John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

I am pleased to bring the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009 before the Dáil today. As the House is well aware, the topic of regulating dog breeding establishments has been on the agenda for some years now. In 2005, my predecessor established a working group to review the management of dog breeding establishments and make recommendations on the matter. This followed some well-publicised incidents of abuse, where dogs reared in Ireland were sold in a very poor condition. This was highlighted, in particular, on "Prime Time" and as Minister I was determined to deal with this very important animal welfare issue. That is why the Bill is before us today. The working group made a number of recommendations, the majority of which I intend to implement through this legislation, thereby providing for the first time in Ireland regulation of dog breeding establishments. The Bill will also increase the general level of the dog licence fee which has not changed since 1998.

At the outset, let me point out that no one with a premises, house or farm with less than six breeding bitches need worry about this Bill as they would not come within the definition of a dog breeding establishment. I want to assure the House that the preparation of this Bill has involved a large amount of ongoing consultation with a variety of interested parties, including Government Departments, voluntary bodies and sectoral interests. The draft Bill has been informed by these consultations with, among others, the Hunting Association of Ireland, the Irish Greyhound Board, which was represented on the working group, and the Dogs Trust. My officials and I have engaged intensively in particular with the Irish Greyhound Board, to re-assure it regarding its concerns relating to the Bill. To that end I will introduce amendments on Committee Stage. In addition, over 650 submissions where made in connection with the report of the working group, the majority of which were in favour of the regulation of dog breeding establishments. I wish to thank all of those for their participation and I am confident that the Bill is stronger for their input.

I have indicated to all concerned that there can be no exemptions for any breed of dog from the animal welfare provisions of this Bill and that we must ensure that we have adequate traceability. In this regard, it is my firm intention that we move towards microchipping for all dogs as quickly as possible. I have also stated that I understand the legitimate concerns of certain industry sectors, such as the Irish Greyhound Board, and I am prepared to accommodate them as best I can. For that reason it is proposed that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would amend the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 to legislate for welfare provisions for members of the Irish Greyhound Board. Once amended, the welfare of Irish Greyhound Board registered greyhounds would be addressed through the amended 1958 Act which would then replace, for Irish Greyhound Board registered greyhound breeders and trainers only, the provisions of the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009.

I must stress that before these provisions can be introduced, I, as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, must be satisfied that the animal welfare standards in the amended 1958 Act are of the same high standard as those in the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009. In particular, the amended legislation must provide for adequate traceability, the same level of enforcement and the involvement of local authority veterinary inspectors in inspection of facilities. There can be no diminution of standards whatsoever. We are following this course of action to ensure there is no unnecessary duplication, something which was highlighted.

As part of this proposal, until such time as the provisions listed above are incorporated into the 1958 Act the regulation of dog breeding establishments containing greyhounds will continue under my Department as provided for under the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009. Separately, the concerns of hunt clubs, as defined in the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009, will be addressed through the addition of a subsection to section 15 to allow for the continuation for the time being ofthe practice of tattooing of dogs in dog breeding establishments operated by hunt clubs as an alternative option to micro-chipping and the addition of a subsection to section 15 to require such tattoos to be registered on a database for traceability purposes.

I understand the difficulties for this sector in moving to a different form of traceability but I must point out that the international evidence shows that microchipping is superior and indeed cheaper. The adequacy of tattooing as a form of traceability will be assessed as part of a review of the legislation, to take place a year after its coming into force. If this review shows that tattooing is not proving adequate, we will have to move towards microchipping of all dogs. With the exception of these two amendments, hunt clubs would be subject to all of the remaining provisions of the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009.

Regulations will be developed upon the enactment of this Bill. These are intended as a reasonable and practical approach to give effect to the act. The regulations will be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the needs of specific groupings such as, for example, hunt dogs, for whom it is recognised that communal sleeping facilities are considered most appropriate. I would like to scotch the rumours that have been put out by RISE! and others that I am insisting on central heating for kennels; it is simply not true.

My Department will retain responsibility for dog control for the very practical reason that the dog control service is operated through the local authorities, while the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility for animal welfare. Deputies will be aware that my colleague the Minister, Deputy Smith, is also preparing an animal welfare Bill which will deal comprehensively with animal welfare issues. It will also deal with banning fur farming and I hope we can introduce it in the autumn.

I want to pay tribute to the many dog control staff and veterinary staff who work tirelessly to re-home strays, pick up abandoned dogs and keep residential areas and farms free from uncontrolled dogs. It can be a thankless job and should be acknowledged. I am confident that the measures in this Bill will assist them in their duties. As I have already mentioned, the basis for this Bill is the report of the working group on the review the management of dog breeding establishments. It should be noted that the terms of reference in 2005 of that group did not exclude greyhounds and the Irish Greyhound Board was represented on the working group. The following is a summary of the majority recommendations of that group and the actions I intend to take in regard to each.

The working group recommended that a State regulated registration system for dog breeding establishments be put in place and that these regulations should be enforced through the existing local authority dog control structures. The group also recommended that the regulations should include a comprehensive set of statutory enforceable standards for the operation of dog breeding establishments and provision for inspections by local authority officers. There are a number of separate issues within this recommendation. The first, that a regulation system be put in place, is one we can all agree with if only for the simple reasons of the welfare of dogs and for the good of this country's reputation in respect to care of dogs.

It is only proper that in a modern caring society legal remedies be put in place to deal with a minority of breeding establishments that rear pups in appalling conditions and sell malnourished and ill pups onto an unsuspecting public. I am heartened that the Hunting Association of Ireland and the Irish Greyhound Board have agreed with the need for such regulations. It is appropriate that regulation should be carried out by the local authorities whose dog control staff and veterinary staff have built up a considerable level of experience in dealing with dog control issues and would have a local knowledge of existing dog breeding establishments, albeit without the powers to regulate such premises until now. In regard to inspections, the Bill provides for inspection of dog breeding establishments, where necessary. Inspections are not mandatory but after initial registration are likely to arise in response to specific welfare issues.

I want this Bill to form the basis of a co-operative relationship between the local authorities and well run dog breeding establishments. The provisions in the Bill need not cause concern for those establishments who, over the years, have built up good premises and practices in co-operation with their local veterinary practice. As part of this relationship the local authority will be required to inform a dog breeding establishment of any grounds on which it would refuse to register a premises. The local authority will be statutorily obliged to pay heed to any reply from the establishment in regard to a potential refusal or conditions attached to a registration certificate. This will encourage a co-operative relationship between the local authority and any dog breeders in its administrative area.

The working group recommended that dog breeding establishments be defined based on the number of female dogs with breeding potential present on the premises. Therefore, a dog breeding establishment would be defined as "a premises containing more than 5 female dogs, aged over 4 months, with breeding potential".

Furthermore, the group emphasised in its report that the legal definition of a dog breeding establishment must be clear and unambiguous to ensure that regulations are enforceable and to avoid the experience in the UK where legal argument over whether a dog is one breed or another has rendered dog control legislation difficult to implement. Such a problem would invariably arise in Ireland if we made exemptions for breeds of dogs.

The Bill defines a dog breeding establishment as a premises at which not less than six bitches are kept, each of which is more than four months old and capable of being used for breeding purposes. I have signalled that I am willing to change the minimum age from four to six months in response to calls in the Seanad but this does not invalidate the sensible reason for the four month minimum, which was to ensure that every dog with breeding potential is included. It does not mean I am setting down a marker for when breeding should start.

The working group rejected the idea that the number of litters produced should form the basis for definition because the constant monitoring required would make the regulations difficult and potentially expensive to enforce. It is my belief that the limit of not less than six bitches will exclude the majority of people who keep dogs as pets. While there might be instances, such as on farms, where the number of bitches might exceed six, the stipulation that they have to be capable of breeding will ensure retired animals are excluded from the count provided they are sterilised. Pups under six months would also be excluded.

The working group recommended that the new regulatory regime be self-financing and funded by varying the existing general dog licence fee. I originally proposed that the cost of regulation and inspection of these establishments will not fall on the general population but will be borne by the dog breeding establishments through a registration fee. However, having regard to concerns of the Hunting Association of Ireland and the Irish Greyhound Board, I have agreed registration fee exemptions for HAI registered members and greyhound trainers. I have also agreed to widen the fee bands so that a dog breeding establishment with six to 18 bitches capable of breeding and over six months old will pay a fee of €400. I reiterate that someone with less than six breeding bitches will not be brought under the Act, the regulations or the fees. These concessions on fees will mean that the cost of regulation of such establishments will be borne by fee paying registered breeders and the regular dog licence fee.

The new fees will vary in accordance with the number of breeding bitches so as to reflect the size and scale of the operation, as recommended by the working group. To that end the appropriate fee bands will be as follows: in the case of a dog breeding establishment at which six to 18 eligible bitches are kept, €400; for 19 to 30 bitches, €800; for 31 to 100 bitches, €1,600; for 101 to 200 bitches, €3,000; and a further €1,600 for each 100 bitches thereafter. The fee will be payable to the local authority and the moneys raised are intended to cover the costs of regulation and inspection. Any remaining balance will be spent on dog control in general.

The fees can be hardly considered excessive when set against the income stream from the number of breeding bitches. For example, a premises with 12 breeding bitches might conservatively be expected to produce nine litters per annum of six pups each, resulting in 54 pups. A search on the Internet will show a healthy range of prices for pedigree dogs. Akitas and bulldogs sell from €800 to €1,500 each, Kerry blues are a more modest €250 to €350 each and the popular but apparently plentiful Jack Russell sells for up to €120. These average prices appear to have come down in the past year. The proposed registration fee of €400 for a puppy farm of 12 bitches producing a modest 54 pups would equate to a cost of only €7.40 per pup. If the breeder has three times that number of bitches, and consequently three times as many pups, the registration fee would be less than €3 per pup. Such a charge could be hardly considered excessive if it ensures that the country has properly run and reputable dog breeding establishments.

The cost of owning a dog is as nothing to most people compared to the immeasurable joy and health benefits to be gained from the companionship of a dog. It follows that people should be careful and responsible when purchasing dogs by making sure they know its source. The ISPCA guidelines regarding care of pets should be followed. The ISPCA also advises new owners to bear in mind the financial implications of owning a dog. Vaccinations, flea and worm treatments and veterinary expenses such as nail cutting and teeth-cleaning soon mount up. The cost of boarding kennels whilst one is on holidays should be also considered.

The working group recommended that all dogs kept in breeding establishments, including their offspring, be electronically microchipped to ensure traceability and assist the enforcement of the registration system. It is a requirement of the Bill that each dog in a breeding establishment shall be microchipped. This provision builds on existing practice whereby any dog registered with a breed association is microchipped for the purpose of registration and verifying bloodlines. A number of companies provide microchipping services at present. The microchip, which is approximately the size of a grain of rice, is implanted under the skin of a dog's neck. It serves a useful purpose in helping dog control staff reunite stray dogs with their owners. It is my intention on Committee Stage to provide that dogs in dog breeding establishments will be microchipped at 12 weeks for the first year of the operation of the Act. This will reduce the burden on breeders from the original requirement of eight weeks. After a transitional period the provision will require all dogs to be microchipped before leaving the establishment.

The working group recommended that the new dog breeding regulation system be introduced on a phased basis using an improvement notice model to avoid the creation of a surplus of dogs as a result of the closure of substandard dog breeding establishments. It is my intention to provide for as smooth a transition as possible. The Bill provides for a period of up to three months for a lead-in time and I propose to extend this to six months in response to calls made in the Seanad. The lead-in time will be provided from the commencement of the Act. It shall be lawful for an existing dog breeding establishment to operate during this period, thereby facilitating a smooth transition to full registration. At this stage, there cannot be a dog breeder in the country who is unaware of the pending legislation. The six month lead in period will allow all stakeholders to familiarise themselves with the requirements of the legislation and for liaison to occur between local authorities and dog breeders.

In line with best practice in regulatory regimes, there is an appropriate scale of regulatory actions which can be taken to gain compliance. I envisage a liaison between local authorities and dog breeding establishments. If agreement is not reached between the local authority and the establishment, the authority will be empowered under section 18 to issue an improvement notice. This improvement notice can be issued only by a local authority veterinary practitioner and not a dog warden. The notice will state the measures to be taken in a specified timeframe. This is in line with the recommendations of the working group.

The working group also stressed that the provisions of the Bill be meaningful, relevant and implementable. As a logical next step to the improvement notice, the Bill provides local authorities with the power to close a premises where standards present a significant health risk. It is envisaged that such a closure notice under section 19 of the Bill would be used only in the event of a significant and immediate threat to public health. This provision will provide re-assurance to the public that quick action can be taken in response to threats to public health from dog breeding establishments. While the dog warden can carry out the initial inspection, I will provide by an amendment on Committee Stage that an improvement order can be issued only after a visit by a local authority veterinary officer.

Other provisions are included to ensure the correct functioning of a regulatory regime for dog breeding establishments. It is important that provision is made for an appeals mechanism where conditions are imposed on a registration. Each successful applicant will receive a registration certificate after submitting the appropriate fee and completing an application form. The Bill provides that where a local authority proposes to impose conditions on the issuance of a registration certificate, it shall notify the applicant and must consider the applicant's response. Furthermore, the applicant can appeal the decision of the local authority to the District Court.

It is important that the Bill allows me, as Minister, to issue mandatory guidelines relating to minimum standards for dog breeding establishments. For the regulations to be successful and receive broad acceptance, I place great importance on full consultation. In excess of 650 individual submissions were received by my Department at the consultation phase after the working group report. While in general there was support for regulation, there was no consensus on the way forward. I assure the House that I will finalise the guidelines only after consultation with interested parties, including the Hunting Association of Ireland, the Irish Greyhound Board, the Dogs Trust and local authority veterinary officers.

A provision is necessary requiring the owner of an establishment to give reasonable co-operation with dog wardens. This is needed in general but in particular where an establishment operates from the home of the owner. In such cases there are constitutional entry restrictions to a private dwelling on the warden, which are provided for in the Bill.

The current dog licence fee of €12.70 for a single licence and €254 for a general dog licence was set in the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act 1992 and activated in February 1999 under the Control of Dogs (Commencement) Regulations 1998. Licences are generally issued through An Post which has increased its administrative charge to €3.50 per licence, leaving €9.20 to the local authority. Local authorities need this income to pay towards the provision and maintenance of a dog control service. In most cases the local authority subsidises the service, in some instances to a significant degree. This position is not sustainable. It is considered that a dog licence fee of €20 would not place an undue burden on dog owners when set against the other costs of responsible dog ownership such as veterinary costs and food. The €20 fee only reflects the rise over the years of the consumer price index to September 2009, notwithstanding recent falls in the CPI.

Figures for 2009 show that the cost of the dog control function countrywide is €5.6 million, with the revenue raised from existing licences being €2.5million. The increase in the licence fee should generate at further €1.6 million revenue which will help better resource the local authorities to check licences, operate pounds and pick up strays. A better resourced dog control function should help combat attacks on sheep by stray dogs which is a serious cause for concern and income loss to sheep farmers.

My Department gave some consideration to allowing pensioners apply for dog licences for free. This aim is laudable and the Government has made every effort to protect the incomes of pensioners. Again, in the context of the cost of properly maintaining a dog, €20 for a licence is not considered excessive and encourages responsible dog ownership. It should be remembered that the money raised from the licence fees goes towards the cost of the local authority dog control services, rescue of dogs, operation of dog pounds and safeguarding of children and adults against dangerous dogs. It would not be feasible to reduce this income stream. In addition, there is an administrative fee of €3.50 per licence charged by An Post which would still have to be paid by the local authorities for every free licence. Bearing all this in mind, it is not considered feasible to provide for free dog licences.

I take this opportunity to run through the main provisions of the Bill. Part 1, sections 1 to 5, inclusive, contains the usual provisions of a general nature dealing with such matters as Short Title, collective citations and commencement, definitions regulations, expenses of the Minister and service of documents. The key element within this Part is the definition of a dog breeding establishment as a premises at which are kept not less than six bitches, each of which is more than four months old and capable of being used for breeding purposes. This definition reflects that recommended by the recommendations of the working group. As stated, I am willing to change the four months old to six months in response to concerns expressed in the Seanad.

Section 6 provides for fines not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment up to six months on summary conviction for certain offences, including providing false information, non-display of registration certificate or obstruction of authorised personnel. The same penalties can be applied to summary conviction for forgery and contravening a closure order for a dog breeding establishment. Increased penalties can be applied on indictment. Fines shall be paid to the relevant local authority. I emphasise that fines are regarded as a last resort. It is expected that the breeders and local authority can engage in a constructive dialogue to improve facilities without recourse to court action.

Section 7 on fixed payment notices provides that a fixed notice fine can be issued for non-display of a registration certificate for up to €2,000, that will fall due within 21 days. Moneys so raised will be payable to the relevant local authority. I place a great deal of importance to the public display of a registration certificate as this will contribute to the transparency of and help build confidence in the standards of dog breeding establishments.

Part 2 contains sections 8 to 21, inclusive, which deal with the regulation of dog breeding establishments. Section 8 instructs local authorities to have a register of dog breeding establishments and requires operators of such establishments to register in the manner required and pay an annual fee. Section 8(3) provides that existing dog breeding establishments can continue to operate for three months after the commencement of the Act. I have committed to change this period to six months.

Under section 8(6), a local authority shall not register a premises if the application is not in order, the applicant is in breach of the Act or the local authority is of the opinion that the premises is not suitable for the operation of a dog breeding establishment. Each premises which receives a registration certificate must, under subsection (12), have that certificate prominently displayed. Under subsection (18), hunt clubs, commercial boarding kennels and charitable dog operations, for example, mountain rescue, will be exempt from paying fees but must register and be subject to possible inspection. Commercial boarding kennels will also be exempt from paying registration fees. I emphasise that while there will be exemptions from the payment of fees, exemptions from inspections and animal welfare provisions will not be made.

Section 9 provides 14 days for applicants to make representations against the local authority's intent to refuse registration. This section also provides that a local authority will notify each applicant whether it is to be registered.

Section 10 sets out the circumstances whereby an applicant may appeal the decision of the local authority to the relevant District Court against a refusal to register the dog breeding establishment or conditions that the local authority has set for registration. In the case of a refusal the District Court can order that the establishment be registered, set conditions for registration or affirm the refusal.

Section 11 provides for removal of dog breeding establishments from the register by order of the District Court and conditions which the District Court may impose. Reasons for removing an establishment from the register include where the operator has been convicted of cruelty to animals, has been convicted of an offence under this Act or the 1986 Control of Dogs Act or has breached an improvement order or a court order. A person who contravenes an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 12 sets out the appropriate fees in relation to a dog breeding establishment. The Minister may, by regulation, vary these charges in line with the consumer price index. It should be noted that the threshold is six bitches, four months old and capable of breeding. I intend to change the four month period to six months. Those with fewer than the number stipulated need not worry as they do not come within the Bill. Mr. Adrian Neilan, chief executive officer of the Irish Greyhound Board, stated at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 23 June that 91% of breeding establishments are small. If, by "small" he means fewer than six bitches, 91% of breeders do not fall within the Act. The matter is as simple as that.

The fees are in bands as follows: €400 for an establishment with six to 18 bitches, six months old and capable of breeding; €800 for 19 to 30 bitches; €1,600 for 31 to 100 bitches; €3,000 for 101 to 200 bitches and a further €1,600 for every 100 bitches thereafter.

Section 13 sets the registration charges as an annual charge payable to relevant local authority and provides that certain types of dog breeding establishments shall not have registration charges applied, including hunt clubs, charitable organisations and commercial boarding kennels.

Section 14 describes in general terms the duties of operators regarding the conditions in dog-breeding establishments which operators must provide and that records must be kept and be available for inspection. Section 14(5) provides for the Minister to invite representations on draft guidelines, consider representations received and publish guidelines on dog-breeding establishments. I will commence that process as soon as the legislation passes all stages.

Section 15 provides for all dogs in a dog-breeding establishment to be micro chipped and for updating of the database. As I have said already, micro chipping will be prior to 12 weeks old for the first year and prior to eight weeks old thereafter. This section will be amended for hunt clubs as signalled earlier. I want to emphasise that the international evidence shows that we must move to micro-chipping.

Section 16 allows a local authority to appoint certain persons including veterinary practitioners and those connected with animal welfare to act as authorised persons to assist the local authorities in its duties under the Act. While dog wardens will be allowed to carry out the initial inspection for registration purposes, I have provided by amendment that only veterinary officers can issue an improvement order.

Section 17 enumerates the powers of authorised persons including the power to enter and inspect any premises, other than a dwelling, suspected of being a dog-breeding establishment. The authorised person can inspect and take copies of records kept on the premises and can require the owner, operator or those employed in the establishment to answer relevant questions. Section 17(2) provides that an authorised person may be accompanied by other authorised persons or gardaí. It will be an offence to obstruct or refuse to comply with the authorised persons under section 17. An authorised person cannot enter a dwelling without the consent of the occupier or, failing consent, without a warrant issued by the District Court. I propose to provide that an authorised person can be accompanied by a stipendiary steward or a veterinary officer nominated by the IGB or ICC where the premises are operated by an IGB registered greyhound trainer or breeder. That is something I am happy to do and I hope it allays some of the concerns of those involved.

Section 18 provides for the local authority to serve an improvement notice on the establishment if the establishment is believed to be in breach of the Act or there is a threat to public health or animal welfare. The improvement notice will contain details of specific measures which are required to be taken within a specified timeframe and will inform the operator of the option to appeal to the District Court. Section 18(4) provides that notice may be appealed to the District Court. Section 19 provides for a local authority to issue a closure notice requiring a dog-breeding establishment to cease breeding or keeping dogs at the establishment on the basis of stated grounds. Provision is made for appeal to the District Court which shall affirm the notice, revoke it or give direction to the establishment. It will be an offence to contravene a closure notice.

Section 20 makes it an offence to operate an unregistered dog-breeding establishment except in specified circumstances where there is an application submitted or where it is subject to appeal. Section 21 makes it an offence to forge registration material or knowingly provide forged documentation or alter registration material with intent to defraud or deceive.

Part 3 contains a number of amendments to the Control of Dogs Act 1986. Section 22 provides for the addition of a new form of dog licence to cover the lifetime of a dog by varying the duration of the dog licence. Section 23 sets out the new licence fees as €20 for an individual dog licence, €400 for a general dog licence for numerous dogs and €140 for the lifetime of a dog licence. This section also allows the Minister to vary fees payable in line with the consumer price index. Section 24 provides for the establishment and maintenance of a database or databases and the information to be held therein.

The provisions increasing the dog licence fees will only reduce the present loss that local authorities incur in providing a dog control service. The new charges for licence fees would raise an estimated €4.3 million compared with the €2.6 million raised in 2009. However, the cost of the service in 2009 was €5.7 million.

I look forward to continued engagement on these provisions and on Government and Opposition amendments, which I expect will be constructive and helpful, on the Committee Stage. I believe this is important legislation that would improve the quality of life of animals in our puppy farms, something which has needed to be remedied for some time. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context