Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire.

I welcome the Minister. Today, I need to highlight a serious issue that affects communities right across rural and urban Ireland, one of that is being felt particularly strongly in counties like Kerry. I refer to the growing problem of irresponsible dog ownership, including dog fouling and uncontrolled dogs that are causing savage harm to livestock, wildlife and, in some cases, people. The Minister is well aware of this.

This is not a new problem. For years, local authorities have relied on enforcement systems that require wardens to witness an offence before action can be taken. Despite the dedication and professionalism of dog wardens across the country, that system is no longer fit for purpose. The reality is simple; without the ability to identify an offending dog after an incident occurs, accountability is often impossible.

Dog fouling remains one of the most consistent complaints raised by the public in local authorities. It affects public health, damages tourism and undermines enjoyment of our beaches, parks and shared public spaces. Beyond inconvenience, there are very real human consequences. Recently, a woman from Kerry contacted a representative to share her personal story. When she was just three years old, playing on a beach, she contracted a serious infection linked to dog fouling. That infection ultimately caused her to lose vision in one eye. This is not an abstract debate; it is a reminder that irresponsible behaviour can have lifelong consequences.

In rural Ireland, the stakes are even higher. Farmers continue to face devastating livestock attacks caused by uncontrolled dogs, particularly during the lambing season, which we are in. The financial loss is significant but the emotional toll on farming families finding animals injured or killed cannot be overstated. The scale of the problem nationally is clear. In 2024 alone, 287 livestock-worrying incidents were reported, a 4% increase on the previous year. A total of 2,077 farm animals were attacked by dogs in a single year, including 1,592 sheep along with cattle and poultry. In those attacks, 618 animals were maimed, killed or had to be put down, and dog attacks on livestock are now at a six-year high nationally. We are not talking about isolated incidents. Over 2,000 farm animals were attacked by dogs in Ireland last year alone.

The impact on farmers is widespread. The survey shows that 73% of sheep farmers have experienced dog attacks on their flocks, while historical farming data suggests that between 3,000 and 4,000 sheep may be injured or killed annually due to dog attacks. Behind every statistic are a farming family dealing with loss, distress and financial pressure. The Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association has been in contact and has made clear that stronger measures are needed. It has been calling for improved traceability and accountability for some time, recognising that existing enforcement tools are completely out of touch and are failing farmers who are doing everything right. What is being proposed is not punitive or anti-dog, and we have to state that. Ireland is nation of dog lovers. I am one myself and the vast majority of dog owners are very responsible. This is about addressing the small minority whose actions create consequences for everyone else.

A dog DNA database is one modern tool that deserves serious national consideration. Under such a system, DNA samples could be collected when dogs are licensed or registered and could be phased in over time. I do not want this to start today. I want it to start with the next pup that comes in to be chipped by the vet, whereby they would be registered and a DNA sample taken. Evidence gathered after livestock attacks or from dog fouling incidents could then be matched, allowing enforcement officers to act fairly and effectively.

Importantly, this is about deterrence as much as it is about enforcement. When accountability becomes possible, behaviours change. Responsible owners are protected, public spaces become cleaner and farmers gain reassurance that incidents will no longer go unanswered. Local authorities, including those in Leitrim and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, are beginning to examine this approach because they recognise that the current systems are completely outdated.

We now need national leadership, clear guidance, legislative support where necessary and a willingness to explore modern solutions to modern problems.

Protecting public health, supporting farmers, safeguarding wildlife and promoting responsible dog ownership are goals we all share. Examining innovative enforcement tools should not be controversial as it was last week down in Kerry County Council when this issue was raised. It should be seen as common sense and welcomed. I urge this House to support further examination of dog DNA databases as part of a broader effort to strengthen responsible dog ownership across Ireland and to give our local authorities the tool they need to protect everyone in the community.

I thank the Senator for raising this really important matter and assure him and all Members of the Seanad of my commitment to improving the traceability of dogs. Effective traceability is fundamental to safeguarding dog welfare, supporting responsible ownership and strengthening accountability where incidents occur.

The Senator referenced the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA,. I was in Donegal last Thursday, which is a long way from Kerry, where the association launched a campaign on sheep worrying and dog ownership. The title of the campaign is: "It's not your dog's fault, it's yours". I commend the INHFA on its work in this area and I know the concerns it is raising with the Senator on this point as well. Sheep worrying has a profound impact on farmers and rural communities. I fully recognise the gravity of this issue and agree that robust traceability measures are central to ensuring that dog owners can be held accountable where their animals are involved.

This week, my Department commenced a media awareness campaign urging dog owners to take due care and act responsibly in any instances where there may be a risk to livestock, particularly sheep, as we approach the critical lambing season for the sheep farming community. Responsible dog ownership, including effective control of dogs in a countryside setting, is an important matter. I am invested in making a difference in this area. I look forward, along with my Department, to engaging proactively in terms of wide-ranging awareness campaigns across relevant platforms throughout 2026 on issues around responsible dog ownership, including sheep worrying.

In response to the Senator’s question on the possible role of DNA in dog traceability, I acknowledge that DNA technology has potential in relation to canine traceability. The use of DNA profiling could, in certain circumstances, assist with linking a dog to a specific incident. Before any decision could be made to mandate DNA sampling and profiling for all dogs, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis would be required. Such an assessment would need to carefully examine the potential advantages of mandatory DNA profiling compared to the financial costs and operational implications. Mandatory DNA sampling would significantly increase the cost of dog registration for owners. This is an important consideration, particularly in ensuring that compliance remains achievable and proportionate. In addition, the State would incur further expenditure.

Therefore, my immediate focus is on maximising the effectiveness of the existing dog microchipping system before introducing any major new regulatory changes. Strengthening adherence to the rules already in place can deliver immediate and tangible benefits. I believe that where dog owners are educated to understand their legal obligations and the practical benefits of micro-chipping, we can achieve a culture of responsibility and increase the number of dogs in Ireland that are micro-chipped and traceable. A well-functioning microchipping system plays an important role in tackling issues such as sheep worrying as clear identification helps deter irresponsible behaviour and enables more effective enforcement where incidents occur. Through sustained awareness and improved compliance, the existing system can deliver substantial benefits for dog welfare, farming communities and public confidence.

My Department is open to the potential role of DNA in the future development of the canine traceability system. However, it is prudent and responsible to first implement and assess the impact of the planned improvements to centralised data management. I am taking a measured and evidence-based approach to strengthen accountability and deterrence through practical reforms to evaluate their effectiveness in addressing sheep worrying and will only then to consider whether additional measures, which would mean significant cost implications for dog owners and the State, are necessary and proportionate.

I am glad there is ongoing work to promote public awareness of dogs and lambing season. The Minister said that the Department is open to the potential role of DNA in the future development of the canine traceability system. I am glad about that. It is results-based no matter what we do or what public awareness campaigns are launched. Last week, we discussed road safety in the House and this week, we are discussing safety with regard to control of dogs. I respect the Minister's response. I hope that at the end of 2026, these results will show a reduction in dog attacks. The rollout of a dog DNA database could be a future development. It may be costly and I hope the microchipping works out but the increasing number of sheep being targeted by dogs and the increase in dog fouling on our streets and public beaches shows that the situation is not improving so I ask the Minister to keep this in focus. If we can deal with a dog that has killed ten sheep or an incident where someone's child steps on dog mess on a beach, playground, football field or public park, which could cause health problems, we should. I welcome the Minister's response and hope he keeps in it mind.

Sheep worrying is devastating. Its impact on animal welfare and farming families who suffer as a result of their sheep being attacked by dogs is devastating and goes way beyond the financial implications of a such loss to their economic model of farming. It cuts to the heart of what a farmer is as a custodian of the land and a minder of the animals in his or her care. The reason it is particularly frustrating is it is always preventable. We know of instances where pet owners have been approached by farmers who told them their dog just did this and the owners say, "My dog couldn't possibly do that. My dog's lovely, quiet and docile around the house." What nobody realises is that every dog is capable of this when it is running with sheep. It is in their nature. I think of the proverb about the scorpion and the frog. Why did it kill them both? It was because it was in its nature. It is in the nature of dogs and while they might not show that as domestic pets around the house, they will display it in the right setting with those animals and pet owners need to know that.

I am not closing my mind to the Senator's proposal but he can see that there are broader considerations around cost. This requires a multifaceted approach. There is no single solution here because if there were, it would have been resolved long before now. Effective traceability that allows for speedy identification of a dog and its owner is a powerful deterrent and an essential support for enforcement authorities. I have plans to improve our dog traceability system through a centralised database and increased data consolidation across all Departments and organisations that have a role in the control of dogs. I was one of the Fine Gael representatives during the talks on the programme for Government and I was a keen supporter of making sure that control of dogs was transferred from the Department of Rural Affairs, Community Development and the Gaeltacht to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was included. This was not because the Department of rural affairs was doing anything wrong but because this area covers three Departments because dog wardens come under local authorities and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage while my Department deals with animal welfare. Control of dogs is a good fit with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I want to get through a serious body of work this year on this.

While I acknowledge the potential benefits of a DNA database, it is prudent to implement and assess the impact of better data before imposing the significant additional costs of a database on dog owners and the State. We will keep an open mind because this is a body of work I want to make real progress on during my term.