Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

The initial core intention of this Bill was to address the scandal of puppy farming in Ireland. For many years, Ireland has had an unfortunate but deserved reputation as the capital of the European puppy farming industry. It is estimated that the industry, if I can use that term, is trading in pups to the value of €29 million per annum. The intensive dog breeding industry is estimated to produce approximately 90,000 pups per annum, half of which are exported overseas, predominantly to the UK puppy market. For too long in Ireland, this intensive industry has remained unregulated. The standards that are in place in other European countries have yet to be put in place here. Ultimately, we are playing a game of catch-up that should have been played long ago. It could have been done two or three years ago, when the working group completed its reports. For some reason, the Bill has been taken in a direction that has slowed long-overdue legislative measures to deal with Ireland's puppy farming scandal.

Over the years, lax controls have led to legitimate allegations of the over-breeding of dogs in very poor conditions. It has been suggested that many of the dogs held in puppy farms can be compared to battery hens whose value is solely measured in terms of how many pups they can give birth to, and how often they can produce each litter. When it comes to dealing with puppy farming, there is unanimous support across all parties. The broad and widespread cross-party agreement on this issue has been demonstrated eloquently and will be again over the course of this afternoon's debate. Everyone is looking for legislation to be introduced in this House to deal with the scandalous practices that have existed in Irish puppy farming for a significant period of time. Like other political parties, the Labour Party believes measures to deal with this scandal are long overdue. In supporting the introduction of measures to deal with the scandal, our approach, as the Bill passes through the House, will be based on the following five principles.

First, the Labour Party supports measures to ensure the proper regulation of puppy farms, as was the original intention of the Bill. Second, the Labour Party believes there is already existing legislation on the regulation of the greyhound sector, arising from the Greyhound Industry Act, and that matters and concerns relating to the sector would be best dealt with by amending and updating the 1958 Act. In this regard, I welcome what the Minister has said this afternoon, although his statement will require further perusal. I note the change of direction he indicated. I am not a coursing person, but Deputy Sherlock has informed me that the hare has been truly and surely "turned" on this matter and that there has been a climbdown on the issue.

Third, the Labour Party recognises that hunt clubs are not commercial dog-breeding establishments and that groups affiliated to the Hunting Association of Ireland, HAI, should be seen in that context and not be defined in the Bill as subject to the same definitions and regulatory regimes as puppy farms. I will expand on this issue later when we have heard the Minister's reply and will show that a number of anomalies, flaws and difficulties arise in Bill as a result of the Minister's lack of understanding of this area of canine care. Fourth, the Labour Party seeks to avoid a regulatory regime that could be exploited by opponents of legitimate dog hunting clubs. We want the Bill to put in place an inspection model that will address these concerns. Fifth, the Labour Party's focus with regard to this Bill will be on legitimate animal welfare matters and those relating to good canine care, which was and should be the core purpose of the Bill. The Labour Party will bring forward amendments to this Bill to address areas in which the Bill falls short in delivering or enhancing proper canine care. We will also bring forward amendments to deal with aspects that may lead to negative consequences in dog welfare as a result of how the Bill is drafted.

Like other Members, I listened intently to the Minister, Deputy John Gormley's speech earlier. It requires further reading and the devil may well be in the detail with regard to his intent. He determines that a house or farm with fewer than six breeding bitches need have no concern about this Bill as they will not come under the definition of a dog breeding establishment. The difficulty in this regard is that a number of dog hunting clubs do not keep all their dogs in one kennel, but they are dispersed throughout various kennels, mostly on the owner's property. How does the Minister define a dog breeding establishment in the context of them being dispersed and not in one location? How does he count the breeding bitches? Will breeding bitches be counted per club or per individual club member or owner? The certification process required in the legislation requires that a dog breeding establishment must display a certificate outside it. A well-known song in Cork, "The Boys of Fair Hill", is based around a famous hunting club. Is it possible that as a result of this Bill a person walking up Fair Hill will see dog breeding establishment certificates displayed outside many of the houses on the street? The Minister must consider seriously how this will be administered at local level. The Bill will create a mass of bureaucracy for clubs that hunt legitimately, whether drag hunting or fox hunting. These are clubs that take great care of the their hounds.

The Minister said that micro-chipping dogs was cheaper than tattooing them. What evidence has he got for that? There may be a strong argument for micro-chipping dogs bred for commercial purposes, because of what is involved in moving, exporting and importing them. However, hounds owned by a club do not move about as much and tattooing is simple and has worked to date. If, for example, a hound goes missing after a hunt, the club members will spend days, if necessary, looking for that dog. If a hound turns up anywhere in the country, the dog inspector lifts its ear and finds its tattoo and calls the hunt club. One does not find hounds in pounds. These are not the type of dog found in a pounds. As soon as a hound goes missing, the club begins searching for it. The Minister needs to revisit the section requiring across the board micro-chipping.

The Minister spoke about the two amendments he intends to bring forward and I would like to hear more about them. This Bill spent an extensive period of time in the Seanad, but, unfortunately, the Dáil will have less time on it. The Bill will go through every Stage in the Dáil in less than the equivalent of a working day. Second Stage of the Bill will not be completed this evening which means we will not hear the Minister's response until next Thursday afternoon, the day the Dáil will rise for the summer recess. On completion of Second Stage, the debate will go to Committee and Remaining Stages. This process makes for bad legislation. In recent years we have seen that such legislation gives rise to problems further down the line. What is the motivation behind this? Does the Minister think he has the monopoly on the best thinking on animal welfare? He does not. All Members share that.

I fail to understand why the Bill is being rushed through the House and will be guillotined next week, given the extensive period of time given to it in the Seanad. Why has the Minister decided it must be rushed through this House, particularly in view of the fact that he has put a stay on its commencement until 1 January because he needs to deal with some issue relating to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We are all aware that this method of dealing with the Bill makes for bad legislation and I could mention some examples of other legislation handled by the Minister's office which has given rise to similar difficulties.

I welcome the Minister's proviso that bitches must be four months old before being used for breeding. When this was debated in the Seanad, my colleague, Senator Dominic Hannigan, brought this issue to the Minister's attention. A number of times during that debate, it seemed the Minister was unfamiliar with the broad issue. That is regrettable and is ironic in that it was he who broadened the extent of the Bill from puppy farming. It seems he did so without an understanding of the direction he was taking with the Bill.

There are contradictions in the Bill, one of which relates to the how charges are being applied. Hunting clubs are not commercial breeding establishments and their costs cannot be seen in the same context as costs arising in puppy farms or dog breeding establishments, where thousands of euro are made each year. Such clubs are "not for profit" clubs that provide access to an activity or pursuit. However, there appear to be contradictions in what the Minister said in this regard. Fees to be imposed on hunting clubs are similar to those being imposed on dog breeding establishments, without regard to the fact that hunting clubs do not derive an income from breeding. The logic behind the fee seems to be based on an income from breeding.

I would dispute some of the figures the Minister gave regarding the cost of buying a dog from a dog breeding establishment. He seems to have underestimated the cost of some of those dogs. On the open market a bull dog costs in the region of €5,000 because of the Caesarean birth the breed requires and the expense of the veterinary treatment needed to manage this. That reinforces my earlier point that the type of moneys involved in these establishments and to be gained from certain breeds is significant. I reiterate this is a multi-million euro industry. One must compare like with like, however, because there are dogs which are not kept for commercial purpose and are not bred continually. A female hound may not be bred for several years, but as defined in this legislation, the situation of that hound is seen as equivalent to that of a dog breeding establishment.

There is another matter I wish to raise. Given that some clubs keep their dogs in dispersed mode, how will the new inspection regime operate and how will clubs register? If club members hold dogs in different locations, for example, in two different local authority regions, how will the Bill address that? How will those clubs register with an individual local authority? Which will they choose? If a club is in Cork, for example, will it register with Cork City Council? Will the club count its hounds and note that it has more hounds in the Cork city area than in the area covered by Cork County Council? If so, it should register with Cork City Council. How then, will the inspection regime work? Who will do the inspection if multiple local authorities are involved? Clarity must be supplied on this by the Minister.

Furthermore, the non-displaying of a certificate will bring a fine of €2,000. If club member has half a dozen or a dozen dogs on his or her property, will he or she be compelled to display the same type of certification outside the house as a commercial breeding establishment does? Will the person be open to the same type of fines as a commercial breeding establishment if he or she does not comply? There are significant differences between both situations.

I do not wish to miss out on the puns that have issued this afternoon. The Minister indicated that the charges involved will be related to the consumer price index. We will have a consumer watch dog as a result because if clubs have to pay money on the basis of the consumer price index there will be a challenge at some stage or other as to whether fees should go up or down due to that linkage.

As I stated, the Minister' s speech will require some in-depth reading. I am not entirely sure what he means. The decision to take the greyhound industry out of the legislation and to amend the 1958 Act is one the Labour Party has proposed for some time. I welcome the indication the Minister gave that this has been done. However, issues regarding inspections must still be worked out. The Minister stated today that only a vet can make a final report following an inspection. In my reading of the Bill, as laid out at present, it is unclear who is allowed to do the initial inspection. It is implied in the memorandum and, to some extent, in the Bill that the initial inspections can be contracted out by local authorities to different groups or individuals. In regard to what the Minister has stated, and given that he has given recognition to the greyhound industry and the Hunting Association of Ireland, does he now acknowledge that the type of inspection regimes to be put in place also need to be adapted to the nuances of those two areas? Will he tighten up the area regarding those permitted to carry out inspections? If local authorities begin to engage in subcontracting out the inspection regime, it will be open to different stakeholders with different interests to come in and put a particular determination as to how inspections are carried out.

I came to the Dáil three years ago. I do not claim the Labour Party has a monopoly of either good or bad ideas. The Green Party has had both good and bad ideas. What I have learned most of all during that period is that it is not having a good idea in Government that counts but legislating for and implementing a good idea. To date, what we have witnessed from the Green Party are some good and bad ideas being very poorly legislated. Yesterday, the House witnessed the passage of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill. The Tánaiste went on record to say the Government had mismanaged it and did not deal properly with the implementation of that legislation in this House. The Green Party's track record on this in the past three years is appalling. Legislation is pulled into the quagmire unnecessarily by that party, as happened with the current Bill until the Minister cleared up certain aspects.

One can take the example of the tax on second homes where last year "Liveline" more or less determined the course of legislation in the Seanad when this matter was being discussed. There was a debacle over caravans, second homes and granny flats and all the rest. There was the introduction of a new vehicle registration tax in the middle of the car sales year which brought an already under pressure car commercial sales industry to its knees and brought sales to a dead stop. The reason? Legislation that should have been introduced at the start of the car sales years was brought in at the mid point of the year.

A car park levy was announced but is yet to implemented. However, my favourite of all the Green Party measures introduced in recent years was the Minister, Deputy Gormley's nuclear test ban Bill. A person found guilty of detonating a nuclear bomb would be jailed for 12 months or given a €5,000 fine. That is a classic.

See this speech in context