I welcome you all to the meeting this morning. I will read some formal notices. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to the 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 the committee at this meeting and previous meetings will be published and the replies from Departments and other bodies will also be published. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. P00079/25 is entitled "Review the Eligibility Criteria for Presidential Candidates in Ireland". We have correspondence from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Based on that correspondence, which is directly to the petitioner and advises that the Department's position has not changed and indeed is unlikely to change, I do not believe that we have any role to play. I propose that we would close this petition. Do members have any views on that? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. P00017/26 is entitled "Discuss the Severe Lack of Services and Facilities for People and Families of those living with Intellectual Disabilities". This is the people from the Before We Die campaign. Members will recall that we had a session with the members of the campaign themselves. I feel it was a very productive session. I think they do too. This campaign is very much growing in momentum. I believe the committee has a role in ventilating that. I propose to the committee that we will schedule a hearing and that we will request officials from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, but specifically from the disability section, to attend. I propose that we would have the two of those and, if possible, the Department of Health if need be. We should focus on the Departments of housing and local government and disability because it is the connection of those two that will be the ultimate resolution of this issue. Do members have any views?

I think that is a very good next step. We have listened to Before We Die and we need to show that we are trying to progress this. It is certainly my understanding that, because the responsibility lies across multiple agencies and Departments, this is one of the issues around getting suitable accommodation.

Yes. Sometimes when everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible because everyone is only responsible for a small part. If we can get those two Departments in specifically, then we can start to ask some questions. We know there are projects that happen right across the State and people doing really good work.

I am conscious that we have a very committed charity worker in our presence this morning. It is often one person who is doing that and dragging everybody else with them. We would do good work if we could just try to get some answers for people as to why this cannot be done. It is a very obvious issue and a very obvious problem that is having a serious impact. If anyone has it in their family, as I do, we know that people say "I go to sleep every night and the last thing I think about is what is going to happen." Before We Die is a very hard-hitting name for the campaign but it does concentrate the mind a little bit. We will try to get that scheduled.

We had witnesses in earlier in the year and it was heartbreaking to hear the stories of them wondering what will happen their loved ones. We asked the HSE which law obliges the parents to house an adult child and the response was the maintenance Act, but that says nothing about housing in itself. The family we had in deserves a straight answer and I think that has to come.

Yes. We can definitely ask that question but they also deserve other things. A straight answer is definitely one of them but they also deserve a pathway. That is one thing. We could concentrate on that and maybe we will get an answer but actually what we need is to be able to make a contribution towards their broader campaign, if we can, and to ventilate some of those issues. The Senator's point is well made. We will get a chance to ask those questions when they are here.

Petition No. P00058/26 is in the name of Ms Vera Tarnavska and is entitled "Systemic failure in housing complaint handling". The petitioner here is making a very specific point in relation to the various agencies that are involved when one has an issue with housing. It is the local authorities, sometimes the RTB, and sometimes the Ombudsman, where Ms Tarnavska has gone as well. Ms Tarnavska has made complaints around an issue, but her problem is that she gets a little bit of it back from one agency, a little bit back from another and a little bit back from another, but nobody is addressing the substantive issue. My proposal to the committee, if agreed, is to schedule a hearing and we will hear from Ms Tarnavska. Then we will make a decision on how we should proceed after we have heard from Ms Tarnavska. Is that agreed and do members have any views? Agreed.

Petition No. P00062/26 is in the name of Mr. Ray Cullivan and is entitled "Proposed Amendments to the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2026 - Need for Evidence-Based and Practical Regulation". We have a response from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The proposal is that we will publish and forward the correspondence to the petitioner for his comment. I also want to make a proposal to the committee that we invite Mr. Cullivan and others in. Do members have any views?

This submission is from Ray Cullivan who, by all accounts, runs the largest and most profitable commercial dog breeding establishment. There is clear evidence and science behind the fact that mass production of puppies is harmful to the socialisation and well-being of pups and dogs. Mr. Cullivan makes the point in the petition that the scale of puppy farms should not be restricted and, effectively, he does not want a cap because beef and dairy farmers do not have a cap on the scale of their production of cows and farm animals, and that puppy farm should not be restricted either. I find it hard to think that anybody would suggest that dogs and puppies would be treated the same as farm animals in terms of the way they are bred. Obviously, cows and horses are not going to be domesticated into families or into their homes. It just beggars belief. Animals bred for agricultural purposes are not the same as those being bred for domestic purposes and are not being integrated into families and around children. There has to be a very different way of breeding. It is worthwhile asking Mr. Cullivan to come in and give testimony to the committee. I also suggest we get somebody with a science background to come in and present on the same day as him, which would be important. There is lots of evidence that commercial dog-breeding establishments are not good for dog welfare. This particular individual has a licence for 300 breeding females on his site at any time, and then add in the pups and the male dogs. We need to be clear about the science, clearly, but you do not need to be a scientist to say that having 300 breeding females on a site is not good for dog welfare. I have been contacted by numerous individuals and families who have purchased dogs off Mr. Cullivan and the dogs have died within days. I have copies of post mortems-----

That is not relevant to our discussion this morning. The proposal is that we invite Mr. Cullivan in and at that stage we will be able to ask him questions.

Yes. All right.

That particular thing is not relevant here to our discussions this morning. We need to be careful in what we say because we want to get the most out of this hearing when we do have Mr. Cullivan come to us. I would ask people just to be mindful of that in their remarks, please.

Yes. It is a good idea to get Mr. Cullivan in and to also have in someone with a science background, a behaviourist, who knows what they are talking about and who has veterinary experience. That would be worthwhile.

I certainly welcome this legislation. One of the key aspects of it is to finally put dog welfare at the heart of the legislation. It very much distinguishes dogs who will potentially be part of families with children and part of family homes, as the Senator has pointed out. They are not the same as farm animals as a result. They are a different type of animal and require a different type of welfare. They are going to be part of our homes and our communities. We know from research that poorly socialised pups can result in poorly socialised grown dogs. If we want to address a lot of the issues we have had with the poor health, welfare and behaviours of dogs, then we have to go back and we have to start at the breeding stages. I very much welcome it. It is a good opportunity to come in and discuss it a bit further.

I also suggest that maybe we broaden it out and talk to other dog breeders. Irish Guide Dogs, for example, is an established dog breeder and it is doubly accredited internationally. The very nature of what it does is that it needs to manage dog breeding very carefully. Its dogs, obviously, have to be very well bred and very well socialised. If the dogs do not meet the various criteria, they will not be able to become working dogs. Anybody who has met an Irish guide dog will know. With due respect to the Cathaoirleach, I am sure she has met some Irish guide dogs and finds them lovely.

Always lovely and very well behaved. They are lovely dogs.

It highlights that these are the types of standards we are trying to work towards, so perhaps we can bring them in and talk to them about how they manage it. There are some challenges with the proposed legislation that could impact how those breeders operate. This is an opportunity for them to highlight that as well. If we can bring them in and listen to how they do it, this will give us a very clear example from those who put dog welfare at the centre of what they do. If those dogs are not well bred, well socialised and totally healthy, then they will not be able to work with the blind person or a child with special needs in the future.

Absolutely. That is a point very well made by Deputy O'Connell and Senator Andrews. We need to hear from the scientist, the petitioner and we will try to get someone from the Irish Guide Dogs. My proposal is that we may look to the veterinary college at UCD and look for someone specifically with a research interest in this area. We would have the three to be the petitioner, the Irish Guide Dogs and the person from UCD.

Is that agreed?

I checked my notes from when the Irish Guide Dogs representatives were in. I do not think they had an issue with a cap. I think their issue was with the separation of the pups. The separation is currently eight weeks. I think they asked for the separation to happen two weeks earlier. I think that was their issue, rather than a cap.

They also have to bring dogs in and export dogs to ensure they have mixed diversity in breeding. That is one of their challenges. The dog gets on flights and everything. It is wonderful. Nobody is going in a crate here. That is also one of their challenges regarding the legislation. There are a few pieces in there that need to be taken into account. I have been in touch with the Department and spoken to the Minister on this. They are open to trying to come up with the solutions, but we also need to make sure whatever solutions we provide through them do not end up creating a loophole that can be exploited.

That is going to be the key here. Mr. Cullivan is looking for the need for evidence-based and practical regulation. It has to be regulation that works but is effective. Between the two of those, there is a place where dog and animal welfare is at the centre. I think everyone really wants that.

That is the objective of the legislation, that dog and animal welfare will be at the centre. We do not want to amend anything that is going to negate that.

The discussion at the committee will not be specifically to the legislation but to the need for an evidence base to form part of it. This will not be pre-legislative scrutiny. That is not the function of the committee, but we will hear from Mr. Cullivan and his position. We will then hear from the other two invitees at that stage.

Like my colleagues, I am delighted to see this legislation coming forward. It is horrific to see dogs being likened to farm animals, as my colleagues have said. The Department's reply regarding the general scheme does not say whether there is a numerical cap on that. That is something I would like to find out. I know the figure of 300 was mentioned before and then the figure of 30 was brought up. That is a question I asked last week and it is something I would like to know. The petitioner made a request for consultation with breeders. I know there was a dog control stakeholder group and there was consultation. Was that report ever published? Did we get that report? That is basically what I want to say on this.

I do not know if the report was published. I have a feeling we are about to find out.

The report has not been published. Senator McCarthy asked about the cap in the general scheme. The legislation does not suggest a cap, which is a huge flaw, especially when a cap of 25 will be introduced north of the Border. It would be a huge flaw for any legislation not to take into account European regulations that will be brought in, as well as legislation north of the Border. At the moment, this legislation does not have a cap, which is serious, in my view. Most dogs organisations, such as the NSPCA, Dogs Trust and Dog Law Ireland, have stated that a cap is essential. It would be a mistake if there was not a cap. It is not being looked at currently, which is a pity.

This is not the place for us to discuss this. We will not be doing pre-legislative scrutiny or detailed scrutiny of the legislation, but we will be discussing Mr. Cullivan's request that everything that is done is done with an evidence base. That will be our discussion for the session, when we arrange it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. P00067/26 is entitled "Amend Car Insurance Rules and Expand Vehicle Choices for Younger Drivers" and is in the name of Mr. Cian O'Donovan. If you have never experienced a day out in a vintage car, apparently you are missing out. He makes some interesting points. We have a response from the Department of Transport. The proposal is that we send the response to the petitioner, publish the response and await his response. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. P00074/26 is entitled "Implementation of June 2026 Electoral Commission Recommendations on Election Postering" and is in the name of Mr. Evin Conway. We have a response from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The proposal is that we forward that to the petitioner and publish that response. Is that agreed? Agreed.

That concludes the petitions for today. Before we go, I will mention some interactions we have had with the office of the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. As members will know, we have been corresponding with the Minister's office for some time now to try to arrange a session. In the last correspondence we sent, we included every single committee session we will have between now and the new year. We made all of those dates available to the Minister or one of his senior officials to come to speak to us about dog law reform, particularly regarding the treatment of pet theft. We have correspondence from the Department of agriculture which indicates clearly and comprehensively that this is not its area. There is no purpose in us having a meeting with it to discuss this. I am incredibly disappointed at the response. I have to say that as the Chair. If the committee is in agreement, I propose that we write to Deputy Sean Fleming as the Chair of the Working Group of Committee of Cathaoirligh and that we will make it known to him.

I do not understand this. We fully appreciate that the Minister is busy, notwithstanding the fact that time has been made to attend some committees, just not this one. That is why we had suggested a senior official in the place of the Minister. We have received neither. I am conscious that this is not very fair on the petitioners who came in. We had an emotional hearing. People feel very strongly about this. They feel strongly about their pets and the manner in which they are treated and want to see some change. I am conscious that people came into the committee. They gave us very good evidence, some of it very personal and very emotional. Some of it was quite hard to hear because of the trauma visited on people in this regard. I am conscious that I do not want to disappoint or let those people down. I do not want them to think we are not pursuing it. We have pursued it. If the committee is agreeable, my proposal is that we will write to Deputy Sean Fleming as the Chair of the Working Group of Committee Cathaoirligh.

If I am not mistaken, I think their petition was heard just over a year ago. I actually was not here for that, but I watched it in follow-up. I know Lisa O'Connor and Louise O'Tuama, the two petitioners, are committed to dog and cat welfare and pet welfare generally. They have put in a huge amount of work. They are very committed. It is something that is important to them. When you think about it, every second family has a pet, whether it is a cat, a dog, a gerbil or whatever. It is an important issue for a lot of people. They want the welfare of the stolen pets to be dealt with more importantly than if a television or NutriBullet were stolen, for example. They want the position of cats, dogs and pets to be elevated within the law. It is not an unreasonable request. It is disrespectful of the Minister and his Department officials not to come here and attend. It goes to the core of democracy. If they are not going to engage with the democratic process in the committees here, it is disappointing. I agree that we need to write to Sean Fleming and stress our annoyance and anger with it. It is not just disrespectful to the committee, it is equally disrespectful to the two petitioners, Lisa and Louise. It is important we pursue this as far as we can.

We will. There is nothing personal to the committee on this, but we heard from petitioners and indicated that we would try to do a follow-up. We have been trying. I share the Senator's view. I do not want the people who come to this committee with a petition to feel disrespected by the process. We will pursue this.

I know we have discussed this a number of times. The Minister, when he was met in Leinster House, said he was unaware of the emails.

Has that all been resolved? I know it is a case of he was not aware.

Yes, that has been entirely resolved. We have received a response, as we had done previously. We always get a response from the office, notwithstanding what might be said on a one-to-one basis. The response from the Minister's office indicates that the Minister is not available on any of the dates that we had set out and we did set out a long list of dates.

We offered eight different dates.

The committee has shown ourselves to be flexible. We want to hear from the Minister and to do justice to the people who came in for the petitions because it is not easy. I appeared before Oireachtas committees before I became a Deputy and I know that it is not easy to appear before an Oireachtas committee. For us, it is our daily work and we are in and out of committees all of the time. For the people who come in, they do a lot of preparation and do a huge amount of work, and it is nerve-wracking. It is easy for us because this is our work environment, but for the people who come from outside, it is a very unusual setting. People came in and spoke about something which is very personal to them and something around which they still feel a lot of hurt. On that basis and in order to do justice to our petitioners, we will, if we are agreed, write to Deputy Sean Fleming.

I agree with the previous speakers. The last line of the response received from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine reads, "In relation to the official guidance and consistent support for victims, An Garda Síochána are the appropriate authority". When you are looking for information, the Garda will tell you it is the Department of such and such and the Department will tell you it is the Garda. These people petitioning want a common-sense approach. I have pets at home. Some people treat their pets as children when they do not have children. If you stole a child in the morning, what would be the natural reaction? It would be the Garda Síochána and an investigation straight away at the highest level.

Regarding theft, there was a response in that same letter that traceability and microchipping can play an important role, but the people who are stealing these animals have the ability to remove those microchips. It is grand giving us excuses, but you know yourself, Chair, the only thing that wins here is when you strengthen the laws and you increase fines, because it is always in the pocket they need to be hurt.

I listened to what Senator Andrews said about how people feel personally about this. Sometimes it is very difficult to come in here, and you see something that appears to be a common-sense approach and you expect that approach to be taken with common sense and it is not. I cannot understand why there is such a reluctance here for anybody to come in and tell us if we are doing something wrong within the committee or if it is the way the Department is just not interested or not prioritising this. This should be a very simple win and we are here as a committee being sent in circles. I wholeheartedly agree with what you said, Chair, and the tone you took on it, that we need answers because we have a duty of care to the people who trusted us when they approached this committee.

And they did, and I think we need to be as good as that trust.

I want to add one final piece to that, which is that it is not just about dogs that are kept as pets. This theft is becoming something in terms of domestic disputes. It is becoming much more complex and the animals are now a tool in that. It is not just the dog. You are talking about entire families and spouses and the animal being used as a pawn in those circumstances. That puts it squarely within the Department of justice.

It does indeed. I thank all of the members. I am glad that we are all in agreement on this and that we are all clearly motivated the same way. No disrespect to the Department of justice but we need to do justice - forgive the pun - to the people who came in. I cannot emphasise enough what a big deal it was for those people to come here and do that, and I would not want them to think we were not pursuing it. We really have been and we will continue to pursue it, but the next level is to write to the Chairperson of the committee. We will do that after this meeting, if that is agreed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

That concludes our consideration of public petitions this morning. I invite members of the public to submit petitions via our online portal, which is available at petitions.oireachtas.ie. A petition may be addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas on a matter of general public concern or interest or an issue of public policy.