Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Yes.

On the previous occasion on which we met, I stated that I would provide briefing notes on hunting, on the way in which badger culling is approached by the Department, and on fur farming. The report I asked my officials to prepare - with outside assistance - on fur farming can be found on the Department's website. I also have some briefing notes on hare coursing. This is despite the fact that my Department is not responsible for the licensing or running of these various activities. It is obvious, however, that there is a connection between them all. I refer, in particular, to amendment No. 26 in this regard. We have approximately 80 minutes for our deliberations and if members are in agreement, I suggest we use this time to try to deal with all the issues around blood sports and fur farming and also the matters to which amendment No. 26 relates. I suggest this would allow members to air their concerns on this matter and would also permit us to tease out some of the issues in the context of where the Government is coming from in this respect.

There are some amendments in this group with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I refer, for example, to amendment No. 92, which was tabled by Deputy Pringle. I do not believe we should proceed in the way outlined in the amendment but I accept the principle of being able to use technology to identify animals. I would be happy to introduce an alternative amendment on this matter on Report Stage. The Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 contains a requirement to the effect that establishments which have in excess of a certain number of breeding bitches must microchip dogs over a certain age. In my view, all dogs being sold or purchased should be microchipped and I would be happy to legislate in this regard. There should be a proper implementation process in this regard and we should not, if members will excuse the pun, hound people who have had dogs for many years, who are looking after them very well and who may not have got around to having them microchipped. We need to introduce this on a phased basis and in a way that is consistent with the Dog Breeding Establishments Act in order that it will become normal practice that any dog which is being purchased or which someone is taking from an animal welfare organisation should have identification mechanisms fitted in order that they might be traced. In such circumstances, it would be possible to identify and trace puppies which are being exported to the UK or which are being abused in any way and also those who are supposed to be responsible for them.

If, for technical or legal reasons, an amendment does not make sense, then I am not going to accept it. However, this does not mean that I do not agree with the spirit of such an amendment. I will try to accommodate members in respect of amendments of this nature. It will not surprise colleagues that there are other amendments which I simply do not propose to accept. I am sure they will not be happy about that but I would at least like to provide a description of the way in which the Department is treating some of the issues to which those amendments relate. This will clarify the position and ensure our debate will not be based on rumour or on individual examples of cruelty which may be extreme and which should not be happening. We might then discuss my view, on behalf of the Government, in respect of some of the issues relating to hunting in order that we might tease out, from a legal perspective, what we should and should not be doing.

I will now read into the record some of the briefing notes that were circulated to members.