Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I want to set the context of the nature of this Bill. I will speak to section 1. Yesterday was World Animal Day. Unfortunately, in the past 48 hours we have seen two very damning reports regarding the situation relating to dog rescue centres and pounds. MADRA Dog Rescue did a census of dogs, the first that has ever been compiled, and found that there are 3,227 homeless dogs at the moment, with hundreds more on lists waiting to be surrendered. The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, released the findings of a survey carried out by Amárach Research, which indicates that there have been unprecedented levels of abandonment of pets in the country post Covid. That comes as no surprise to those who have been following this matter because rescuers were screaming and shouting that they could not handle the number of dogs that were coming into them over the past year.Statistics released in August again confirmed what the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, is telling us, which is that there has been a 95% increase in the number of stray dogs entering the pounds. The figure is up from 4,165 in 2021 to 8,116 in 2022. Unfortunately, the euthanasia rates have also doubled from the all-time low we hit in 2021. While they are not back to those awful days when we were euthanising more than 1,000 dogs, the numbers are still going in the wrong direction.

I will provide context for the Bill we are bringing forward. Something that was identified by both the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, DSPCA, and the ISPCA, as a lacuna or a loop-hole in the law, is that when dogs are taken by the dog warden or are found straying, they taken under the Control of Dogs Act. They go into the pound and if the owner does not claim the dog within five days, those dogs are then rehomed and they are the ones that feature in that statistic where there has been a 95% increase. Those dogs then go off to rescues and are put up online for families to give them their forever homes. When dogs are seized under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 by the authorised officers, which of course is in the really horrific cases we see in the news, those puppies that are seized at ports and those dogs that are emaciated living in their own feces, unfortunately the animal has to be held as evidence until the legal case concludes unless the owner surrenders the dog. That can mean both puppies and older dogs, which have already had horrific experiences in their lives, being kept for up to two years in kennels. Due to the other situation with surrenders of dogs, what we are hearing now is that the likes of the ISPCA does not have the space to keep those dogs for the two years. What they are having to do is rent out private kennel space at a significant cost to the organisations so that they can free up the space in their shelter for those dogs that can be rehomed under the Control of Dogs Act.

That is the context to the Bill. If we get to the amendments, there are elements dealing with the costs and the recoupment of costs because the Animal Health and Welfare (Dogs) Bill allows for costs to be recouped in the legal proceedings by either the local authority or by the Minister's Department. I have put in parliamentary questions to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and there has not been any claim for the fees to be reimbursed to those rescues like the ISPCA and the DSPCA for footing the bill for the two years they have kept that animal, and neither have any of the local authorities ever applied for the reimbursement. There is an amendment, which we may get to later on, that addresses this so that the authorised authority can apply for the reimbursement as they are the ones bearing the costs.

As I said, that is the context to the Bill. I went through the list of some of dogs that have been seized on a regular basis. Some 17 animals were seized in Rosslare Port in May 2020; 57 puppies were smuggled over the Border in August 2022; 34 dogs were seized by a smuggler in July 2023; ten dogs were seized in Thurles in August 2023; 140 dogs were seized in north County Dublin in April 2021; a number of dogs were seized in Cork in March 2023; 19 dogs were seized in County Limerick in January 2023; a number of dogs and pups were seized in Clonmel in August 2023; and six dogs were seized in County Sligo in February 2023. None of those dogs can be rehomed until the legal cases have been concluded and that is just a snapshot of what we are dealing with.

Moving on to section 1 of the Bill, I was interested to find a study by the Veterinary Council of Ireland which backs up why I am trying to do within section 1 of the Bill, namely, the importance of the accurate data in estimating the dog population of Ireland. Section 1 amends the dog licensing system. What the Veterinary Council of Ireland in the Veterinary Ireland Journal study of 2022 stated that the linking of existing national databases, dog licence, dog control statistics, and microchipping would improve the representativeness and the accuracy of the information about the Irish pet dog population because we have never had an official census of the dog population of Ireland. It found that accurate information would allow for informed decision-making by both Governments and dog-welfare organisations and it would facilitate the Government in policy making and reviewing legislation and whether it is fit for purpose. The Veterinary Council of Ireland also pointed to other countries that have made huge strides in building a robust data collection and a solid evidence base. One of the countries cited is Italy where they have taken a focus on compliance of the legislation and it has led to a compliance rate of about 75%. The study also noted there were equivalent rates then of neutering and regular vet visits. Therefore, there are knock-on impacts if we enforce the legislation; it has positive impacts on the welfare of the dog.

According to the most recent control of dogs statistics 2022, there was a purchase of 198,116 dog licences in the country, the majority of which were individual yearly licences. While there has been an increase on lifetime licences, the vast majority of people buy a licence year to year. If we look at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine figures, it cites over 100,000 dogs being microchipped in Ireland every single year. Given that dogs can live for anything between ten to 18 years, it is clear that more dogs are being microchipped than are being licensed. Finbarr Heslin, the founder of fido.ie, one of the country's robust microchipping systems in the country, reckons there is approximately one million dogs in the country. He says obviously greyhounds account for some of those but that number far outweighs the 198,000 licences being purchased in the country. We know the microchipping rates are going in the right direction but many dogs are still being seized and being found straying without those microchips or with accurate data on the chip. It is often still in the name of the seller of the dog, who of course say they do not have the record of the buyer so we need to tighten up on that. As I said, section 1 of this Bill seeks to improve traceability by linking the dog licence to the microchip. The current mechanism for obtaining a dog licence means it is optional for the microchip number to be filled in and that is an easy technical fix. Everybody in this House would be familiar with a system when you are filling in a form online that you cannot progress, the system will not allow you to continue with the online form, unless all of the information is completed. It is a simple fix to do. If we are going to implement that, we cannot allow a system where people can say they could not fill in the licence form so they did not bother and that is why it has to be ramped up with enforcement on licensing.

I know the working group that looked at the control of dogs accepted that we need a minimum of 40 more dog wardens in the country. Even with the existing number it is very clear there is huge disparity across local authorities as to the enforcement of the dog licensing and dogs being under the control of their owner. We see that some counties have a very high rate of dog-licence purchase but they also have a very high rate of fine collection, whereas other counties are clearly doing very poorly. We need to look at that and ask those local authorities why their dog licence numbers and the numbers of fines they are issuing are so low. We also have an issue with the collection of fines. It is one thing to issue them but it is another if people are not paying them. Again, looking at the control of dogs statistics, legal costs are cited as a barrier to local authorities getting the fixed-notice fines to be paid but of the almost 1,700 fixed-charge notices issued in 2022, fewer than 900 of those were collected. I would argue 1,700 is a very small number in the first place. Anyone who is out and about will see dogs on the restricted breed lists without muzzles and not on leads. We know dog fouling is a huge issue for everybody in local authorities. If 1,700 covers all the range of infringements, including dog licensing, that speaks for itself but the fact that only 900 of those fines were collected is a significant problem. It means that local authorities are running a deficit in respect of their control of dogs responsibilities.

Back to my Bill, as I said, section 1 makes the links between the microchip and the licence but linking the microchip and licence together also facilitates greater traceability. If a dog was involved in an attack, it might make it easier to trace it back. It also allows for more information to be available to a local authority as to what the type of dogs are. It is important we get a view of the different types of breeds, what breeds are in different counties, how many restricted breeds are in certain areas, and that might determine where dog wardens are focused. In addition to that, it prevents rogue individuals taking a claim on very valuable dogs, which is something we have heard from both the ISPCA and the DSPCA. It happens when dogs have been seized, particularly at the ports. They are valuable pups.There are individuals who get dog licences online - it is easy to do, as they do not need to have a dog with them or cite the microchip number to do it – and then walk in and claim the dogs. This is another feature that I am trying to change with the Bill.

Section 1 would tighten up the general dog licence, which is held by someone who keeps an unspecified number of dogs on the premises. The Minister has to agree that the current system is very loose. We do not know whether the dogs are changing throughout the year, what breeds are being kept and what number are being kept. Section 1 allows for more traceability. Section 1(b) would amend the Control of Dogs Act to require the holder of a general dog licence to update the local authority on the number of dogs being kept on the premises and the microchip numbers of those dogs. We will discuss the amendments later, but this is the rationale for the changes set out in section 1. It sets the context for why the Bill is so important and why it is urgent that we pass it. Every day we do not pass this legislation is another day that dogs sitting in kennels across the country cannot be rehomed simply because of this loophole.