Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jun 2024

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The Minister is very welcome to the House. I am very grateful that the line Minister in charge of this Bill is here. Often, we do not have a Cabinet Minister before us. I thank the Minister and the Cabinet for not opposing the Bill. In recent days, weeks and months, dog control and welfare has been at the forefront of her Department.

Some days ago, there was a desperate tragedy when a poor young woman was fatally attacked by her dogs. It was an incredible tragedy for the victim and owner and her entire family. We cannot even imagine the pain the family is going through right now. I pay my respects to the young woman and offer her family my condolences.

I have been working on this Bill for the last couple of years. It is about encouraging responsible dog ownership. It came from my farming background and the rationale for it came from dog attacks on livestock.

For far too long, I have witnessed sheep being slaughtered by dogs. I remember from when I was a child, landing at a field in the morning and seeing animals having been brutally attacked. I also refer to my infuriation when witnessing how dogs are not controlled properly, the dangers that dogs off leashes pose, the lack of definition of what "effectual control" has been, and the lack of resources gone into dog wardens and into our local authorities in respect of issuing warnings. We do not have enough dog wardens in the country. This Bill aims to amend and extend the Control of Dogs Act 1986 to:

provide for dog control notices ... relating to the exclusion of dogs from certain premises, to amend the Control of Dogs (Dog Licensing Database) Regulations 2019 so as to provide for the mandatory maintenance of a dog licensing database, [and] to amend the Local Government Act 2001 to provide for public places where dogs can be off leash and to provide for related matters.

The Bill is broadly in line with the current objectives and what has come out from the stakeholder group. There is a lot of stuff that is not in this Bill. It is not the be-all and end-all. I am very aware of that and I want it to be a starting point to some legislative aspects of what we can hopefully achieve in the future.

Section 2 of the Bill, coming from the point about livestock, provides for instances where you can have a warning sign in a prescribed manner. This is not just in any willy-nilly manner that says no dogs are allowed. It has to be "in a prescribed manner"with the intention of informing the public that dogs are prohibited from those premises to prevent the worrying of livestock" except where the owner or another person in charge has permitted it such as if it is a working dog or whatever. Moreover, the serving of dog control notices will be a new concept for Ireland but it is very common in Scotland. In cases where:

a dog warden has reasonable grounds for believing that a dog has not, on at least one occasion, been kept under effectual control, the dog warden may serve on the person who owns, is in charge of, or is in possession of the dog a written notice, in the prescribed form ... requiring the person to bring and keep the dog under effectual control.

The section also provides that:

Where the person who is in charge of, or is in possession of, a dog is not the holder of the dog licence for that dog, such person shall provide the dog warden with the name and address of the holder of the dog licence and the dog warden may serve a dog control notice on the licence holder.

The proposed new section 9A(4) to be inserted into the principal Act provides that without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3):

the steps specified by a dog warden may include, but are not limited to ... all of the following:

(a) keeping the dog on a lead whenever the dog is in a place to which the public have access;

(b) keeping the dog away from a place, or category of places.

This is the point at which I would like a stipulation where we could absolutely keep a dog off agricultural land. It is not about banning dogs from all agricultural land at all times. It is about giving the farmer the entitlement to state that no dogs would be allowed on a particular field. Even if there is a right of way, it is agricultural land. I think of the Cooley Mountains and commonage. Commonage is owned by the landowners in a community. People think it is public property and yet bring their dogs onto the mountain and let them off the lead like it is a public place. Too often, I have seen dogs going missing for days. That dog was not missing for days and relaxing, sunbathing and taking in the views of the beautiful Cooley Peninsula. It was looking to survive. That is when trouble happens; when a dog is off its leash and running wild and attacks a sheep or livestock. That is sadly the case in so many instances. We see those stories scattered around our media about a dog missing for days. I think about the poor dog but I think of the poor animal that potentially the dog attacked in order to survive.

The other aspects of the control notice would be that the dog warden would require the muzzling of a dog whenever the dog was in a place to which the public has access. If the dog was male, it could be neutered. The notice also could specify any other steps the dog warden deems to be appropriate in certain circumstances. We all know the dog wardens are highly qualified and they know what they are doing. They have the experience and knowledge to know what is best in a situation.

Where a person fails to comply with a dog control notice, the Bill provides:

a dog is not under effectual control if the person who is in charge of the dog does not have the inclination, means or ability to have effective and immediate control of the dog’s behaviour where such behaviour gives rise to fear, distress or alarm in any person as to—

(a) his or her safety,

(b) the safety of another person, or

(c) the safety of an animal other than that dog,

where such fear, distress or alarm is reasonable in all the circumstances.

This is a more detailed definition of what “effectual control” is, but I would love for that to potentially be strengthened and for the Minister to look at what that really means. In too many circumstances, I have heard people saying, “Oh that wee dog is fine. It is grand”. Yet, the next minute, it is hanging off the side of your trousers and it is biting you. That dog was not under effectual control. Yet, under the current legislation, technically, it probably was.

A big part of my Bill - although I know it does not extend to this Bill - concerns a weakness in this regard, as the Minister will know well because she is a Border politician and resident - which is how we do not have cross-Border linkage of licences and databases. I would like for us to consolidate that down here. We must ensure that local authorities have the ability to make sure it is mandatory to have a microchip number on the dog licence. It is optional at the minute. We do not have to have it. Again, this is a matter of giving resources to our local authorities to enable them to do be able to do this.

Other stipulations I would like to see added to the licence include the address where the animal is normally kept and a photograph of a dog's face and body. Moreover, the dog should actually be attached to the licence whereby you could not just simply state that while that dog is gone now, you have a licence and so are grand. A licence should be for the specific dog. The proposed regulation states a "licence-holder whose name is entered on the dog licencing database shall, in respect of a dog in his or her possession, take all necessary steps to ensure that the information that is specified in [the] Regulation is ... up to date". There should be a legal onus on them to make sure that the up-to-date information is attached to the licence. If you move, if your dog dies or whatever the case may be, the system should find out about it. Again, that goes back to the issue of more resources going into local authorities so they can deal with that bureaucracy.

A big part of what I want is to encourage positive dog ownership. This Bill is not about punishment. It is about trying to encourage and facilitate dog ownership. Many of us have our furry friends, and we adore them. It is great to be able to bring them out to places. Through section 4, which proposes an amendment of section 67 of the Local Government Act, I ask that every local authority, when providing parks and open spaces, "provide a dog off leash area, where practicable". They should publish a written statement on the website marking specifically where those off-leash areas for dogs are provided. I also ask them to provide and facilitate this. This is not about saying that there should be no dogs. It is about saying that dogs should be looked after in the right places. Not every dog owner gets pet insurance but if you are getting pet insurance, there should be a legal requirement to have it on a dog licence. The dog must be microchipped and registered for the purposes of the Microchipping of Dogs Regulations 2015.

As I said, this is only one part of much reform of dog welfare and dog control.

There have been far too many dog attacks. In the past two years more than 400 people have been hospitalised and more than 1,000 children have been hurt by dogs. We must respect the fact that dogs are animals so I call for an awareness-raising campaign to convey an understanding and knowledge that dogs are not babies. It may be harsh for some people to hear, and even a little controversial, that dogs are not human. Dogs are temperamental. Dogs react differently according to the circumstances, which is evident by all the tragic stories and happenings where people have lost their lives or were seriously maimed. Respect for dogs means responsible ownership and having an understanding of animal welfare.

I call on the Minister to ensure that along with this legislation there is an understanding of and education on ways to ensure positive dog ownership. I grew up on a farm so my view on these things is black and white. I have a pet sheep but I would never bring her into my house and treat her like a baby. She runs to me when she sees me but that is the end of it because pets are pets.

I am grateful that the Minister set aside time to come here this afternoon to debate this important Bill. I hope that the Bill is heeded because I want to protect people and livestock, and ensure that the laws on this area are standardised. As the Minister will know, her portfolio is linked to several Departments whether that is agriculture, local government and, indeed, rural and community affairs. This issue spans three Departments and several Bills. Therefore, consolidating the Bills in this legislation would be very welcome. Again, I thank the Minister for her time and I look forward to hearing her response.

I thank the Acting Chairperson and welcome the Minister to the Chamber.

As Senator McGreehan has highlighted the recent tragedy and we are discussing this issue, it is important that we convey our sympathies to the family of the young lady who was recently deceased. Over the last number of years a lot of young children have been mauled, disfigured, etc. and we are mindful of their plight.

It is important for us to note the following. Last December, the Minister introduced increased fines and further funding for various local authorities. Very importantly, the Minister established a stakeholder group to discuss future changes and initiatives.

My initial reason for co-signing the Bill with Senator McGreehan was due to hearing the concerns expressed when I met representatives of my local IFA group in County Longford and the IFA's sheep committee. They highlighted their concerns about the number of attacks on sheep flocks in the local area and particularly in south County Longford. They said they felt the issue was not being addressed and wanted to highlight the matter. As it is my role and responsibility to represent them I felt that it was important that I pursue this matter. That is why I am delighted to join with Senator McGreehan as a co-signatory of this Bill, which seeks to make changes.

Responsible ownership is key but, unfortunately, in reality there is a lack of responsible ownership which I was reminded about throughout the Covid period. When everything was closed up at that time many families got pet dogs and many of those owners did not display responsible ownership. Now, unfortunately, there are a lot of stray dogs and other stray animals. Therefore, we need to increase the funding allocated to each local authority and dog wardens and ensure these issues are addressed.

On microchipping, I know, having been a postmaster, that all post offices sell licences on behalf of local authorities and the service is now done by computer.

The reality is, and I know from experience of doing it for many years, that 95% of people do not have their dogs microchipped. A licence can still be issued, even though it is a question on the licence, when the dog has not been microchipped. Perhaps that needs to change as it might encourage more people to do it. We need to make microchipping mandatory because we need to be able to identify the owners of the dogs where there are issues of concern, whether it is with livestock, young children or adults, as we have seen. They need to be made responsible, be fined or prosecuted for being responsible for what their dogs carry out. It comes back to responsible ownership. I do not know the percentage, needless to say, but the owners that have not microchipped their dogs need to be identified, charged, brought to court, prosecuted and fined for any issues that occur.

Another issue in the Bill is the idea of pet insurance, which is being sold and which people take out. However a microchip does not have to be provided to take out the insurance. There are a few simple things that could be put into the Bill that would help to cut out this issue. They are a few short and simple ways that we feel we can put pressure on owners to make sure they microchip their dogs. However, ultimately, this is about supporting our livestock, farming and agriculture industry, especially those in the sheep industry. As we have seen in recent times, we need to protect young children and adults. We do not want to read in the newspaper or hear on the 9 o'clock news that someone else or some child has been mauled and disfigured or someone has passed away. I fully support the Bill and commend it to the House.

I will ask a question about the stakeholder group. Will a representative of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, sheep committee be part of it? If not, could that committee be engaged with on the matter?

I happy to second the Bill proposed by my colleague, Senator McGreehan, who has regularly raised this issue. I thank the Minister for her leadership. She has worked with the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, to try to address this. It is critical, especially in light of recent events, most notably the death of Nicole Morey, that we take action quickly in this regard. I was particularly concerned and I raised this issue following the appalling attack on the nine-year-old boy, Alejandro Mizsan, in Enniscorthy in May 2022, which people will recall. Alejandro was just playing with his friends and he has been left with permanent facial injuries as a result of the horrific attack. The life of any human, any child or any individual, has to be far more important than the right of an individual to own a particular dog, especially a dangerous dog. We know that between 2016 and 2022 there were 1,700 dog attacks on humans and there were 1,350 incidents involving livestock.

Senators McGreehan and Carrigy have already referred to the particular concerns around sheep, but other animals have also been attacked. This is about responsible dog ownership. It is not always the dogs' fault. It is frequently the fault of the owners. I support the banning of particular breeds and certainly a ban of the XL Bully and some of the other breeds listed is needed. My one caution is that dealing with cross-breeds is a challenge. This is something that I am certain some people will try to get around. Therefore, I note it has been suggested, and I hope the stakeholder group is looking at this, that there are bans not only on particular breeds but, where the cross-breeds result in wider jaws, a particular size of animal and so forth, that other requirements are put in place to ensure that people do not get around the rules by cross-breeding. There is also merit - this is where we come to the question of dog licensing - in looking at the idea, in the same way as when people apply for a driving licence, that they have to do a test.

We should not just hand out a licence to own a dog to anybody. There should be a specific requirement because being able to own a dog is a privilege and there are certain people for whom it is not appropriate. I am not opposed to the idea that, in the same way that those who want to have a driving licence have to do a theory test, those who want to have a dog licence should meet particular requirements to prove they are able to own a dog. That could be done simply by filling in an online test. There have to be grounds for the Garda to object to particular people having a dog licence, which would not be any different from applying for a licence to own a pub. In certain circumstances, the Garda can object to certain individuals having a pub licence and the Garda should be allowed, in certain circumstances, to object to individuals having a dog licence.

I agree with Senator Carrigy about microchipping. We need to move in the direction of having a database to maintain records of dog ownership, which is a part of the Bill. Having a microchipping database would also address the issue of dog fouling which, as the Minister and nearly every local councillor will say, is one of the biggest issues for Tidy Towns committees, of which there are many in the Minister's constituency, including all-Ireland Tidy Towns winners. We need to take stronger action. By having a microchipping database, as provided for in the Bill and as used in Malaga and some other Spanish cities, this problem can be addressed.

I welcome the progress that has been made but we need to move to a decision. There are now far too many incidents of dogs from dangerous breeds attacking people. The life of an individual is far more important. I hope the Minister will accept the principles of this Bill, act on the recommendations of the stakeholder forum, ban particular breeds and address the problem with regard to cross-breeds. We must recognise that there are responsible dog owners but we have to start to root out the irresponsible ones.

I commend my colleague, Senator McGreehan, for all of her work on the Bill. She has highlighted, in particular, the attacks on humans but, as the Minister will be aware, livestock has been attacked by dogs again and again and it is simply not acceptable. It has a huge social and economic impact. I hope we can move fairly quickly to address these concerns.

I thank Senator McGreehan for raising this issue. I offer my sympathies to the family of Nicole Morey in Limerick. It was a tragedy that the family and everyone else will never forget. It is shocking that we hear these stories. We spoke about this issue last year with regard to a child who was attacked, which Senator Malcolm Byrne mentioned. I appreciate the work that has been done to date. After that incident, there was a real push to get the stakeholder working group together. That brought together two different Departments. It is unusual that responsibility for the ownership and monitoring of dogs falls under two different Departments. The Department of agriculture issues licences, has a database and deals with the microchips. There is then the Department with responsibility for local authorities and heritage, which is a separate Department. The Department of Rural and Community Department is responsible for dog ownership. That is three different Departments, which leaves a lot of space for things to sometimes go awry.

How do we support joined-up thinking on this issue among the three different Departments involved? I appreciate the leadership of the Ministers, Deputies Humphreys and McConalogue, in coming together to set up the dog control stakeholder group. I am curious about why and how it has to deal with those three different areas. I know the group will focus on dog control but we have to look at the issue of banning dangerous dog breeds.

I grew up on a farm and owned beautiful pets and lovely dogs.

In our countryside, along with farmers being the guardians of our landscape, many of them rely on dogs for working dogs as well as pets. As a pet, a dog can be a friend for someone older or younger and can mean so much to him or her. That is particularly the case for many older people who live alone in rural areas. Sometimes, the pet is the only thing they see day in, day out. However, people who live in rural areas are usually cognisant of the responsibilities that lie with being dog owners. Last year, I went around looking at dog kennels for sale in specific pet shops. I could not believe that the kennels did not come with locks on their doors. The shops explained that dogs were not locked in now and so on. Maybe people have fenced-in gardens, but sometimes they do not. Farmers love the topic of fencing as well. It is important that householders have fencing around the areas where they keep their dogs so that the dogs cannot leave. We always have to ensure that our dogs are locked in or inside our home at night-time.

The Minister is considering a number of matters. According to her press release in March, she has trebled on-the-spot fines for dog control offences and provided nearly €2 million for dog warden services. I link closely with Galway and Roscommon county councils. I live close to a beautiful bog landscape that I love. There is a great deal of bog activity at the moment, with people getting ready for the turf and so on. People abandon pets in bogs. Many times, I have taken a dog home and connected with our local dog warden only for the dog warden to tell me the shelter is full and accepting the dog will take time. Aside from what the Minister has already done, we should review our support for dog wardens and how we fund dog shelters. We need to know what funding has been allocated to linking up the databases so that dog wardens can access them via tablet, for example. We now see gardaí using tablets. It is not groundbreaking technology. The wardens would be able to link into the Department of agriculture’s database and their own monitoring databases held by local authorities. This would be difficult, as it would involve three agencies and their IT control systems, but there should be a way for a dog warden on the street, who is the Minister’s representative in enforcing dog control measures and legislation, to access that sort of technology and make an instant decision on a fine because there is no microchip or licence. We would be supporting dog wardens to do that. We can talk about putting legislation in place all we like, but if there is no enforcement and the dog warden does not have linked-up databases and cannot make a decision on the spot, where are we going? We are going to talk about this, we are going to have the legislation and it will sound great, but we will not have enforcement. With enforcement come changes in behaviour. We know this. We have seen it with penalty points on our roads. Changes in behaviour lead to safety for people on our roads. Enforcement of this dog legislation and supporting our dog wardens by ensuring that they can make on-the-spot decisions mean safety for families. Families have suffered horrific dog attacks and loss of life.

The Minister is using her leadership to try to drive change, but I wish to highlight the issue of enforcement. Support our dog wardens. Give them the resources and dog shelters they need and allow them to link up their databases with the Department of agriculture’s. It is not an easy process, and nothing like this is easy across three agencies, but what does she suggest?

I do not have any points to make. I have just been listening to the debate. I support the Bill. It is important, but there is something missing, that being, supporting people who have dogs, including people from poor communities. I do not believe in having dangerous dogs or just letting dogs loose. For example, one halting site has had numerous problems with dogs recently. It is the site I lived in myself – Labre Park. For me, having animals is great for people’s mental health.

We know that among Traveller men, one in 11 deaths is caused by suicide. If we put in punishment for dog owners and only certain people are allowed to have dogs, I genuinely think it is discrimination to us members of the Traveller community. That is my hands up listening to this debate. Those are the people who will be the worst affected. Again, in halting sites, not just in Ballyfermot but up and down this country, the Traveller community-----

All I am saying is that we are missing the point here, and that point is supporting people who want a dog. Again, I support the Senator’s Bill. However, some people do not have the price of dog licences or even know or have the information to get a dog chipped. I am not saying it is just members of the Traveller community; it is members of all communities. I have a family dog at home in Labre Park, Hector. He is chipped only for the past two or three years and I have had him ten years. He is well looked after. It is the same with the other dogs on site - they are extremely well looked after. It is a part of the Traveller way of life as well to have dogs though not every member of the Traveller community has one. I put on record today that bad owners of dogs-----

I know Senator, but this is what I am here to do. I am here to make sure there is no discrimination towards members of my community. My brother has dogs. I have one brother who is a drug addict, and I have another brother who has loved dogs his whole life and looked after dogs, and he never tipped off a drug in his life – never. That kept him away from addition. For some people in all walks of life, dogs and animals are very important to have for their mental health. We see that in the World Health Organization as well. We have to look at that and support people who want to own dogs, and support people in halting sites. The dog welfare association in Dublin is very good at working with the Ballyfermot Travellers Action Project with the dogs on site and supporting the residents on site to have their dogs. My job in here is to make sure each Bill that goes through this House is, as I like to say, equality-proofed and does not just impact on one community. I do not want to be part of any more State discrimination that impacts much more on one community than another.

I thank Senators Erin McGreehan, Micheál Carrigy, Malcolm Byrne and Aisling Dolan for bringing forward this Private Members’ Bill. As Senator McGreehan said, I am pleased to inform the House that the Government is not opposing the Bill.

While I realise this Bill does not relate directly to the situation with regard to restricted breeds, in light of the recent tragic incident in Limerick, at the outset I wish to extend my sympathy to the family and friends of Nicole Morey. My thoughts and prayers are with them at this terrible time. My thoughts are also with those who were injured and hospitalised in Cork last week following a further horrific dog attack.

Last year, following the attack on Alejandro Mizsan, a young boy in Wexford, the Government decided to take a number of actions in respect of dog control.

The UK has taken steps which mean, since February, it has been a criminal offence to own an XL Bully. Northern Ireland is now looking at introducing similar restrictions. As someone who comes from the Border region, we should not be out of step with Northern Ireland on this. I am consulting with the Attorney General on how a ban on the XL Bully would work in Ireland and what legislative changes may be required to give effect to this. That work is under way.

I know some people will not want to hear that today. They will tell me they own an XL Bully and it would never hurt anyone, but I cannot ignore the facts. The XL Bully was the dog involved in the attack on Alejandro Mizsan in Wexford and it was also the dog involved in the attack in Limerick last week which killed Nicole Morey. We all love our dogs but no dog’s life is worth more than human life. While it is true that any dog can bite you, consider the damage an XL Bully can do compared to a Jack Russell. The history of these dogs is they were bred to be aggressive. It is in their nature. I have asked the stakeholder group to prioritise work on restricted breeds and I will meet with it later this month to hear its views.

We are also looking at other countries like Denmark and France which have implemented similar bans to see what we can learn from their experience and how it is working on the ground. The ban of the XL Bully in the UK has been the subject of a judicial review and therefore, it is important we get this right. Finally, I thank the Senators for bringing forward this Bill today and for giving me the opportunity to discuss these very important issues. I will be asking the stakeholder group to examine the Bill and consider its proposals as part of the broader package of measures we will bring forward to strengthen our dog control legislation in Ireland.

I thank the Minister for her positive response to the Bill and her acknowledgement that it is part of the wider conversation. I absolutely agree with the Minister around XL Bully dogs. Those dogs are bred to be killers and to be dangerous. It is cruel for an animal to be bred and mutated - that is actually what it is - to be dangerous. While they can love you, they can kill you. A small Jack Russell certainly cannot do so to the same extent.

I want to issue a retort to Senator Flynn's comments. This is not about disadvantaging people. It is about supporting and loving dogs. A dog licence is €20 per year. If people really love their dog, they would be able to find that. I am sure, if someone was not able to afford the €20 and was on social welfare, the Minister's other Department, under which community welfare officers fall, that is, the Department for Social Protection, would be able to support that person in a way to be able to have responsible ownership and to abide by the law in order to support that person's mental health, socialisation and to be able to live in their home with their animal. One must abide by the law. Poverty or not, having €20 is not a way out or an excuse, but the State has supported people in doing things like that. It is absolutely not prejudice against people who are from a Traveller background. I take great insult to that because my Bill is pro-dog and pro-positive ownership and is about the safety of people.