Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to be rude but I will stop Ms Gavaghan there because I am conscious that I do not have much time. This matter goes back to the crux of the problem, which is about consistency at local authority level. We and those who are interested in animal welfare are interested in consistency across the board. It would make sense if inspections were carried out by a national body, be it the Veterinary Council of Ireland or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and if there were an electronic register with all the relevant information. Regardless of whether there is a dog breeding establishment in Cork, Kerry or Dublin, the same data would be collected. Those same data would be available to members of the public so they could make informed decisions when purchasing pups. They would know exactly where pups are from, the sizes of the dog breeding establishments and the level of breeding.

Let us consider the Department's report on inspections. Cork county had 35 renewal applications but only three inspections. Mayo, by contrast, had ten renewals and ten inspections. Clearly, the local authority in Mayo inspected every single dog breeding establishment that applied to renew a licence whereas the local authority in Cork inspected only three of the establishments of the 35 applicants seeking a renewal. Even from looking at the chart in the report, one sees a lack of consistency at local authority level. We are calling for a more joined-up approach. The delegates will agree that this is what is needed. The Department might be in charge of the Act but the local authorities need to implement the laws consistently across the board.

The delegates noted in their report that the problem with the current definition of dog breeding establishment is that it also captures the animal welfare organisations, kennel clubs and so on. Would it be much better to separate them in order to have a clearer picture?