Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

): The Minister in his earlier contribution to the debate stated that he did not propose to accept the Senators' amendments to sections 14 and 15. The amendments taken together would have the effect of having two separate regulatory regimes for dog breeding establishments, one for the greyhounds and one for all other dogs. This would create an unfortunate precedent in the legislation by making exemptions for particular breeds of dogs.

A number of Senators are of the view that the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 addresses the welfare of greyhounds to a sufficient extent. That Act is aimed at promoting the industry and does not expressly provide for the welfare of dogs. I do not foresee a potential overlap between the Bill and the reference to breeding in the 1958 Act as it merely states that the Irish Coursing Club has responsibility for breeding and coursing. This Bill promotes the welfare of the dog in the breeding establishments whereas the 1958 Act concerns itself with the regulation of the industry with no mention of greyhound welfare in the Act.

Section 44 of the 1958 Act allows for investigation by authorised officers at the race track, race meetings or where greyhounds are on public sale. However, it is important to note that the authorised officer's powers are limited to these said areas. Section 46(1) sets out power of entry and inspection. Again, the authorised officer's powers are limited to inspection in the vicinity of the race track, authorised coursing grounds, places where greyhounds are on public sale or places where greyhounds are trained for reward. The authorised person does not have the power to enter and inspect the place where the greyhound is bred, kept or, indeed, trained as the provision only applies to an area where the training is for the purposes of reward. It appears that the provision would not apply to the vast number of greyhound owners who train the dogs themselves rather than use the services of a professional trainer.

The duties of operators of dog breeding establishments under section 14 are more comprehensive and reflect the purpose of the proposed legislation. Article 12 of the greyhound trainers regulations, which has been quoted extensively in the debate, deals with the condition of kennels only. Reference is made to the general layout, that the kennels are kept in a clean and good condition and that muzzles and feeding bowls are kept in good condition. There is no provision made in respect of suitable food, drinking water, bedding, etc. in these regulations. While I will give further consideration to varying the 12-month time period between litters in paragraph (), subject to veterinary advice, it is my intention that section 14(), the limit of six litters to each bitch, should remain in place as recommended by the working group.

In regard to the issue of identification of dogs under section 15, the greyhound industry has a practice of marking each greyhound with a tattoo. There is a view that this is sufficient and, therefore, greyhounds should be exempt from this provision. It is difficult to support this view as the two forms of identification are completely different. The microchip enhances traceability and enables access to the dog's details at any time in the State or outside it by an authorised officer, a veterinary surgeon, a dog warden or an animal welfare organisation. This can only aid the process of improving the welfare of the dog.

The aim of the Bill is promote, improve and protect the breeding conditions and welfare of the breeding dogs. There are notable distinctions in this Bill from the 1958 Act which are the duties imposed on dog breeding establishments, the extensive powers conferred on the authorised officer to enter and inspect a breeding establishment, the ability to serve an improvement notice and the power of the local authority to serve a closure notice and require the operator to cease breeding or keeping dogs at the establishment. Therefore, the proposed amendments cannot be accepted.