I welcome everyone. I need to read some formal notices.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I propose that the petitions considered by our committee at the meeting this morning and previous meetings will be published and that replies, when received from Departments and any other bodies, will also be published. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have seven petitions in front of us this morning. P00065/25, relating to safeguards for section 19 supervision orders, was submitted by Mr. Stephen Bernard McElligott. Petitioners will know that we meet in private session to give consideration to the petitions before we consider them in public. As can be seen, and as we have discussed, there is some correspondence between the secretariat, Tusla and the petitioner. We have a response from Tusla to the latest correspondence from the petitioner. The proposal is that the correspondence from Tusla will be forwarded to the petitioner and that he will be given 14 days to return his comment. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00071/25 relates to a national review of historical paediatric orchidopexy practices and HSE oversight. It was submitted by Mr. Shane Mullally. We have written to the Department of Health. We have a response from the Department and a response to that from the petitioner. The proposal is that we forward the correspondence from the petitioner to the Department for its comments. When we get the response from the Department, the committee will have a chance to consider it and to make a decision about the best course of action. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00082/25 relates to Laois County Council granting quarry permission to exploit Slieve Bloom resources for no economic gain. It was submitted by Ms Katherina Phelan. This is a local issue but we have in the past considered local issues at the committee and we will get the opportunity to do so again. We have correspondence from Laois County Council. The proposal is that we send that correspondence to the petitioner. In the event that the correspondence satisfies the petitioner's queries, we will close the petition. If not, we will hear back from the petitioner with her comments within 14 days. We will have the chance to discuss that petition again. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00019/26 relates to improved transparency in the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. It was submitted by Mr. Shane Cusack. We have written to the Department of justice and we have a response. We have sent that response on. We have a response to that from the petitioner. The proposal is for that correspondence to be forwarded to the Department of An Taoiseach for comment within 14 days. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00052/26 relates to a review of the medicines, products, regulations and retail barriers to address significant cost disparities and a loss of consumer revenue to the UK. It was submitted by Mr. Manoj Panda. We have a response from the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, which we propose to publish. As Cathaoirleach, I do not think that the response from the HPRA fully addresses the concerns raised by the petitioner and I would like more detailed information from the HPRA. The proposal is that we forward that correspondence to the petitioner. In advance of him responding, I propose that we write to the HPRA and seek a more detailed response to the query that was raised. We will still send on its response. While its response was comprehensive and descriptive, it did not address in full the purpose of the petition. On the basis of the correspondence from the HPRA, we will make a decision on how to proceed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00059/25 relates to proposed amendments to the dog breeding establishment regulations. It was submitted by Ms Grace Monahan. We have written to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We have a response. The proposal is that we will publish that response from the Department of agriculture. Do members have any views?

I welcome the Government's proposed legislation. It is important for dog welfare. The Minister has said that he is open to ensuring there is a cap on the number of breeding females at any establishment. That is important. It is also important that there is properly resourced enforcement of all the legislation.

Currently, the enforcement is falling way short. We just have to look at the number of rescue centres and how they are being overwhelmed. There needs to be genuine investment in enforcement. We also have to look at online sales platforms like dogs.ie. There needs to be more regulation of them. The sites need to take responsibility for how they are run. Some ads on dogs.ie have 300 breeding females in a particular establishment, or in many cases up to 100 or 150. It is not good for animal welfare. It does not inherently mean that they are mistreating dogs, but it makes it very likely that these dogs are being mistreated when a business is operating on that scale, in particular because the ratio of staff to breeding females is no doubt extremely low.

The petition asks for evidence. There is plenty of evidence. The BBC did investigative work on it, highlighting the mistreatment of dogs in puppy farms, as I call them. Dog advocacy groups have called for a cap of 30 breeding females in any puppy breeding establishment. The dog welfare groups that work with dogs and other animals day in, day out have loads of evidence to suggest that having 300 breeding females in an establishment is not good for animal welfare or dog welfare. There needs to be a cap. The number of dogs in rescue centres is horrendous. There just is not the capacity. There is a serious problem with dog welfare in Ireland. For a nation that considers itself to be dog loving, it is lamentable how poorly we treat dogs. Enforcement is going to be key. The Government's legislation will be really important, but we have to get it right. We need to base it on facts and evidence.

Deputy Andrews is spot-on there. I do not think there is a massive disparity between him and the petitioner. The petitioner makes the point that there are many decent dog breeding establishments that uphold all of those standards and what she is seeking is just an evidence base for where some of those standards are coming from. Correspondence has been returned to us from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The proposal is that we will forward that to the petitioner and on the basis of whatever response we get back, we can decide how to proceed.

The Senator's points are well made, but I do not think there is necessarily a difference between his sentiments and those of the petitioner. The petitioner is very concerned about ensuring that reputable dog breeding establishments are allowed to continue with their activity as long as they remain within the confines of the legislation. She is particularly interested in ensuring that good policy is developed using evidence, as Senator Andrews has said himself. The Department has given a response. The proposal is that we will send that on to the petitioner and, on the basis of that comment, we will make a decision on whether we need to discuss this further. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00061/26, titled "Protect Children from Grooming Risks in Youth Organisations", was submitted by Mr. Karl de Leeuw. We have written to Tusla and it has sent us a response. From the response from Tusla, it would appear that this is not a matter it considers to be under its purview and that it is more appropriate for the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport. The proposal is that we will send that response to the petitioner. My recommendation is that we close this petition given that it specifically relates to Tusla and Tusla has specifically told us that this is not an area where it feels it has a competency. The correspondence will be forwarded to the petitioner for his information. He is, of course, entitled to respond but my proposal to the committee is that we close the petition on the basis of the response received from Tusla.

Are we agreed on that? Do members have any views?

The overall importance of trying to protect children from risk cannot be overstated, especially if we consider historical cases of abuse in youth organisations and so on. One point the petitioner makes is that while Garda vetting is all well and good, it only detects people who have already committed crimes. The issue is that those people who have committed crimes against young people would once have had clean Garda vetting records. However, I do not believe the petition is for this committee. Youth organisations all around Ireland are doing fantastic work and we need to make sure we are not tarring them all with the same brush, but at the same time we need to make sure the protection of children is paramount.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Senator. There is no intention on my part as Cathaoirleach, or on the part of the committee, to diminish the work done by youth organisations. It is phenomenal, but that is not to suggest we are blind to the risks. However, given the manner in which the petition has been submitted, Tusla has advised that the suggestion made in it is more in line with age classification for film and television and would not be appropriate for it within the remit set out in the Child Care Act. Nevertheless, we will send on the correspondence, and obviously the petitioner is entitled to write back if he wishes to. Not in any way to diminish the issue, although I do not believe we are doing so and it is one that we will take seriously, I do not believe we can progress it any further given the response from Tusla and the fact that it regards it as being outside its remit. Therefore, I propose that we close the petition. Are members agreed? Agreed.

Under any other business, do members have any issues they would like to raise? There being no further business, the committee is adjourned until 6 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 July 2026, when we will meet in both private and public session and celebrate Bastille Day. I thank all the members.