James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)

Against this background, a good and unambiguous definition of a "breeding bitch", which should be considered for inclusion in the Bill, would be "a female dog after its first litter".

With regard to the definition of a "breeding unit", in respect of pigs, such a unit is defined as a place where pigs are bred and reared until they reach 30 kg in weight. A possible suitable adaptation of that definition to the Bill before the House might be that a breeding unit "means a place where dogs are bred and born". The legislation would apply only to breeding units with more than the threshold number of breeding bitches or dogs. Selection criteria based on a combination of the suggested definitions I have outlined could remove the unnecessary "big bite" from the Bill and would focus it instead on the small number of dog breeding establishments that give rise to real problems. This would, in turn, allay the concerns of most ordinary, decent dog lovers and pet owners.

As a farmer who has dealt with animals all his life, I am concerned with regard to the long-term implications of the legislation. This week, we have witnessed traditions which developed over centuries being destroyed in a couple of days. In such circumstances, we should mourn the destruction of our unique heritage and wonder about what will take its place. The Minster must not - as always appears to be the case - forget the heritage aspect of his portfolio. The fact that this aspect tends to be forgotten was evidenced by the funding provided in respect of heritage in recent budgets. In light of the legislation the Minister has put before the House this week, it is obvious that the judgment of Solomon would be required to ensure the heritage to which I refer - also our animals - will be protected. In view of the evidence with which we have been presented, I am concerned that the Minister does not come anywhere near to possessing the type of judgment to which I refer.

One matter I would have liked the legislation to address - perhaps it might be dealt with in the other legislation the Minister will bring forward - is that relating to retired greyhounds. In light of the adverse publicity on this matter worldwide, it is essential that it should be addressed. While the majority of owners have a finely-honed sense of the duty of care they owe to their animals, it is obvious that abuses are also taking place. Under the general measure relating to cruelty, watertight provision must be made for the protection of these greyhounds. These animals, like all human beings and my colleague on the rearmost benches on the Government side - who was muttering and mumbling earlier and who will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate later - are deserving of care in their retirement.

Fine Gael has concerns about the Bill. The party has been very much to the fore in highlighting the issue of puppy farms. Its calls for regulation in this area date back six or seven years. As in respect of all these matters, however, the Minister, much though he would prefer it to be otherwise, does not have his finger on the pulse with regard to rural lifestyles and traditions. This legislation could prove counter-productive, particularly if a large number of regulations are imposed and puppy farms are driven underground as a result. This could give rise to a situation where those who are already running above-board establishments will continue to do so and those whom the legislation should be targeting will, as already stated, go underground.

I support the provision relating to the micro-chipping of all dogs in dog breeding establishments. This provides necessary safeguards for dogs and owners and is an example of what is positive about the Bill. However, the Bill goes way beyond the positive in its scope. The additional costs and the duplication of inspection structures to which it will give rise will impact on rural industries beyond that relating to the breeding of greyhounds. Fine Gael proposed amendments in the Seanad that would exclude these areas and direct the focus of the Bill towards puppy farms. However, with his usual lack of flexibility - the hallmark of the dictatorship to which I referred earlier - the Minister refused all of these proposals and has brought an unchanged Bill before the Dáil.

As everyone is aware, Fine Gael is not alone in challenging the legislation. Fianna Fáil Deputies and Senators have been vocal in criticising what they also perceive as an attack on rural Ireland. Last week, many Fianna Fáil Deputies were extremely hypocritical when the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill was debated.

See this speech in context