Seanad debates
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)
1:00 pm
Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (3), line 34, to delete "3 months" and substitute "12 months".
We are proposing this amendment to qualify our general view. In principle, Fine Gael supports the Bill, since there is an obvious need for regulation of dog breeding establishments. However, we are seeking ways to improve the legislation and enhance the standard of current facilities. It is with this in mind that the amendment has been proposed.
On Second Stage the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government referred to the three-month lead-in time. He stated:
This lead-in time will allow dog breeding establishments to meet the necessary standards and avoid the problem of having to dispose of a number of unwanted dogs ... The Bill provides that a period of up to three months will be provided from the commencement of the Act for dog breeding establishments to be registered.
While we agree with the notion that there should be a lead-in time, the newness of the Bill means breeding establishments might not be aware of its full implications. They should be given a reasonable opportunity to put their houses in order and, if necessary, the proper standards in place. The Minister has acknowledged the opportunity for establishments to address their standards, as he has allowed three months in which to do so, but Fine Gael believes a period of three months may be unreasonable in the light of the implications. For example, there may be planning implications if a breeding establishment has to apply for planning permission to bring the structures it currently uses to house its brood bitches up to standard. We agree that proper standards of housing for brood bitches and dogs of all types should be in place.
The amendment which would allow a lead-in period of 12 months is reasonable. We are open to the Minister of State's suggestions, but three months is too short a period in which to deal with any planning consequences as a result of these regulations. Let us take as an example a traditional farm that has entered the dog breeding business. That farm might be run to a very high standard with those dogs receiving the best of care but the old buildings that might have been used to house the dogs might not be up to the standard required in these regulations. There may be a need for that business to apply for planning permission. We all understand that planning permission is not granted quickly and that objections and so on may be submitted. It is a reasonable amendment, therefore, to provide for a 12-month period, during which all the consequences of the regulations regarding planning or otherwise can be considered, to give people the opportunity to put their house in order and have proper standards in place when the regulations and inspections commence.
I said during the debate on Second Stage that we need buy-in to this legislation from all the stakeholders. We need people to understand and agree to the regulations coming into place. One of the best ways to do that is to provide a reasonable opportunity for people to comply with the regulations and their consequences for establishments.
We propose this 12-month period to give people adequate time to apply for planning permission or otherwise to get their establishments up to the required standard. The Minister of State has already acknowledged that a lead-in time is reasonable. We are merely saying that should be extended to a period longer than that provided in the section. We have specified 12 months, but if the Minister of State was to provide for six or eight months, or longer, we would be happy to consider that.
I will be interested to hear the Minister of State's response. This is a reasonable amendment. It is tabled in an effort to be inclusive to try to involve the stakeholders, the very people to whom these regulations will apply, to get them to buy in to the legislation and not to give them any reason to complain that they were not given reasonable time or an opportunity to put in place the necessary requirements that will be needed as a result of these regulations.
No comments