Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I am disappointed that having called for a quorum Opposition Members have not mustered more of their membership to listen to what I hope will be a considered and erudite contribution to the debate.

In a time of economic difficulties the Bill could have been considered as not being the highest of priorities but I have been encouraged by the degree to which Members have contributed to the debate. Many of the views expresesed are sincerely held. The Bill is necessary. We are negligent as a people in not having such legislation on the Statute Book and the fact that such negligence has been allowed to continue means untoward and unacceptable practices have continued in the breeding of dogs. I will not repeat the contributions of many Members on how low Ireland's standing is because of this.

Many of the contributions have outlined how the Bill should apply. There have been a number of representations by interest groups which suggest particular establishments should not be covered by the Bill. These representations are unnecessary. The fact is there are caveats in the Bill which deals with the regulation of dog breeding establishments of a certain scale. The major caveat is that it applies to establishments with six bitches or more for breeding purposes. The debate in the House concerns whether this should apply to the commercial resale of pups from such establishments. Some establishments claim they do not breed dogs for resale purposes. This is a spurious argument. Even if there is no direct resale, there is a commercial basis to all these establishments. All require regulation and the right to inspection that goes with regulation. I do not wish to go too far into the wider aspect of the debate on how dogs are bred for alleged sporting practices but this Bill is intended to cover everybody who is involved in the large-scale breeding of dogs. There should be no caveats in that regard.

Questions must be asked, especially with regard to dogs being bred for specific sporting purposes or alleged such purposes. After a set time they are seen as not fit for purpose and are put down, possibly unnecessarily. In the area of regulation and regular inspection of such dog breeding establishments we need to ensure this practice, if it exists, is appropriately measured and stopped. We may be talking about as many as 5,000 dogs in any given year. If we exempt from important legislation such as this, by deregulation or lack of inspection, establishments that cater for 5,000 dogs, we are not doing our job effectively as legislators.

The type of representations we have been receiving reflect a wider debate that goes beyond the Bill. I received two such from organisations that may not be particularly representative but which none the less address a debate that concerns the nature of modern Ireland. One was from a group that calls itself Farmers against Fox-hunting and Trespass; its unfortunate acronym comes out as FAFT. The other came from Rural Ireland Says Enough, or RISE, which is a bit more catchy although the communication did not define what rural Ireland has had enough of. If it is the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill, it has a very low threshold of tolerance. The Bill is being misrepresented by interest groups which do not want to see change or improvements in this area, which want to see things staying as they are, with the levels of negligence that we, as a Government and State, have allowed to continue. The unfortunate misrepresentation is that urban Ireland is beating up on rural Ireland without understanding it.

In the first place, these are debates on which people, whether from urban or rural communities, will have opinions either way. I do not accept there is a steadfast monolithic view in rural Ireland that says this is how we should do things, especially in regard to the rearing of animals, dogs in particular. It is unfortunate that many of these points were raised in this debate because they do not create better legislation. They obscure debate and ensure the legislation is not improved.

The Minister has introduced legislation that takes many of these fears and potential arguments into account and he has listened to some of the points raised in this argument. I reiterate what I said. A caveat that would exempt such a large number of dogs in breeding establishments and so many actual establishments makes a nonsense of the legislation. The core element must remain. What we need are standards in respect of the breeding of dogs. That means effective regulation and regular inspections. I fear that lying at the heart of many of the representations, despite protestations that animals and dogs are well cared for, is a sense of a cost implication to regulation. An inference is drawn that inspections might reveal something contrary regarding standards, namely, that dogs are not being looked after properly. If people care for dogs and believe dogs are being cared for properly, there is nothing to fear in this legislation. If regulations are pursued and inspections are open, there will be no comeback by way of fines or possible imprisonment. If there is a collective understanding about improving the welfare of dogs in this county, there can be no difficulty about what is contained in this Bill.

These are simple principles. I am somewhat disappointed that many Members in this House have chosen to obscure those principles by bringing in extraneous factors that relate to spurious economic analysis of the issue and disregarding the central point. This legislation is about Ireland being in line with appropriate national standards and not accepting standards we have allowed to continue for far too long. Our legislation will be better for the passage of this Bill and our reputation for animal welfare can only be improved if we address the legislation honestly.