Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to introduce this legislation on behalf of the Sinn Féin Seanad team. No disrespect to the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, but it is disappointing that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, is not here. We have heard a lot of bluster in the past week about the importance of animal welfare to the Minister. We have requested a debate on the Oireachtas report produced in October but he has refused to come in to debate that. I appreciate the Minister of State coming in and giving of her time. I know she is a dog lover and look forward to hearing her comments on the legislation.

I have been working on the legislation for over a year. I thank the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, for all its support in the drafting. I thank the Dublin Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, DSPCA, and the Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, for their input. They live with the reality of the need for this legislative change. Like the Minister of State, I am a dog lover. I am the proud owner of a rescue dog, Cooper. He is a 15-year-old bichon. He was rescued from a puppy farm, where he as a stud dog, and now his only concern in life is that he has his stuffed pig and a warm sofa to curl up on. That is how it should be for every dog.

It is timely that we are discussing dog welfare as we approach the Christmas holidays. It can never be said enough that if you are thinking of bringing a dog into your family, always adopt, do not shop and never do it at Christmas when there is so much else going on with families and in homes.

The legislation has three elements to it. I will discuss each in detail, but first I thank all of the shelters across the country working at the coalface of dog welfare. They are overwhelmed with the number of dogs being surrendered due to post-Covid regret puppies and many have had to close their doors to accepting more dogs while they struggle to find homes for those already in their care.

As a country, it is time we faced up to the fact that the industrial breeding of dogs and the ease with which someone can buy and then discard a dog has to change. We should all work collectively to do that. Dogs are being bred in poorly socialised conditions and go on to exhibit behavioural problems, which is why many are then surrendered. Owning a dog is a ten- or 15-year commitment,and not something anybody should do on a whim.

This legislation would help to alleviate some of the capacity issues shelters are dealing with by ensuring that dogs seized under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 can be rehomed without delay. Section 2 amends section 38 of the 2013 Act to align it with the provisions in the Control of Dogs Act regarding rehoming of dogs that have been seized. Under the provisions of the Control of Dogs Act, a dog that has been seized as a stray or because it is unlicensed can, if unclaimed, be rehomed after five days. However, a dog seized under the Animal Health and Welfare Act must be retained until legal proceedings have concluded or it is voluntarily surrendered by the owner. Seizures under the latter Act include the most horrific cases we see of animal abuse and neglect, the ones that make the headlines. These are dogs left in their own faeces, dogs with urine burns and matted coats or those kept in crates to churn out puppy after puppy. No matter how professional and loving dog shelter staff are, they are no substitute for a loving family home. Shelters are noisy places and dogs can easily become stressed in such an environment, so from an animal welfare perspective, it is vital that once a dog has received any required veterinary care and been adequately assessed, it spends as little time as possible in kennels. Likewise, puppies seized at ports or from illegal puppy farms do not belong in shelters. There is clearly a lacuna in the law. If a dog seized under one law can be homed in five days whereas a dog seized under another needs to wait it out in a shelter for years, it is a lacuna that shows an incoherent approach to animal welfare.

In drafting this legislation, we have allowed for procedural safeguards to address property rights by requiring the oversight of a veterinarian and having regard to the code of practise established under section 25 of the 2013 Act. Apart from the obvious welfare benefits of the quick rehoming of dogs, there are significant savings for the organisations involved.It was welcome to see increases in the funding for animal welfare in the two most recent budgets and the Government, and in particular the Green Party, should be commended on that, but it is important the funding maximise the welfare of dogs. Preventing organisations from rehoming animals places a significant cost on the welfare organisation and those costs are often unrecoverable, even after prosecution. The passing of this legislation will free up financial resources to help more dogs with those shelters, which are struggling with capacity issues.

A second element of this legislation relates to the tightening-up of the dog licensing system. There has been much talk in recent weeks following the horrific attack on wee Alejandro, to whom we all send our best wishes on his road to recovery. What happened to him should never have happened and it would not have happened if we had enforced the Control of Dogs Act. In recent days, there has been another horrific dog attack, this time resulting in the deaths of 50 sheep. Dog owners have a responsibility to know what their obligations are and to be law abiding when it comes to their pets, but we have good microchipping regulations and good legislation when it comes to the control of dogs. What we do not have is enforcement. There are local authorities that did not issue a single spot fine in 2021. This is simply not a credible deterrent. Every day, we see dogs unmuzzled or fouling on the streets, and we all know there are dogs that are not licensed. During the review of dog welfare legislation carried out by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we highlighted the need for microchip databases to be kept up to date and for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to hold the information in a single online portal. The microchip is such an important part of the jigsaw when it comes to animal welfare and responsible dog ownership. Traceability leads to responsibility. If properly enforced, it will make owners accountable, help prevent the illegal sale of dogs, ensure the reunification of family pets with their owners and, if properly completed, give us a breakdown of the breeds of dogs in the country.

Section 1 will mean that it will no longer be optional to fill in the microchip number on the dog licence form. Currently, the ownership of seized animals is often asserted but rarely proven definitively. Linking the microchip to the dog licence will tighten up the enforceability of obligations on dog owners to prove ownership. It will also make it easier for the local authorities to do their jobs in enforcing the Control of Dogs Act, given they will know which breeds of dogs are in their areas and where they are located.

The Bill will also strengthen the dog licensing laws relates to general dog licences, which are obtained by individuals who keep an undetermined number of dogs on their premises for non-breeding purposes. Again, to collect better quality data on these individuals, a holder of a general dog licence will be required to provide information to the local authority quarterly as to the number of dogs being kept on the premises and their microchip numbers.

There is nothing controversial in the Bill. It is evidence based and the organisations directly impacted by the absence of its provisions are calling for it. There is no reason for it to be delayed. As I have said repeatedly when asked about the Bill, I am not precious about it and I do not want to take ownership of it. In fact, I have repeatedly said on record that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine should take it, own it and just get it done. Delays mean more dogs delayed in finding their forever home, and more valuable resources being diverted to care for those dogs. I urge the Minister of State not to oppose the Bill, but not to stop there. I ask her to progress it and to allow us in this House to use time co-operatively to get it passed in this House, before using Government time to get it through the Dáil. She could give a commitment not just to expediting it but also to engaging the legal services in the Department to draft amendments to broaden its scope to include equines and other animals. Following the drafting of the legislation, a number of organisations have indicated they have the same problem with equines. In fact, one animal rescue has spent €250,000 caring for 25 horses seized under the Animal Health and Welfare Act, and the owner of those horses is now seeking a judicial review to further delay the transferral of those animals to loving homes. Last week, it was announced to great fanfare that the Minister was carrying out a review of animal welfare legislation. I would like him to know that we on the agriculture committee requested that and conducted it more than a year ago, producing a comprehensive report in October. I recommend, therefore, that he and the Minister of State examine those recommendations and implement them without delay.

As I said, I am not precious about the Bill. I just want to see it enacted because it will have a real-life impact for animals and for those people who work around the clock to give better lives to animals that are being neglected.