Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

I understand the objective and reasoning behind the Bill, and more particularly the cause of the Bill's introduction. None of us would attempt to condone puppy farming, which in some instances was an horrendous abuse of vulnerable animals and represented cruelty beyond measure. Nobody would attempt to defend that and everyone accepts the need for remedy in that regard. In principle we have no objection to the broad objectives of the legislation. However, there could be the risk that the legislation represents taking a jackhammer to hit a nut. We need to caution against over-responding and over-regulating.

One must assume that in virtually all the cases those people who breed dogs commercially would have an affection for and a natural way with the animals. However, apart from that they have a commercial and vested interest in ensuring the dogs are in optimum condition from a developmental and growth point of view and that they are thriving. I say that as someone from the country with a farming background. I know what I am saying and it is obviously not lost on other people in the Chamber. Those people have a commercial interest in ensuring the best possible standards. The Minister should approach the legislation from that perspective, with awareness that by and large people are doing the right thing. The Minister is rightly trying to correct an abuse among a small minority and in the process he should not be too penal on commercial dog breeders.

I have met many dog breeders and local small farmers with a number of dogs in recent weeks. As I live in a rural community and know these people, it is clear to me that the proposed registration charges will work out too dear. The fee for an establishment breeding up to 12 bitches is €400, with which it is possible to live. However, the fee for an establishment breeding between 13 and 25 bitches is €800, for an establishment breeding between 26 and 100 bitches is €1,600, for an establishment breeding between 101 and 200 bitches is €3,000 and €1,600 for every 100 bitches after that. In his Second Stage speech the Minister defended that on the grounds of the high profit levels. However, the profit levels are no higher in this sector of farming than in any other. There are variations in prices and the cost of food is extraordinarily expensive. Dog food is more expensive than feed for other animals. Veterinary expenses are high. There are natural losses and the market fluctuates. It is like every other area of farming.

Anytime the Minister of State leaves Dublin and meets farmers he must become acutely aware that the vagaries of farming are extraordinary and the same is true in commercial dog breeding. The Minister should reconsider those costs, which are prohibitive and may affect small farmers who are commercially breeding on the side. I know one family where the son has recently graduated and tells me he will not be able to get employment in his chosen area. He loves the dogs and the home set-up in which he grew up, and wants to develop it somewhat. The costs could be prohibitive in such cases. It will not achieve a higher standard of care for the dogs, if that is the Bill's objective. It is merely an accountancy issue and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider that.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider another area of concern for breeders, which if true would not make any sense to me. I hope that both myself and those dog breeders who have lobbied me are wrong about this. Section 16 seems to suggest it will be possible for people from the animal rights organisations - of course they have an important role, which we salute - to be inspectors of commercial dog farms. That would be unacceptable because it would be just wrong and would not happen in any other sector. I ask the Minister of State to make a clear statement about that. There is no problem with inspection by veterinary people and trained inspectors applying a uniform standard of inspection. However, we need to know about the inspectorate. I hope the Minister of State will be able to allay fears in this regard. It would seem absurd to have anything other than a uniform trained inspectorate independent of both animal rights groups and commercial breeders. An independent inspectorate is required and no logical legislation would suggest the contrary. I am sure the Minister of State will be in a position to reassure me on that matter. If it is not crystal clear in the legislation, I trust the Minister will sensibly accept amendments or propose his own amendments to clarify that.

Nobody is suggesting there should be no legislation - even the deputations I met accept that. Nobody is suggesting having no regulation or low standards. All people want is a sensible balanced approach. When the Minister sets about preparing the specific ministerial orders defining the space in kennels, lighting, heat etc., which in virtually all cases are appropriate anyhow, he should meet the dog breeders to discuss those regulations. Obviously he does not need to accept their proposals in full, nor would they enter the meeting expecting that. However, I appeal to the Minister of State to give a public commitment today that the Minister will not draw up regulations without meeting the dog breeders.

It is important that non-commercial dog breeding for hunts etc. should not be subject to the same registration process, given that this legislation relates to puppy farming etc. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply on the registration fee and the inspectorate. I hope to get clarification on that as well as on the Minister's commitment to meet the interest groups before drawing up regulations. The people who breed dogs tell me they have not has full frontal meetings with the Minister.