Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to begin by commending Senator Boylan on the Bill. It is well drafted and thought through. It shows the sign of somebody who has been passionate and thoughtfully engaged in issues of animal welfare throughout the time I have known her into Seanad and far beyond that. It is something that would make a significant difference. The Bill contains concrete and practical proposals.

We want to move away from the idea of giving dogs as Christmas presents, but something we can give to dogs would be not only passing the Bill but also committing to constructively giving the Government time to ensure that we can accelerate good ideas and legislation and ensure the Bill moves into law. I hope in her response the Minister of State will commit to that.

I want to highlight some aspects of the Bill that are good and strong. In respect of ownership, it is important that the ownership of dogs is not ambiguous. It has to be subject to proper regulations and conditions. Dogs are not something that can be property in the simplest sense, without proper conditions being attached to that.

The requirements regarding general dog licences in the Bill are strengthened by the provision in section 1 that would ensure general dog licences genuinely match, and can be shown to match, the particular dogs to which they relate. The Bill is not simply about a licence to have a dog, which may or may not refer to a specific dog or to dogs in the abstract. Rather, it is specific. It is a reasonable provision to require that persons who have a dog licence should be able to demonstrate, through the use of a microchip, that the licence pertains to a specific dog. In the case of those with a general dog licence it is even more important because there is a vulnerability. People who have general dog licences for a number of dogs may launder dogs through a single owner without individual licences. That is the kind of thing we see in stud and breeding dogs and puppy farms. If people can have cover-all licences, they can apply at any point if an inspector calls without ensuring proper accountability.

As Senator Boylan mentioned, there are a lot of ancillary benefits to having proper documentation through microchipping, in terms of dog management, being aware of dangerous dog breeds and what kind of dog breeds are in an area. That is useful information to have. In a positive sense, if we have genuine registration of dogs, we can also plan for them in terms of public spaces we want dogs be able to access along with their owners. Development plans and planning for parks and so forth could also reflect the spaces and the prevalence of dogs in a particular area. In respect of the second very important piece I was, like others, shocked and only learned through Senator Boylan of the fact that where animals are seized under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 they are kept in this limbo until legal proceedings have concluded. There is no reason for that given we set conditions, in respect of animal control, which must be met by the purported owner. There is a provision, as inserted in section 2 (4A)(a)(i), that states: "proves ownership of the dog to the satisfaction of the authorised officer". That is a reasonable requirement which meets the property requirements. There is absolutely no issue, from my perspective, in terms of property rights being affected because there is a provision but the onus is placed on the alleged or purported owner to prove their ownership. I think that satisfies the property piece.

We must then ask if there is any other reason one would not allow these dogs to move towards being able to get new and loving homes. It is very important that it is not simply due to evidence. I say that because when there is a raid on a puppy farm the puppies are not evidence but victims. Damage has been done to them so we certainly do not want to continue that and, therefore, it is important that the rehabilitation and care for those who have been damaged by an action should be the priority. In that sense, it is important that we ensure they have access to socialising and forever homes. That is a very sensible provision and precedence has been set in the Control of Dogs Act. Those are the provisions that are mirrored in this Bill. This really is a good proposal and it will make a huge difference by ensuring those who are mistreated do not continue to suffer in this regard.

I welcome the review of animal welfare. We need to have a proper debate on the report on these issues that was compiled by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This House has a record of dealing with these issues. We tabled amendments to the Greyhound Racing Act 2019 that specifically dealt with welfare and the obligation to rehome greyhounds. However, I have been concerned by reports over the past year that Greyhound Racing Ireland has rolled back in terms of the amount it contributes or allocates from its resources to issues of welfare. There have also been questions about not engaging in rehoming projects with welfare organisations that have been critical of the greyhound racing industry. That is very unfortunate because we need all organisations to be supported in terms of these welfare issues. We also need to ensure that we do not have a roll back in the delivery of the obligations under section 29.