Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Labour Party for allowing me time. When this Bill was published the Minister said his aim was to shut down back street operations. There is no doubt there are abuses in the area of dog breeding and the sale of pups, including the sale of pups bred in this country to become pets in Britain. Some of the main culprits are well known and have been named in the press. It is also true that the people in question are regarded with hostility and embarrassment by genuine dog breeders.

Therefore, I can appreciate there is a need to police and, ultimately, put these people out of business if they do not treat their animals in a responsible and fair manner. It has been suggested that as well as being well known personally, these people are also clearly identifiable because of the numbers of dogs they sell. It might be a matter, therefore, for the Irish Kennel Club to refuse to register dogs it knows to be kept in or sold from these premises.

The problem is that although their operations are illegal these people are able to operate under the radar. However, they still must sell and register their dogs which means that self regulating bodies are able to ostracise them. It is also up to people who buy dogs to ensure they buy them from legitimate breeders and see the premises where the animals are kept.

Given that the sector has such a high level of exports it should be licensed and regulated by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the same way as other sectors that breed animals for sale and export. The Welsh Assembly, for example, has encouraged farmers to move into dog breeding as an alternative to traditional farming and the regulatory system in Wales appears to be satisfactory. If the people engaged in the export of dogs were subject to the same export regulations as other sectors that might be another way to enforce rules and regulations and allow inspections to ensure that the dogs have been treated properly. Breeders would also require licences and this would help ensure the proper treatment of animals.

Many emotions have been raised on all sides about this Bill. There is an implication on one side that breeding and selling dogs for profit is immoral. Unfortunately, as with every other domestic or farm animal in this country, the reason most of them exist is that someone breeds and sells them to make money. Other people buy those dogs because they want them as pets or for racing or coursing. The relationship between human and dog is not equal. That is a fact of life and people have to accept it. The issue then is to ensure that those animals are treated well.

There is also an undoubted hostility on the part of many people to greyhound coursing, racing and indeed to horse racing. People are obviously entitled to their views, but the claim made that there is an agenda ultimately to ban a wide range of sports including those I referred to are not too wide of the mark. There are people who see this legislation and the stag hunting ban as part of that agenda and there is no doubt that they will pressure the Minister to extend bans to other sports involving animals. I am not sure whether the Minister subscribes to that agenda but it is clear that his party is identified with an anti-rural sports lobby. In a situation where the Green Party has demonstrated itself to be unwilling or unable to restrain current right-wing economic policies, it makes political sense for the party to attempt to deliver something substantial to its ideological constituency.

There was also a belief among people involved in the greyhound sector that this Bill, if it was extended to greyhound owners and breeders, was a backdoor way to damage the sector. Let there be no mistake about it. Legislation to ban coursing or track racing would clearly not be acceptable to Sinn Féin. The case for the exclusion of the greyhound sector has been well made, and it obviously made an impact politically and perhaps on the Minister's approach to the legislation.

Greyhound enthusiasts have a legitimate case on the grounds that if the Bill as initially drafted was applied to them, it would mean that they would be subject to a further layer of regulation, fees and inspections, given that their greyhounds are already registered and identified through the Irish Coursing Club and that the sector enforces a rigorous set of criteria on all aspects of the keeping, breeding, identification and use of greyhounds in coursing and on the track.

There is also an issue with the level of fees being charged. It has been argued that these are too high. If the amount of money collected after the first year shows a surplus, as was the case with the Taxi Regulator, then perhaps the fees could be reduced in line with that surplus. The fees should only cover the costs of administration rather than being seen as another revenue gathering exercise.

There has also been some disquiet over who exactly conducts inspections. No legitimate breeder objects to inspections to ensure that dogs are being properly cared for. However, those inspections should only be carried out by certified vets attached either to the local authority or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was encouraged by certain aspects of the Minister's statement which alluded to that.

It has also been suggested that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could compile a register of breeding establishments and conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance. That procedure is followed in other countries where annual fees are much lower than those proposed here, and which cover the administrative costs of inspections and so on. Given the importance of the breeding of dogs for commercial export, it would place the sector on the same level as the breeding and sale of other animals.

I know that the Minister met with people in the North about the concept of animal welfare legislation being introduced on both sides of the Border. There should be a convergence of legislation to the greatest extent possible, and that applies to this issue as much as to any other. We all recall the success of the cross-Border approach that was taken in recent years to the foot and mouth crisis and the more recent crisis with contaminated pig feed. Common sense alone would dictate that where animals can be moved over a land border, it is important that those with ulterior motives should not be able to do so in order to avoid sanctions in one jurisdiction that do not apply in another. It is unfortunate that more cognisance was not taken of the animal welfare legislation currently going through Stormont. The Government here might have drafted a more comprehensive Bill rather than concentrating for political reasons on particular sectors such as hunting and greyhounds. For example, the Northern Ireland Bill specifically outlines cruelty offences, including the use of dogs for fighting, that would allow the prosecution of people involved in such practices. It also proposes to make it an offence to abandon animals, which seems to happen in certain cases where people dump unwanted or old animals.

There are other issues including some to which I have referred that need to be addressed through further amendments. I hope that the suggested changes will be accepted when we return to this next week. I am encouraged that the Minister and his officials have engaged with the Irish Greyhound Board to reassure its members about their concerns with the Bill. I am also encouraged by the Minister's commitment that he intends to introduce amendments to that effect on Committee Stage.

We in Sinn Féin abhor any cruelty to animals and the misuse or mistreatment of animals, and we want to approach this Bill positively. Until such time as we see the amendments, we will be reserving our judgment. We have concerns and we will be tabling amendments about which we feel very strongly. Hopefully the Minister will be able to incorporate them into the Bill and we might have consensus across the House. I will await the outcome.

See this speech in context