Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

For the record, the idea behind amendment No. 44 came up on Committee Stage, at which time I pointed out that such a tracing system can already apply to any animal. Therefore, adding these specific examples is unnecessary and may serve to confuse matters rather than improve them. The amendments I am making on microchipping of dogs show my commitment to the issue of appropriate and beneficial animal tracing systems. As worded, this section allows any animal to be subject to a system of tracing and, accordingly, it does not need to be amended. If I accepted this amendment, it might be read as meaning that only dogs kept for breeding could be subject to a tracing system, whereas my intention is that microchipping for dogs will be extended to all.

With regard to amendment No. 45, a census requires all animal owners to provide details of the animals they own. As feral cats are those which, by definition, have no owner, this amendment is inappropriate. I am tabling an amendment to Part 11. As currently drafted, if a person does not comply with an animal census, he or she is guilty of a lower, class B, offence. The proposed amendment will make it clear that persons have a period of time within which to make a return. This eliminates the possibility they could be deemed to be in default as soon as the census goes out.

I wish to make a broader comment on these amendments and also on the microchipping of dogs, which has received quite a lot of coverage today. There has been some exaggeration in the media about the cost. This is unfortunate and was, I think, done in an effort to create a headline rather than to report factually what was said yesterday. What I am going to do in time is to introduce a regulation, after a full consultation process, which will require that by a certain date in the future all dogs in Ireland will be microchipped, regardless of their age, who owns them or whether they are working dogs, so that we have a clear picture of the dog population in this country, who owns them and where they are. I believe that is good practice from a management and welfare point of view in terms of rehoming, abandonment and so on. In my view it should have happened many years ago, but it is going to happen now. We will ensure, through that consultation process, that dog owners can do this in a way that is as affordable as possible. I would hope, although I cannot confirm it at this stage because the consultation has not begun, that we will get a very positive response from vets in agreeing to insert microchips as cheaply as possible, and we will certainly get a positive response from animal welfare groups. I hope the vets will do it for cost price, which would certainly mean people would be paying less than €10 to have their animals microchipped. The suggestion that it will be €50 or more per animal, at a time when people are already strapped for cash and in difficulty, is an exaggeration made to try to create a headline. I think it is wrong and that it will be proven to be wrong when we move through the consultation process.

This is a positive animal welfare measure. People should welcome it and I believe the vast majority of dog owners in Ireland will welcome it as a measure to ensure that animals are not being abused or abandoned easily. There is a responsibility that goes with owning an animal. That responsibility, in my view, is enforced and enhanced by having proper animal identification and a national database. We can now do that with modern technology, and dogs are the obvious place to start. We will also be doing something similar with horses, but that is perhaps for another debate. We will be talking about this in committee in the coming months, given that more than just microchipping will be required in the cases of horses as they enter the human food chain. In any case, we have been through that debate.

On the issue of feral cats, we need to be realistic in terms of what is possible. It is not appropriate to specifically name a certain category of animal in this section, so I do not propose to accept amendment No. 44 or 45, but I hope colleagues will accept my amendment, No. 46.

I encourage people who are interested in this area to read the code of practice that we have had in place for some time. As I said yesterday, we have increased funding to animal welfare organisations and we may need to continue to increase funding if the problem continues. I know there is a particular issue at present in regard to horse welfare, particularly with regard to the amount of space in the horse sanctuaries that are being provided by the ISPCA and others. This is a problem to which we need to figure out an answer. However, it is important that we have now linked the funding of welfare organisations and their set-up to their adherence to a code of practice that introduces international best practice based on the five freedoms and other items such as a track, neuter and return programme for feral cats, a neutering and spaying programme for dogs and cats and a rehoming programme for dogs. In other words, we are ensuring best practice and a common standard across all of these bodies. Most of these bodies are run by people who are absolutely well-meaning, and some of them have mortgaged their own homes to look after animals. We are trying to give some funding to support that activity, but we also want to ensure they do not take on more than they can handle in terms of welfare and also that they abide by what I would regard as international best practice in terms of ensuring the welfare of the animals they are looking after. Even though these bodies are rescue centres, there can sometimes be welfare issues linked to them. I hope that deals with some of the issues raised yesterday.

See this speech in context