding establishment as "a premises at which bitches are kept, not less than 6 of which ... but shall not include a local authority dog pound", he should include "or a hunt club". A hunt club is then defined in the very next section. It is just a matter of making that small change. We need to do that.

The best way to ensure the legislation will work is to get the people working in the area involved. There is a view that people who hunt are cruel to animals. In fact, they love their animals. I know that is a contradiction to people who live in the city and do not understand it-----