Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)

As previous speakers indicated, the original aim of this Bill was to establish a level of control in respect of the abuses of puppy farming. Everyone agrees that the standards which obtain in other countries do not apply in Ireland, ensuring that unscrupulous breeders are able to take full advantage of our lax controls. This has led to widely-reported incidents of over-breeding, animals living in poor welfare conditions and this country having bestowed upon it the unwelcome title of the "puppy farm capital of Europe".

The intensive dog breeding industry has acknowledged that approximately 90,000 puppies are bred here annually and that, of these, 45,000 are exported overseas, primarily to the United Kingdom. This trade in puppies is valued at €29 million. Permanent identification of these pups before they leave the premises where they were bred is essential in order that their origins might later be identified. Microchips are a practical means of permanently identifying dogs. All industry experts agree that they are the most effective means of ensuring traceability. The latter is essential to protect the consumer, breeding integrity, etc. In 1995, when I was serving as a Minister of State, I introduced what became the Control of Horses Act, which brought forward the concept of using microchips to identify horses. This concept has worked extremely well in the interim.

I understand that in the draft memorandum to Government in respect of this matter, it was clearly stated that greyhounds would be exempted from microchipping. However, the Bill does not indicate that this will be the case. As several speakers stated, greyhounds are tattooed in order that they can be identified. I accept that I risk being repetitive but I wish to place on record the fact since the inception of the stud book, greyhounds have been tattooed. This method of identification has served the industry well. The tattoo earmark is applied by control stewards, who are jointly appointed by the Irish Coursing Club, ICC, and the Irish Greyhound Board, IGB. Control stewards conduct inspections of breeders' premises on each occasion on which a litter is born. They also conduct inspections of brood bitches prior to the latter giving birth. This level of inspection ensures standards are maintained and the early detection of any welfare issues. The Irish greyhound stud book is recognised worldwide for its integrity. It achieves an additional layer of control by ensuring the DNA profiling of all stud dogs and brood bitches. This is not replicated by any other dog breed in Ireland. The significant costs associated with maintaining this service are largely met by greyhound owners and breeders through the payment of registration fees.

My original impression of the Bill was that the basis it sets out for determining a greyhound breeding establishment is open to question. I accept it may have changed on foot of discussions in the Seanad. The Irish Coursing Club has confirmed that a trainer may have a number of bitches on his or her premises for the sole purposes of racing. He or she will be licensed by the Irish Greyhound Board. On the conclusion of its racing career, the owner takes charge of his or her greyhound. Trainers do not manage greyhounds for the purposes of breeding. A person rearing greyhounds will not be engaged in the activity of breeding and will return each greyhound when the greyhound reaches adult stage. Such a person is clearly not running a breeding establishment. An owner may have a number of greyhounds for the purposes of racing or coursing. The number of greyhounds he or she owns will fluctuate over time, due to the normal practices of selling and purchasing. The greyhound board operates a licensed trainer register for public and private trainers, who are subject to inspection by stipendiary stewards prior to approval by the board. They are inspected on a continuous basis thereafter. The coursing club operates a comprehensive register of all activities associated with breeding - matings, litters born, adult greyhounds named and transfers of ownership completed. All greyhounds are tattoo earmarked for identification purposes. If a greyhound is found straying, the club can be contacted immediately to determine its ownership details. As far as I am concerned, it is unrealistic to equate greyhounds with puppies in this manner. It has no foundation.

The proposed limit of six litters per bitch is neither reasonable nor practical. The industry depends on stakeholders breeding brood bitches, particularly successful brood bitches. It is only the very successful broods that will be bred on more than six occasions. The responsible approach, which exists currently, is for the owner and his or her vet to decide on the appropriateness or otherwise of breeding from a bitch at a certain stage of her life cycle. This decision is based on the health status of the bitch and can be signed off on by the vet. The requirement that a bitch may not be mated within 12 months of her previous litter is not workable. The season cycle of a bitch may vary. From a practical perspective, one may only be able to mate a bitch every two years if one falls inside the 12 month stipulation. This will have an impact on the breeder as he or she operates a breeding regime, based on the brood bitch's season cycle and the advice of his or her vet.

I am glad the Minister recognised that some of the provisions he wants to introduce for the greyhound business can be achieved by amending the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, section 26(2) of which explicitly recognises that the Irish Coursing Club is "the controlling authority for the breeding and coursing of greyhounds". The club's constitution states that it "shall be the controlling authority over matters relating to the breeding .... of thoroughbred greyhounds and greyhound coursing in Ireland". No other bodies or legislation are identified. The 1958 Act exists as a document ready and waiting for the insertion of legislatively approved welfare amendments. That has been promised and can be done immediately. I understand the Minister has been in contact with the greyhound organisations to that end. The welfare groups have also agreed to this practical approach. Welfare amendments for the Act, which go far beyond the strictures of the Bill itself, have been drawn up, developed and distributed to all relevant parties and have met the approval of the welfare group coalition.

While the Bill's definition of a dog breeding establishment is appropriate to the type of dog generally taken in by puppy farms, it does not apply to greyhounds, which are physiologically different from other dogs and mature much later. I ask the departmental officials to take into consideration the fact that a greyhound develops much more slowly than a puppy. The Bill's threshold age of six months for a bitch as being capable of breeding does not apply to greyhounds, which are generally 12 months of age or more by the time their oestrus cycle commences. Perhaps the Minister can address the important issue of age in his reply. The point I am making has been confirmed by the Society of Greyhound Veterinarians and is corroborated in many contemporary and historical sources. It has been suggested that a welfare amendment could be made to the 1958 Act immediately, to prohibit the registration of any mating or litter of a bitch less than 15 months old, given that most bitches are not bred before two years of age. That change could be made to the 1958 Act without having to be included in this legislation.

The Bill before the House does not reflect the ongoing and continuous fluctuations in greyhound breeding. One breeder might own three bitches, two of which he has decided not to breed from this year and one of which has recently had a litter with three bitch puppies in it. Under the current Bill, importantly, such a person is considered to be a "breeding establishment". When those puppies are sold three or four months later, however, he will no longer be considered as such an establishment. This change of status is not accounted for in the Bill. Likewise, someone might own three elderly retired brood bitches and three young bitches in training, none of which is intended for breeding. Such an owner would also be considered to be a "breeding establishment". I would like the officials to address the last two points, in particular, because they are the kernel of this whole debate. The aim of the Bill was to establish some level of control over the abuses of puppy farming, which tarnishes Ireland's reputation and is a separate and distinct problem in itself. By widening the scope of the Bill to include greyhounds, coursing dogs, track dogs and hunting dogs, the Minister has lost sight of the original intent of the Bill.

See this speech in context