Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food díospóireacht

General Scheme of the Dog Breeding Establishments (Amendment) Bill 2026: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

We have received apologies from Senator Paul Daly and Deputy Martin Kenny. Senator Andrews is substituting for Senator Collins and I welcome him.

Before I begin, witnesses who are giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence that they give to the committee. This means that a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting where the participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the members having their online access removed. Everybody taking part is present in the room today.

The agenda for today's meeting is pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the dog breeding establishments (amendment) Bill 2026. In the first session, we will hear from witnesses from Dogs Trust Ireland and the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. From Dogs Trust Ireland, I welcome Ms Sarah Lynch and Ms Niamh Curran-Kelly. From the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I welcome Mr. Conor Dowling, Ms Elise O'Byrne White and Mr. Bartley Finnerty. The dog breeding establishments (amendment) Bill 2026 would update the 2010 Act with a focus on standards and unethical breeding. We already invited submissions in the summer from the interested parties and there was considerable interest, with nearly 100 submissions from different individuals and groups. Members have had the opportunity to review those submissions. We will meet with a range of groups over the next couple of weeks to tease out their views on it and the various aspects of the Bill such as breeding restrictions, litter limits, a frequency cap, age limits, bans, staffing and care and sales and traceability. As a dog lover, I fully recognise that this is an emotive issue for so many people. After hearing from the witnesses, the committee plans to put together our pre-legislative scrutiny report, which is expected at the end of this month and the start of November. The opening statements have been circulated and members have had the opportunity to read them. Could the witnesses take two minutes to summarise their submissions? We will then move on to questions and answers. We will start with Dogs Trust Ireland.

Ms Sarah Lynch

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to appear before them today. I am policy manager with Dogs Trust Ireland. I am joined by my colleague Niamh Curran-Kelly, veterinary and welfare manager.

Dogs Trust is Ireland’s largest dog welfare charity. What we experience every day of the week gives us direct insight into how decisions made at the very beginning of a dog’s life can affect his or her welfare long after he or she leaves a breeding establishment. It is important that we start by reminding everyone here that we are talking about legislation that will have a real-life impact on living animals - sentient beings that are bred to go and live in people's homes, integrate with communities, play with children, go for walks and sometimes maybe even lie on a couch or bed. What a dog experiences during the earliest stages of his or her life as early as in utero can have real-life consequences that will extend beyond the breeding establishment and into the homes and communities in which he or she will live and breathe. That is why this legislation matters so much.

Dogs Trust welcomes this legislation as it contains a lot of important reforms that can improve the lives of dogs in Ireland. However, it is so important that the legislation is always welfare outcome-focused. So very often in Dogs Trust, we see puppies arriving to our centre who are sick either due to poor breeding or the conditions into which they were born while others - sometimes older adolescent dogs - arrive with behavioural issues because they have been neglected in a dog breeding establishment. Traceability must be the foundation on which the new regulatory system is built - not just the traceability of the dog but the breeder too. We simply cannot effectively regulate what we cannot trace. Traceability is what makes legislation enforceable. It allows authorities to identify patterns of concern, trace dogs back to their breeder, investigate problems across litters and establish accountability when welfare standards are not met.

Our second major concern relates to the scale of breeding establishments and the proposed staffing model. The approach needs to be fundamentally flipped on its head. It is not a case of putting a number on a staffing ratio. It is about taking a welfare outcome approach. The incoming EU regulations require a sufficient number of competent animal carers to meet animals' welfare needs rather than relying solely on a staffing ratio. Competence matters just as much as head count and we believe training and demonstrable competency should, therefore, be placed on a statutory footing in Ireland. We need to think of this like childcare. We would not let a relation of a crèche owner look after a room full of babies unless he or she was fully qualified. Alongside the outcome-based requirement that sufficient trained carers are available at all times to meet the welfare needs of every dog and puppy present, we also believe that the legislation should establish a maximum number of adult dogs that may be kept at a breeding establishment. We have an opportunity here to do something genuinely significant. We can create a system where we know where dogs come from and where breeding establishments operate at a scale compatible with good welfare.

An Cathaoirleach

I invite Mr. Dowling to make his opening statement.

Mr. Conor Dowling

I am director of advocacy and policy with the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, NSPCA. With me today are my colleagues, NSPCA veterinary director Elise O’Byrne White and superintendent inspector Bartley Finnerty.

Prior to taking up my current role, I worked for 28 years as an animal welfare inspector, including 12 years as an authorised officer under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. I have dealt extensively with breeders of all types and have been involved with the development and review of dog breeding legislation over many years.

The NSPCA welcomes the opportunity to contribute to pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. While we welcome a number of the measures contained in the general scheme, we believe it needs to be strengthened in some important areas. These include the definition so that more commercial activity comes within the regulatory framework. It is estimated that more than two thirds of puppies produced in Ireland annually are born outside the protection of dog breeding legislation.

The proposed staffing ratio of one full-time staff member to 20 breeding females is not appropriate, particularly as it does not take account of male dogs, younger females or puppies. The ratio should ensure that staff have sufficient time to properly meet the physical and behavioural needs of the dogs in their care.

The seizure powers that are proposed should be strengthened and brought more closely in line with those available under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. There should be a maximum limit on the number of breeding dogs permitted at a single establishment recognising that as establishments increase in scale, ensuring appropriate care and oversight becomes increasingly challenging.

We also believe that a dedicated adequately resourced national inspectorate for dog breeding establishments with consistent standards, training and enforcement across the country should be established. There needs to be greater transparency. Information on registered establishments, inspection findings and enforcement action should be readily accessible to improve accountability, public confidence and informed consumer choice.

These are some of the principal areas we believe require strengthening alongside a number of other recommendations set out in our submission. The NSPCA believes that the general scheme provides an important opportunity to address long-standing weaknesses in the current system. We welcome the progress that has been made but believe stronger measures are necessary to ensure that the new framework delivers meaningful and consistent improvements in dog welfare.

An Cathaoirleach

I have three standing members of the committee offering. We will have six minutes per member, starting with Senator Lynch.

Senator Eileen Lynch

I thank all the witnesses for being here with us today. Obviously this is a very important Bill and it is important that it gets the scrutiny it deserves. I seek a few clarifications in the context of the presentations. I note the witnesses' point that the new Bill has inadequate numbers vis-à-vis staffing. They are working their figures off an eight-hour day, how many animals there can potentially be and how much time that means a staffer will spend with them. Do they think consideration should be given to dog breeding establishments, DBEs, that are family run, where family members will be giving time but will not necessarily be on the clock? That has to be taken into consideration too. People could be working in a DBE as family members who are not on the clock and are not being paid but that does not mean their time is any less relevant or their care any less efficient.

In relation to the move towards more qualified people working in the jobs within DBEs, if we put in a mandatory requirement regarding some level of care qualification, we are potentially ruling out people with a lot of experience in this area who may not necessarily have the papers to go with that experience.

Mr. Conor Dowling

The general scheme goes into quite a bit of detail about what constitutes a staff member. We have not gone into that sort of detail but if family members are working there, they should be there when they should be working. It can be too convenient sometimes for people to say they have X number of people working but they might not actually be there. The ratio is not a perfect thing at all. As Ms Lynch said, the quality of the people involved is as, if not more, important than the quantity. However, from an enforcement perspective, when inspectors go in they need to know that there are enough people working to care for the number of dogs there. That is a sort of simplistic way of doing that.

Experience is one thing but if someone is doing something badly for 30 years, that is not necessarily a positive. We would say that in an area like this, where it is so important, where these puppies are going into family homes for 15 years and the impact that has on families, it is a fairly reasonable requirement that people would have some sort of qualification to be producing puppies for that market.

Ms Sarah Lynch

To follow on from that, it is also important to consider the issue of professionalising the sector. As Mr. Dowling said, it is so important because they are living beings that are going to live in family homes. They are not just a product that is being moved around. They are living beings that are going into homes and into communities and we have to ensure that the early-years experiences of puppies, or rather the early stages of between eight and 12 weeks, are right if we want a safe society and safe dogs going out there. There is so much that goes into that and, as Mr. Dowling rightly said, experience is one thing, and it can be taken on board alongside really great education and training in that space. Science has moved on so much more in that space. Even we, as rescues working with dogs, learn constantly. We upskill our employees constantly because the science has shown the benefit of good early-life experiences for dogs for their whole lives.

Ms Sarah Lynch

I do understand that. I am just saying that we can lose people with experience over this. I want to ask about enforcement. Responsibility for enforcing the Dog Breeding Establishments Act moved from the Department of rural affairs and community development to the Department of agriculture last year. Has this been a positive move? I note and agree with the proposal in relation to a national inspectorate but at the moment, how effective or efficient are inspections? How much of an issue is it that there are split powers between the local authorities and the Department of agriculture? What is the best way to manage this going forward? The witnesses have provided statistics to us and have made the point that under the regulations, for an establishment to be a DBE, it must have a minimum has six breeding bitches. However, it seems mad to me that only 30% of breeding establishments within the country fall under the DBE. Allowing that the witnesses are submitting for a smaller number, is it the case that there establishments at the moment with over the requisite six breeding bitches that are not registered or licensed?

In terms of the number of dogs that are not micro-chipped, how is this happening? We see other areas within the dog industry which are incredibly highly regulated but only 28% or 30% of establishments where dogs come from are registered under the DBE. Is that solely because of the six bitch requirement or do the witnesses believe there are establishments that are not licensed? How do we deal with enforcement, both currently and going forward? Legislation is no good unless we have the action behind it.

Mr. Conor Dowling

Historically, the enforcement has been very inconsistent between local authorities and even within local authority areas if there is more than one inspector. Our inspectors out on the road have gone into places and they have been handled completely differently. I have been in DBEs with inspectors where the DBE operators have asked why they have to do something in a particular way when the guy in the county next door does not. That lack of continuity is not good for anybody.

The situation at the moment is that legislation and policy transferred across to the Department of agriculture in an effort to eliminate gaps in the enforcement but in a way, it has made things worse. Policy and legislation has gone to the Department, along with the former county veterinary officers who used to work with the local authorities. They are now being seconded back to the local authorities to do the inspections but the enforcement is still lying with the local authorities. At the moment we have a situation whereby Department of agriculture inspectors operating for the local authority will do an inspection. They could make recommendations on action that is needed but then it is up to the local authority to determine whether it is going to follow through with that. We think that the whole kit and caboodle should have gone over to the Department of agriculture, including responsibility for enforcement.

To address the Senator's other query about why there are so many establishments falling outside of it, there are certainly some out there and our inspectors come across them from time to time. If we find anywhere that is operating illegally, we will notify the relevant authorities, but primarily, it is just smaller breeders. It is people with four or five breeding bitches that are accounting for such large numbers.

Senator Chris Andrews

I will start off by making an observation to the committee on the profile of groups coming in. It is disappointing that there is not anybody from the voluntary rescues who do amazing work and pick up the pieces for Government failure. They do fantastic work and it would be worthwhile, in my view, to include some of them in our discussions at a later stage, if at all possible. I am referring to the voluntary groups rather than paid organisations and Government-funded organisations. The rescues pick up the pieces for Government failure and it would be well worth having them in and hearing their voices. Also, Deputy Whitmore mentioned inviting representatives from the local authorities in and I think that would be worthwhile given that, as Mr. Dowling said, they play a pivotal role in enforcement.

An Cathaoirleach

Just to be helpful, there were almost 100 different submissions from different individuals and groups. Committee members reviewed the submissions over a number of weeks and then put together the list of witnesses. Members had the opportunity to make a submission on witnesses that they wanted to come in.

Senator Chris Andrews

There is no proposal to amend the definition of a DBE in the heads of the Bill. Do the witnesses believe that the current definition captures the full range of dog breeders operating today?

Mr. Conor Dowling

Following on from my previous point, I do not think so. If we look at the statistics, a calculation has been done that if we estimate the dog population in Ireland at 600,000, which I think is very conservative, then we require about 50,000 new pups per annum to keep that population stable. If every bitch in every registered dog breeding establishment produced a litter of pups a year, that would only be about 17,000, which is only a third of the total.

We are probably looking at less than a quarter of the puppies sourced in Ireland every year coming from registered DBEs.

Ms Sarah Lynch

That is something for us to consider. We are sitting here talking about it being six or more breeding bitches, but do we want to be back here again in a few years' time asking where the many puppies we are still finding in a bad condition are coming from and realising that they are coming from outside the system? Why not look at that now while we have this opportunity to consider the welfare of puppies in these establishments and bring in more?

You can only effectively enforce what you can trace. If I have five breeding bitches at home, I do not have to register with anyone. Who is there to check that I have a good establishment? Unless I am caught by a neighbour doing something really awful to the animals and they think they should report me, I might never pop up on the radar.

We have a good opportunity here. The EU legislation requires that it be cats and dogs, so it will be six or more queens or bitches in an establishment. However, it does say that member states can go beyond the minimum standards it has stated. Ireland has a really great chance here to step up for animal and dog welfare and reduce the number in the definition.

Mr. Conor Dowling

We could also try to change the attitude that you are not really a breeder unless you have six bitches. That is quite a sizeable number. If you have four breeding females, that is quite a number of puppies you are producing. That mindset also needs to change.

Senator Chris Andrews

In the heads of the Bill, it is proposed that there be a staff to dog ratio of 1:20. In the witnesses' experience, how will that work in practice? It seems pretty impossible for one person to manage 20 pups and breeding females.

Ms Sarah Lynch

We do not believe it is appropriate. That is not just 20 dogs, but 20 breeding bitches. If you think of an average litter being maybe six, that is possibly 120 puppies running around. I do not know how everyone here feels about having 120 puppies running around, but you would also have 20 mothers that have just had puppies and could be sick or going through anything. They could have had caesarean sections. There are loads of different issues. One person is responsible for all those living, breathing animals, which eventually have to go to a home. There is now a legal requirement in this scheme to be socialised and habituated.

Consider about everything involved. It is very easy for us to fall into thinking that they are just born and then the mam looks after them and feeds them, and then they go on home. However, there is also cleaning after she has puppies. If you came in to see the Dogs Trust launderette, you would know all about the cleaning that is needed after puppies are born. If there is infection in our centre, for example, it could take a long time for that to be cleared up, so you have to make sure that they are kept from other puppies. You have to walk them, hold them and feed them by hand, not with a machine. You have to make sure that they are socialised. Any sort of issue could arise, yet we are talking about just one person being responsible for every single one of them.

This needs to be taken on a welfare outcome approach. We have to look at what is required in that establishment, the type of dog, the amount of dogs there, the establishment's size and facilities, and the training available to that person.

Senator Chris Andrews

Legislation is being proposed in the North, and it would be important for the two jurisdictions to be aligned to have an all-Ireland view of dog breeding as well as puppy farms, which should not be there. In the legislation in the North of Ireland, there is a cap of 25:1 and there is a proposal of a 10:1 ratio for staff to breeding females. It is very important that we have an all-Ireland view of any legislation coming in.

Ms Sarah Lynch

We would agree with that. The expert advisory group commissioned by the Northern Ireland Department of agriculture had a report on dog breeding establishments, in which it recommended a ratio of 10:1 and a maximum of 25 adult dogs, not just breeding bitches. We have to take that into consideration, along with the EU. We are the one island. If we do not, we are only going to see more illicit trade. It is the same marketplace and we are sharing the same land, so it is very important that we work together.

Mr. Dowling might have something to add to that.

Mr. Conor Dowling

I agree. I am sure more will come up with a potential cap or limit on the numbers, but it does not make sense to have different ones either side of the Border. By doing that, people will just relocate, which we have already seen. Talking about inconsistencies in enforcement between different counties, we have had different people move across the Border to a neighbouring county to basically get an easier deal.

The staffing ratio is not perfect. It has gone with 10:1 in the recommendations up the North versus 20:1. When you calculate the minutes you have for each animal per day, it is very small. I did an average calculation that if you had 20 bitches, allowing for them to have a litter for two months of the year, that would mean one sixth would have a litter of pups at any one time. You are looking at an average of 40 dogs per staff member if you go with that 20:1 ratio. It could be considerably more if they are front-loading their breeding at certain times of the year. That would mean ten minutes a day per dog, which is a tiny amount. I believe it was Ms O'Byrne-White who told me that, in our centre, we were looking at 30 to 40 minutes per day.

Ms Elise O'Byrne-White

Yes. Looking at the evidence and what would be considered humane, it is about the capacity to care for each animal. The minimum capacity to care that should be provided is cleaning and feeding. Some 15 to 20 minutes for that should be allowed for each animal a day. However, that is not a welfare standard and we should be looking to do a lot more than that to expect welfare outcomes, which Ms Lynch talked about. Socialisation is very important, as is positive human contact. That is exercising, petting, grooming and positive interaction. While it is important for the welfare of the animal, it shows that you will need a lot more than 20 minutes per day per animal to achieve that. It is probably closer to 40 or 50 minutes, which brings your staffing requirement right down. There is also a lot of evidence to show that a higher number of staff per animal shows positive socialisation and higher welfare outcomes and also increases the ability to be rehomed at the end of it. The animals have less fear response and fewer behavioural issues and are a lot easier to rehome.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses. We will move on to Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

What is the general trend? That is what I am trying to establish. Is it 500 single people who did not look after a dog, or is it one person who has 100 dogs? What are the stats?

Mr. Conor Dowling

The majority would be small numbers. However, since Covid, we are seeing individuals with larger numbers of dogs. It is not that most of our work is taken up dealing with DBEs - that is certainly not the case - but the issue we have in Ireland is that we have too many dogs and they are too readily accessible. They are too cheap, and people can get them very easily. Unfortunately, human nature is that if you do not pay as much or invest as much in something, you might not be as likely to care for it as well as you should.

Dog production in DBEs and smaller breeders contributes to that problem and increases the population.

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

I would like to address one thing the Deputy said. The number of breeding bitches an establishment can have depends on the equipment and housing available. I come from a farming background. Automatic milking and so on works perfectly well for all sorts of well-researched reasons. The difference between the cow, beef cattle, store cattle and a dog is that a dog needs socialisation. We are not putting a cow, calf or bullock out as a pet-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I understand all that. What I am trying to explain is-----

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

We are putting a dog into a family environment. It needs to be socialised-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

A person talked about the size needed for 100 pups. If you had three times that area, it gives them better. Some have tracks done that gives the opportunity to have proper conditions. That is what I am trying to explain. I am not saying you can equate one to the other.

The legislation refers to a ratio of 20:1. I have no problem with that. We go back again to the family farm. How many daughters or sons took over the farm and the father stayed helping because he had years of experience? They are not going to be recognised under this legislation. They have to be a paid member. In a lot of cases, it could make the farm unviable. The person might be on a pension and may not want to take money. They are being pushed to one side. Would the witnesses not agree with that?

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

It goes back to Senator Lynch's earlier comments about family members who are involved. I was brought up that way. Family members were involved in the farm, and all the work was unpaid. The difference is that if we are going to regulate it, we need to regulate it. People involved in any way, whether a father or other family members, should be on a roster. They should be there for inspection so they should be on a roster. When it is inspected the inspector should know there is a certain number of people there and it meets the legal requirement for the animals at that establishment. Regardless of whether they are family members, they should be there and available. With the unregulated versus regulated, we need to establish the moneys involved. There are more than 800 ads for dogs for sale on dogs.ie today, to take one platform. They vary in price from €500 to in excess of €1,000.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thought Mr. Dowling said a moment ago that dogs were too cheap.

Mr. Conor Dowling

That is certain types of dogs. It is market driven. The price has come down since Covid. During Covid we saw ridiculous prices. As Mr. Finnerty said, you can buy some dogs for €500, which is a lot cheaper than it used to be. These dogs are bred to be appealing to the general public, and people will pay more for them. The price and value of other dogs, such as a mongrel, lurcher or terrier, has dived. We see more of that. That is most of the work we do. Because the dogs are coming through our inspectors, they have been subjected to some form of mistreatment. We only take the dogs if there is some reason to do so. Those are the kinds of dogs we are coming across.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

From what I see, although the witnesses know better, some people get dogs and think it is a handy gig to mind a dog. You have to look after a dog when you get it as a pup, but they do not realise. The youngster wants a pup, and they buy the pup. This €500, €600 or €700 pup lands in. They are with you day and night. This is where I see a huge problem. People are buying pups for youngsters. The youngster gets fed up with the pup after a while and the father or mother has to look after it. There has to be responsibility when you get a pup. That is the reality and there is not point saying otherwise.

A dog is a person's best friend. I see so many people who have dogs all their lives. We had a bichon frisé and he lived to 16, which is a long time for that breed to live compared. Dogs become part of a family. However, it is sad to see that bigger problem we have where people do not realise the responsibility of looking after a dog. They are a part of the furniture in most houses. They are a loyal friend, especially for elderly people. In some cases, there are dogs bought, and youngsters are at other things and look away from them, but someone has to always be responsible for it. That is one of the problems, regardless of whatever legislation comes in on the breeder side.

An Cathaoirleach

We will move to Deputy Whitmore.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank our guests for their work. They do incredible work in this area advocating for animal welfare, for the dogs and, indeed, all the rescue animals out there. I have had a lot of contact with many of them. They spend every second of every day worrying, advocating and trying to make things better for puppies and female and male dogs.

I am going to try to bring it back a bit. One of the major gaps in the general scheme is that there is no cap. I brought forward legislation on behalf of the Social Democrats last year in which I proposed a cap of 30. Even that is too high, but I hoped we would get Government support to get it through, which did not happen. There is an opportunity to have a cap in what is being proposed here. The fact that there is not one is very problematic. I have been informed that if we get the conditions right, a cap would not matter. It has been said that it does not matter how many dogs and pups there are on site if an establishment has enough staff, the dogs have a big enough space to live, it is warm enough and so on. I have never been on a large-scale puppy farm. I know Mr. Dowling has, I am not sure if anyone else has. What does it feel, sound and smell like to on one of these sites? There are not many people who have experienced it first-hand. Could Mr. Dowling briefly explain what it is like?

Mr. Conor Dowling

We would be supportive of a cap. People will argue as to how low it should be. My understanding is that the Minister has not dismissed it altogether and is taking advice from the Attorney General. There is legal precedent in New South Wales in Australia, where there is a cap of 20 in place. I have also heard the arguments to the effect that if everything is in place, with the right number of staff and the right facilities, it does not matter about the numbers. Anyone who says that has never been in a place where there are hundreds of dogs. I know people who have been inspecting DBEs for years who would tell the Deputy the same thing. The word I would use is "intense". It is really stressful when there are hundreds of dogs. We all know at our kennels that if one dog starts barking, they all go off. If there are hundreds of dogs doing that, it is really hard to take in. I have been there and currently it is legal. I have to make my assessment based on seeing that there is one kennel, the dog in it looks healthy, it is clean, but then I step back and look around and think this just is not right. I talked earlier about our attitude whereby if someone only has five females, they are not really a breeder. The normalisation of production of puppies in these large-scale facilities is a bit troublesome for Ireland, and we need to address that.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

What impacts does Dogs Trust Ireland see when puppies come out of these places if it has not been possible to sell them, if they have behavioural impacts or whatever? If a pup is born into that kind of environment, is it easy to move it into a home where they are expected to be able to deal with children and to behave in a certain manner? Is that easily achieved if they have been born in these large-scale premises?

Ms Sarah Lynch

Senator Patricia Stephenson

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I will pick up on the previous contribution on the normalisation of the production of puppies. That is such a horrible term to describe an animal being born, the production of puppies in a warehouse, which is very clinical, and then the impact that has on people, including voluntary surrenders. What kind of impact is it having on the various rescue centres? Obviously, the witnesses are involved in established rescues which receive Government funding. We heard earlier about the size of the voluntary rescue sector across the country. How has that changed over recent years, particularly in the post-Covid era?

Ms Niamh Curran-Kelly

Post Covid we could not give the committee a figure on how many dogs are waiting to come into the rescue centres. The rescues and pounds are full. We are so overpopulated, yet production is ongoing. It really is a problem. We got to a good space prior to Covid with neutering campaigns and so on, but it has gone backwards since Covid.

Mr. Conor Dowling

We are seeing the same thing, even with the dogs that our inspectors come across in the field. Whereas it might have been one or two dogs, now it can be three, four, five or six that they are dealing with. There are just way too many dogs and they are too accessible. The Senator mentioned normalisation. This is about the accessibility, even if people are paying money. I bought a television and it took a week to be delivered, yet I can ring up a dog breeder, buy a puppy and have it delivered to me the next day, without considering it. I have experience with people I know who told me they were considering getting a puppy and later the same evening had gone ahead and done it. It should not be that way.

Senator Patricia Stephenson

Does that then have an impact on the number of surrenders coming into the rescue centres?

Ms Sarah Lynch

Yes. As I said earlier, the majority of causes relate to behaviour. It all goes hand in hand. That is the issue when we look at it. We have to remember the holistic approach. Breeding is one part of it, and a major one, whether the dogs are in DBEs or in backyard breeders. That is a huge part of it because it has a lifelong impact. As Mr. Dowling pointed out, and as a Deputy said earlier, it is about our attitude in this country to responsible dog ownership. We feed into that irresponsible behaviour if we - the country and the Government - allow irresponsible breeding. We have to put a structure on this and put a regulatory framework in place that is focused on welfare and in which the mam and the puppies are at the centre. It all feeds down. We have to put that in place so people know this is important and relates to the lives and welfare of the mams, the puppies, the stud dogs, the dogs that are waiting to be bred and the retired dogs.

What happens to mam when she is finished breeding? Where does she go? Then we are looking at the rescues and dealing with the hard to rehome dogs. The more one rehomes a dog, the harder it becomes to rehome it. It is traumatic for a dog. This then forces us to look at what we can do, which is to move into fostering. The industry is being advised to breed the dogs but sometimes we cannot home them. If they are going to pet-friendly housing, we have to get them in and try to train them properly or try to train the bad behaviour out of them that was inherently bred into them. Then they are sent to local rescue centres that are oversubscribed. They go to rescues or we cannot get them into a rescue, yet a licence will still be given out. Alternatively, these dogs have to be destroyed in a pound using taxpayers' money and a licence will still be given out again for someone to keep breeding them. We have to take a holistic and proper approach to this.

Senator Patricia Stephenson

We talked a little bit about the North and the importance of an all-island approach. In Covid we saw a lot of illicit trade, with people making huge sums of money from bringing puppies across the Border, with very few consequences. In that context, will Ms Lynch speak to the importance of having a unified approach on the island?

Ms Sarah Lynch

I know Mr. Dowling will speak to the Border and the illicit market. We need to be aligned. We know this is happening. A Naturewatch Foundation report was published only last week. I have not gone through the full detail of it, to be honest, but from what I saw of it, it looks at dog breeding establishments in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The dog breeding establishments with the highest number of breeding bitches are in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There are three with 200 breeding bitches in Northern Ireland and one with 300 down here. If we change the position, it will have a knock-on effect and encourage more illicit trade over the Border. I will let Mr. Dowling come in on what he has experienced.

Mr. Conor Dowling

With regard to smuggling in puppies, nowadays if someone wants to export a puppy from the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain, it should be vaccinated for rabies and then it has to be held for four weeks after vaccination. It will be about 12 weeks by the time the puppy can travel. If you want a puppy to appeal to the market, the younger it is, the better. If someone gets an eight-week-old puppy across the Border into the North, they can go to Belfast port and say it originated in the North and it is, therefore, travelling within the UK. A certain number of people are using that method to smuggle puppies out of the North. From a disease perspective, it would make sense to enforce an all-island approach. That is the way it is done with cattle. The idea that you would need to have a passport if your farm straddled the Border or if you were travelling from Dublin to Donegal through the North just does not make any sense. Politics aside, it just makes practical sense to enforce it that way.

Ms Sarah Lynch

It just supports the case for better traceability and for an online portal to be able to track every mam and puppy breeder in order to know where the dog came from. Microchipping is legal for every dog. The dogs would not only have to be microchipped but there would be information on where they came from and where they ended up. There are EU regulations coming in to make sure they are all interoperable, but we need to always keep in mind the Border.

Deputy Robert O'Donoghue

I thank the witnesses for the clarity of their answers and presentations. I really appreciate it. In the round, raising of standards across all sectors is a good thing, and this is no exception. Professionalisation in the sector is a good thing, as is oversight.

I just have one query and I would like the witnesses' thoughts on something that was touched on earlier around enforcement. The programme for Government stated the Government would address the disjointed approach to dog control issues by ensuring that legislation and policy related to the control of dogs, dog welfare and dog breeding establishments rests with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. A difficulty seems to be that while responsibility for legislation and policy has moved to the Department of agriculture, the enforcement of dog breeding legislation still rests with the local authorities. This is despite former veterinary officers having moved to the Department.

When it comes to dog breeding the situation could arguably be even more disjointed, with responsibility for policy sitting with one Department and the 31 local authorities enforcing it. What is the best way to address this disjointedness? Should enforcement be removed from the local authorities? Is this a concern with the implementation of the new legislation?

Mr. Conor Dowling

When that commitment was made in the programme for Government I think everybody here, and a lot of other people besides, thought it meant that everything, the whole lot, would move to the Department of agriculture. Based on meetings I have been at, I think the local authorities thought that too. Then it became apparent about a year ago that this was not the case and that enforcement would still reside in the local authorities. This has created some confusion, as members can imagine. As I said earlier, an arrangement has been made for the former local authority vets to continue to do the inspections in their areas, even though they now work with the Department of agriculture. There is going to be a time when one of those vets says that somewhere is not good enough and should be closed down. Then we will dependent on another body to act on that.

Earlier we mentioned having a dedicated unit. We are not necessarily talking about just inspectors, but a team or unit and administrative support.

The issue of traceability has come up repeatedly. Ms Lynch and Mr. Finnerty both mentioned it. It is so crucial that you can know where each puppy came from, who its mother was, when it was born and all of that. One of the recommendations from the group in the North of Ireland is that the microchip of each dog at a dog breeding establishment should be linked to its licence, which is something that might help as well. Ultimately, moving forward, we need to have a digital portal - Ms Lynch has already touched on this - so that all of those details can be recorded. It would be easier for breeders as well, because I have been in dog breeding establishments and seen how many different ways they have of recording details. Sometimes it is one of these ledgers you can buy in a newsagent's and it is page after page with no apparent order. For an inspector going in there, it is impossible to make sense of it.

This comes back to the need for a restriction on numbers. Is it reasonable to expect the authorities to go in and examine 200 or 300 dogs and to check the records for all of them? We do not think it should be, and certainly not for the fees they are paying at present.

Ms Sarah Lynch

If there was effective traceability and an online portal, that would be a way of keeping a record of those improvement notices and closure notices that are submitted, with a timeframe such as the one we discussed earlier, detailing, for example, how long it has been going on, what they have to show for it in the meantime and the plan to follow up on it. An independent inspectorate, if we had one, could go around and see what has happened, what changes have been made, whether an attempt is being made at all and whether it requires a closure notice effective immediately or something like that. Overall, returning to why we need that oversight such as a dedicated unit or a junior Ministry, it is just to keep an eye on all of that.

It would be no harm to report and publish, for example, how many veterinaries have reported that there should be an improvement notice or a closure notice, and whether the local authorities have followed up on them. It might state how many have been reported on or encouraged, how many have been followed up on and the reasons. We have dog control statistics. There is no reason they cannot be included as part of that.

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

I would just like to back up what my colleagues said and elaborate on it as regards the traceability. We should move away from the fractured approach that we have at present and look to the likes of what I would do if I was registering my car. If I register my car, it gets a number plate, which stays with that car for the remainder of its life until it is scrapped. It should be the same. There should be a centralised portal, as we have already discussed. When a dog is born, it should get a microchip and be licensed and they should be connected. They should be connected for the life of the animal, regardless of what county it goes into, whether Galway, Limerick, Dublin or wherever. That dog would be easily traceable because the licence would move with it. That is a simple measure.

Presently, the licence and microchip are optional. When I go online to get my licence through An Post or I walk in, it is an option. It should be mandatory.

On breeding in general, it is a societal issue. It is up to the regulator and the Minister to impose the regulatory safeguards, but it is a societal issue. Breeds come in and out of fashion so quickly and what bamboozles me is that the breeders can pivot so quickly. Suddenly they are producing cavachons and I am wondering, "Where did all the mammies over here go?" Coming from a farming background, I know that if you had to change production, that could take a year or two, yet breeders seem to be able to do it in a matter of months. It raises the question as to where all these mammies go.

On the broader societal issue, should we be allowing animals to be in films and in advertising because that is what puts pressure on parents with children saying, "I want a frenchie", "I want this" or "I want that". The question society needs to be asking the person requiring the animal is not whether they want this dog because it is pretty and has certain features. The one question that the parents should be asking when they sit down with their child is whether the dog will fit in with their lifestyle. That is the question. The main issue that we see in rescues in that people get a dog because of the look and because it is fashionable at the time, and then it falls out of fashion. It causes issues because it has come from an unsocialised environment, and then it is passed on. Suddenly, as it goes on, its traits come to the forefront and the owner says, "I didn't think this was going to happen." It might not fit in with their lifestyle. They might be working and the kids might have activities outside the school environment, but that is the one question. It is an holistic approach. Society needs to take some responsibility, but the Minister needs to regulate.

An Cathaoirleach

I need to bring this session to a conclusion because we have a number of other witnesses due to come in as well. On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for taking part and for their insights. They are welcome to stay on in the Gallery for the next session.

Cuireadh an suí ar fionraí ar 4.46 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 4.58 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 4.46 p.m. and resumed at 4.58 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

Before we begin, I bring to the attention of the witnesses the fact that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by them outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

In this second session we will continue our pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the dog breeding establishments (amendment) Bill 2026.

The committee will hear from Mr. Paul Savage from Dogs.ie; Mr. Tim O'Mahony and Mr. Garvan McFeeley from Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind, which is on my doorstep in Ballincollig; and Ms Chris Conneely, Dr. Claire Corridan and Ms Corina Fitzsimons from the Irish Blue Cross. Fáilte rompu. Their submissions have been forwarded to members and they will have had an opportunity to read them. I ask the witnesses to take two minutes each to summarise their statements and we will then move to questions and answers with members. We will start with Dogs.ie.

Mr. Paul Savage

I thank the committee for the invitation. I am the founder and CEO of Dogs.ie, where around 25,000 dogs a year find new homes. We see both sides of the market, buying and selling, and can offer the committee insight into the sale of dogs in Ireland.

First, we support stronger welfare rules. We welcome the majority of the scheme because Ireland needs licensed and inspected breeders. That is also our concern. If some of these changes make licensing unworkable, those breeders may stop breeding. They could go underground or move to platforms where nothing is checked. Every licensed breeder we lose means dogs bred where no inspector will ever see them.

Second, despite what is often reported, the dogs filling our pounds and rescues are not, as far as we can determine, from licensed dog breeding establishments, DBEs. In 2024, 4,920 dogs entered Irish pounds and more than half of them had no microchip. A licensed breeder must chip every pup and is inspected on this. We surveyed 236 dogs listed for rehoming by five Irish charities. The most frequent breeds were lurchers, Jack Russells and Staffies, and none of these breeds are what we see from licensed DBEs on Dogs.ie. Why the pounds are full deserves a deeper analysis before policy is built on it.

The third aspect is cost. The average dog on Dogs.ie is €706, which is up 11.5% in a year. Every euro added to a licensed breeder is passed on to the buyer. Buyers who are priced out do not stop buying; they go to unlicensed sellers on social media and other sites. This Bill does not reach unlicensed breeders.

That brings me to head 9, which refers to one employee for 20 bitches. As it stands, it counts payroll only. The owner, spouse or adult son or daughter working with the dogs every day counts for nothing. The models of both Wales and New South Wales, in Australia, which are the two models the scheme references, both count the contributions of owners, family and unpaid helpers. Ireland has taken the number and dropped their definition.

We ask that head 9 count real care hours and keep individual assessments. That is already in the dog breeding establishment guidelines of July 2018. These set one full-time equivalent for 25 bitches, a workforce plan and a risk assessment for each premises. We believe a ratio should be defined in primary legislation and should apply to every establishment that keeps dogs, not only licensed breeders.

We have smaller questions about head 8, showing the mother, and heads 13 and 14, about due process. Those are outlined in our full statement. I thank the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Savage. We will move to the Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind.

Mr. Tim O'Mahony

Good afternoon. I am the CEO of Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind, a national charity dedicated to enabling people with vision impairment and families with children with autism to live better lives.

We welcome the intent of the general scheme of the dog breeding establishments (amendment) Bill and support stronger animal welfare safeguards for dog breeding in Ireland. Irish Guide Dogs is accredited by the International Guide Dog Federation and Assistance Dogs International, ADI. These international accreditation bodies set and monitor global standards for guide and assistance dog schools, including standards relating to breeding, puppy development, early socialisation, training and aftercare. The standards required to achieve reaccreditation, which happens every five years, far exceed the requirements proposed in the draft legislation. Additionally, we operate at a higher standard of dog welfare so that our dogs can best support the independence and mobility of our clients.

Our statement provides assurances to the committee that the charity's existing policies and welfare standards already exceed the proposed revised standards in respect of the care, management and support of the breeding colony.

We outline the charity's key areas of concern and consideration. The first is recognition of service dog organisations by creating a distinct category for recognised, not-for-profit service dog breeding and training organisations. The second relates to one-litter-per-year limitations. The legislation should provide flexibility, subject to veterinary approval, for accredited guide and assistance dog programmes where welfare standards can be demonstrated.

The third relates to puppy raising and socialisation programmes. The legislation should state that puppy placements within recognised service dog programmes are not sales, transfers or third-party transactions, and should protect volunteer puppy-raiser, socialisation and welfare-related placements.

The fourth relates to international breeding collaboration. The legislation should expressly recognise and facilitate approved international breeding collaborations that operate in accordance with equivalent welfare standards.

Finally, there is the movement of puppies before eight weeks for welfare and socialisation purposes. We ask that organisations that meet the definition of a charity under the Charities Act 2009 and operate recognised service dog breeding and training programmes be exempted from any provision that would otherwise prevent puppies from leaving the premises before eight weeks of age for supervised welfare, weaning or socialisation purposes.

Irish Guide Dogs asks the committee to consider amendments that recognise accredited assistance and service dog school breeding programmes in the legislation; specifically exclude organisations that meet the definition of a charity under the Charities Act 2009; allow carefully regulated flexibility regarding breeding limits once operated under veterinary guidance as outlined; protect puppy-raiser and socialisation programmes to ensure we can continue to meet the needs of our vision-impaired clients and families of children with autism; and protect international guide and assistance dog breeding collaborations, which serve to support best practice in welfare for breeding dogs and provide diversity in our service dogs.

An Cathaoirleach

I need to move on to Irish Blue Cross. I thank Mr. O'Mahony.

Ms Chris Conneely

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before them today on behalf of the Irish Blue Cross. We are a registered charity with extensive front-line experience in companion animal health and welfare. I am the CEO and I am joined by my colleagues Corina Fitzsimons, our communications executive and a former veterinary nurse, and Dr. Claire Corridan, our director and a veterinary surgeon with a doctorate in animal behaviour and welfare.

We welcome this Bill and its commitment to improving welfare standards. However, we believe it must go further than regulating breeding establishments. It must address what determines a puppy's development into a healthy, behaviourally sound and socially capable dog. A puppy's development does not begin once it leaves a breeding establishment; it happens in the womb and during the first eight to 12 weeks of its life in a DBE, and this period influences the dog for the rest of its life.

Irish Blue Cross vets regularly see, at all of our clinics, dogs with infectious disease, inherited and congenital conditions and behavioural problems, all associated with, unfortunately, poor breeding and inadequate early-life care. Often, unsuspecting buyers of these dogs face costly and even lifelong veterinary bills that they never anticipated when they set out to buy a puppy.

Sadly, euthanasia may be the only humane option because of severe physical or behavioural problems. All of this is what is happening as a result of our poorly regulated dog breeding sector. The emotional impact cannot be overstated, in particular on families who purchase a substandard or unhealthy puppy.

We question whether the proposed ratio of one staff member to 20 breeding females is sufficient. It does not cover male dogs or puppies. Puppies need individual attention, positive human interaction, socialisation, habituation, enrichment and exercise to become safe, confident and well-adjusted dogs.

An Cathaoirleach

I will move to the members. I propose to use the same speaking rota we had earlier. The first speaker is Senator Boyhan. He has six minutes.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank the witnesses from the Irish Blue Cross, Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind, and Dogs.ie, including Mr. Paul Savage himself. I also thank the previous speakers. It was important for them to speak. We politicians are speaking every day about everything, so I believe it is important to have people from outside come in.

There are many aspects to this Bill.

There is some confusion in that Deputy Whitmore has her own Private Members' Bill and the Government has proposed this general scheme. The latter appears to be a watered down version of the former. I am most conscious that members of the public are listening in here. Every night, Oireachtas report is broadcast. People tune into an edited version and do not always get the full context. There are two parallel processes at different stages. That is an important point to make.

I want to declare that I was a director of Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind for many years. Tomorrow, in these Houses we will have a celebration of the 50th anniversary of that organisation's foundation. I commend Tim O'Mahony, who is the current chief executive of the charity. I know of his excellence in terms of breeding.

I do not want to confuse matters too much, but Mr. O'Mahony he might clarify what he means by an exemption for a charity like his. I have an issue with exempting any charity from anything. Quite frankly, we had many charities running many institutions for children in this State. That did not mean they were good. It did not mean they were operating to best practice. I do not believe in giving exemptions to charities. Mr. O'Mahony excels in his work. He is pioneering in terms of breeding, socialising and his international exchange programmes. The public might not know that. In a sentence or two, Mr. O'Mahony might touch on what he means and outline the areas to which exemptions would relate in terms of his key work or charities that may do similar work to him in terms of guide dogs for the blind or assistance dogs.

Mr. Tim O'Mahony

First, we are accredited to international standards, namely those applied by the International Guide Dog Federation, IGDF, and Assistance Dogs International, ADI. We already operate at far higher welfare standards than those outlined in the general scheme. We are covered on that front. We meet that standard.

I would say then, our services bring independence and mobility for clients. They are not for profit. We have a goal to kind of bring independence for people. Anything we are doing is solely aimed at fulfilling that objective, both for the dogs that we train and for our clients. That is where we should receive an exemption.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I am conscious that we are talking about animal welfare.

Mr. Tim O'Mahony

Yes.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That is important. I will leave that there. I know where Mr. O'Mahony is coming from now. He has clarified that, but he must remember that today's meeting relates to animal welfare.

Ghlac an Seanadóir Victor Boyhan an Chathaoir.

Senator Victor Boyhan took the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator Victor Boyhan)

I will explain the position. There is a vote in the Dáil, which the witnesses can see on the cameras to their left. It should not take that long so the members who left will be back and other members will also come in. I call Senator Brady.

Senator Paraic Brady

We spoke about microchipping. It is my belief, and it is the law, that every dog should be microchipped. We should go further and have a DNA database with every dog on it. When sheep are attacked, as Deputy Fitzmaurice said, the saliva of the dog that attacked them can be taken from the dead animal to identify the dog that did it. Legislation needs to be brought in. If a vet is treating a dog that is not chipped, there is an onus on the vet to put a chip in the dog and register it to the person who brought it in on the day. That is what we need to strengthen, to start with. If a dog is impounded, it should be chipped in the pound and registered to the next owner before it goes out.

If we started on that basis, we would have something. There is a huge number of animals out that that are not chipped. That is where the whole problem of dog attacks lies.

I thank Senator Brady. We need to move on. Senator Lynch is next. She has six minutes.

Senator Eileen Lynch

I thank the witnesses for being here. This is incredibly important legislation. My first question is for Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind. I am very familiar with that group, as well as other service dogs organisations such as Autism Dogs and My Canine Companion, and the fantastic work they do. Irish Guide Dogs' submission on the possible impacts this legislation could have on the organisation is quite frightening. It would put massive restrictions on the work it does. On the five main points it wanted to have addressed, where do these stand under the current 2010 Act as opposed to the proposed legislation in terms of the recognition of the service dog, breeding limits, the socialisation of puppies and so on? If this goes ahead, what impact will it have on the organisation and how will it limit the service it can provide?

Mr. Tim O'Mahony

First, I have not looked at the historical breeding stuff. We follow the accreditation standards, which far exceed what is in this Bill. Our ratios are much improved. We have our broodstock holder and our staff ratios. On the volunteers, we provide the support of the volunteers to paid staff. There is a ratio of 1:7.5 volunteers. Then we have the veterinary back-up for each of those volunteers through our association vet and local vets.

I am not saying it is a reflection on Mr. Savage. I am saying it is a reflection on an industry that does not want any eyes on it. That is what it is a reflection of.

I think we need to look at this. There is a lot the organisation could do. I thought I was going to get six minutes, but I agree with Deputy Whitmore about that document. I know I am not a member, but perhaps the members who invited him in were not aware this was ChatGPT slop. I want to put on record that I agree with the Deputy on that.

Senator Chris Andrews

That is what it is - slop.

An Cathaoirleach

That concludes the time available to us for this session. I thank everybody who has taken part in it, and for their insights on the Bill. We will continue with pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill next week. In the meantime, that concludes today's business.

Cuireadhancomhchoiste arathlóar 6 p.m. go dtí 3.30 p.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 7 Deireadh Fómhair 2026.

The joint committee adjourned at 6 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 October 2026.

Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food díospóireacht - Wednesday, 30 Sep 2026

General Scheme of the Dog Breeding Establishments (Amendment) Bill 2026: Discussion

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Conor Dowling

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Sarah Lynch

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Conor Dowling

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Sarah Lynch

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Elise O'Byrne-White

Mr. Conor Dowling

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Conor Dowling

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Conor Dowling

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Ms Sarah Lynch

Ms Sarah Lynch

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Conor Dowling

Mr. Conor Dowling

Mr. Conor Dowling

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Sarah Lynch

Ms Niamh Curran-Kelly

Ms Sarah Lynch

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Niamh Curran-Kelly

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Sarah Lynch

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Conor Dowling

Ms Sarah Lynch

Mr. Bartley Finnerty

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Tim O'Mahony

Ms Chris Conneely

Mr. Tim O'Mahony

Mr. Tim O'Mahony

Dr. Claire Corridan

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Mr. Paul Savage

Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Sep 2026