I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, for coming to the House to discuss this important issue. In recent weeks I have met an adult and a 18-year-old girl who suffer from Crohn's disease. The 18-year-old girl has been very debilitated over recent years. She spends an awful lot of time in hospital. She has had to drop out of school because of the level of her illness. Crohn's disease and colitis are very debilitating. It is very difficult to get a proper diagnosis because they are hidden diseases in that people do not know what the symptoms are or what is happening. The diseases are a breakdown in the immune system and people can suffer very badly with them. Some people have a lesser degree of it but many people suffer for quite a while. When they have energy, they are great, and suddenly the immune system goes down and they can be very sick with it.

When I met this 18-year-old recently, which was not my first meeting her, I saw how sick she has been, especially in recent years. She should be enjoying her life, going to school and playing sport, yet she could be in hospital for six or eight weeks at a time.

These conditions should be included on the long-term illness scheme because inflammatory bowel disease is not of the person's doing. It is something that, unfortunately, people end up being diagnosed with. I will not use the phrase "no future" but people spend a lot of time in bed and sick and it should be included in the scheme because of the cost of the medicines. Even in the short term, perhaps it could be included in the drug payment scheme and these people could qualify automatically for a medical card. Our long-term objective should be to have it in the long-term illness scheme.

I thank Senator Byrne for raising this very important issue. The long-term illness scheme was established under section 59(3) of the Health Act 1970, as amended. Regulations were made in 1971, 1973 and 1975 prescribing 16 conditions covered by the scheme. These include acute leukaemia, mental handicap - which is not wording we use any more, I have to say, when I think about it- cerebral palsy, mental illness in a person under 16, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, diabetes insipidus, muscular dystrophies, diabetes mellitus, Parkinsonism, epilepsy, haemophilia, spina bifida, hydrocephalus and conditions arising from the use of Thalidomide. There is no mention of Crohn's disease or any form of inflammatory bowel disease. I take on board what Senator Byrne said about that young person. When people have bowel conditions, it is very debilitating. That person will probably spend a lot of time in the comfort of her own house because of the condition.

As we know, under the scheme, patients receive drugs, medicines and medical and surgical appliances directly related to the treatment of their illness free of charge. While there are no plans to extend the scope of the scheme at present, it is important to reflect that it exists in a wider eligibility framework. The Government has put a significant focus on improving access to, and the affordability of, healthcare services, advancing substantial policy, legislation and investment to deliver expanded eligibility and services in line with Sláintecare.

As we are all aware, public inpatient charges in public hospitals have been removed, first for children under 16 years of age in 2022 and then for adult public patients in 2023. We have also focused on reducing costs in primary care, delivering the largest expansion of GP visit cards in 2023 to include children aged six and seven and those earning no more than the median income.

We have also focused on reducing costs in primary care, delivering one of the largest expansions of GP visit cards in 2023 to include children aged six and seven and those earning no more than the median income. This enabled these patients to visit their GP free of charge. These two GP access measures provide eligibility to approximately 500,000 additional people.

People who cannot, without undue hardship, arrange for the provision of medical services for themselves and their dependants may be eligible for a medical card. Eligibility for a medical card, as we all know, is determined by the HSE, primarily based on an assessment of means. The HSE may exercise discretion and grant a medical card, even though an applicant exceeds the income guidelines, where he or she faces difficult financial circumstances, such as extra costs arising from illness. There are about 80,000 discretionary medical cards in the mix now. The issue of providing a patient with eligibility on the basis of illness or a disability was previously examined in 2014 by the HSE expert panel on medical need and medical card eligibility. The group concluded it was not feasible, desirable or ethically justifiable to list medical conditions in priority order for medical card eligibility. In following the expert group’s advice, a person’s means remains the main qualifier for a medical card.

In respect of medications, there has also been a focus on reducing costs for families. As we know, the drug payment scheme threshold was €124 per month in 2020. It now stands at €80 per month - a reduction of over 33%. I am not sure if the response addresses the issue the Senator raised in relation to a young person with a disease such as Crohn's disease or other difficult bowel conditions. I will certainly raise this aspect with the Minister to see if there is any consideration that can be given. The regulations were made more than 40 years ago, so maybe it is time for them to be looked at again.

I thank the Minister of State for her positive response. I agree with what she said about these rules having been made more than 40 years ago. I know one or two people who have Crohn's disease would certainly love to make a submission to the Department in relation to their condition and maybe even a case study concerning how debilitated and ill they are. Perhaps this might be something the Department might be open to receiving and perhaps the Minister of State might be able to check this out for me. To see how ill that young girl was really was the cornerstone in this regard for me. The other lady I met was pregnant, but has had a diagnosis of the disease since she was 11. She said it never leaves you, you just learn to manage it. That young girl, though, certainly spends most of her time in hospital - this is the key thing here. She also spends a lot of time at home and this means her mother has to take time off work to stay with her. I would appreciate any support the Minister of State can give or any information she can bring back to me.

Any disease or condition a person, especially a young person, is living with is very difficult. It is difficult for the parents and siblings too because when somebody is ill in the house, everybody is involved. This is the right way. At the same time, though, Crohn's disease is very debilitating and very difficult for a young person to manage. They do not want to have to battle for things such as a medical card. The Department will always welcome any submissions it gets. All the correspondence that comes into the Department is looked at. If the Senator would like to see if the people she mentioned would like to write in, we can 100% facilitate that. I will speak to the Minister about this issue, because, as I said, even the wording I was quoting in my first contribution - regarding the 1975 Act - is no longer appropriate.

Absolutely.

This is especially the case when we are talking about the new mental health Bill I will be bringing to Report Stage on Wednesday. It is a huge Bill and I am looking forward to bringing it into the Seanad shortly. I will bring this matter back to the Minister and revert to the Senator.

I thank the Minister of State.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in. I am here to ask about the SME test being applied to the legislation on the personal injury guidelines, as there is a recommendation that they be increased. The SME test was introduced by the Government as a part of measures in May 2024. This is a no-brainer because any major new measure from the Government will be assessed for its impact on small business through an enhanced SME test. In all cases, a completed SME test must be included or an explanation provided as to why it is considered an SME test is not required.

The SME test is all about "think small first" and considers how measures will impact businesses. Some enterprises can be disproportionately impacted by regulatory or administrative burdens if not given due consideration during the formation of policy. Ireland's SME test is a four-step process for policymakers to consider: consultation, identification, impact and mitigation. If ever this test were needed, it is now, when the personal injury guidelines look likely to come before us for an increase of 16.7%. On 5 March 2024, the personal injuries guidelines committee of the Judicial Council submitted the outcome of its review of the personal injury guidelines to the board of the Judicial Council, pursuant to section 18(2)(b) of the Judicial Council Act 2019. This means businesses, community groups, sports clubs, motorists and charities will all pay the price as this increase will be passed on to policyholders.

I have brought this issue up many times here in the Upper House. My colleagues and I brought a motion to this House only two weeks ago on insurance whereby all of us stated the increase in the personal injury guidelines was excessive. We cannot allow this to go ahead without performing the SME test. We have brought in the SME test for businesses to allow us to consider impacts on them when policy and legislation is before us. When the personal injury guidelines go ahead, all our premiums will increase and, in particular, those of business, the backbone of our economy, so we keep getting told. The recommendations from the Judicial Council state:

The Committee has not found it possible to carry out any meaningful analysis of the quantum of court awards given under the Guidelines to date that might inform this review. This is because the inevitable delay between the commencement of proceedings to which the then new Guidelines applied and their trial has meant that there are very few decisions and certainly not enough to be statistically significant.

How can we apply these guidelines when we have not even properly analysed the data? The committee just recommended an increase of 16.7% instead. The Judicial Council Act 2019 made clear that rigorous analysis should take place, including consulting with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. No such consultation took place despite the thousands of cases the board has processed since the guidelines were introduced in 2021.

Without the increase, a minor back injury in Ireland sees people get between €12,000 and €20,000. In England, it is a maximum of £8,300. A minor shoulder soft tissue injury in Ireland has a maximum of up to €12,000, while in England it is £5,200. A minor ankle sprain injury in Ireland has a maximum of €12,000, but it is £6,300 in England. In Ireland, a minor foot fracture has a maximum amount of €20,000, while it is £12,700 in England. These are the numbers before we apply the 16.7% increase. I call on the Minister for enterprise to enact the SME test on the personal injury guidelines before any decision is made to implement them.

I thank the Senator sincerely for raising this timely and pertinent matter. Before I deliver the reply on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Burke, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the Senator's long-standing personal, professional and political commitment in this area. It is an area to which she brings a great level of familiarity, and one that I would imagine is the rival of any Member of either House of this Oireachtas. It is something I have seen first-hand in my previous roles in the Department of Finance, where I looked after insurance, and in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as it was, where I looked after SMEs and small business.

Turning to the specific matter, for the interest of the House and in direct reply to the Senator I will lay out a little about the personal injuries guidelines in the Act and the role of the Judicial Council, what the process is and where the SME test may be applicable. There is no point in me repeating to the Senator the efforts the Government has made in relation to insurance or the importance given to it in the programme for Government. For clarity, the introduction of the personal injuries guidelines came in April 2021 and was a key outcome of the action plan on insurance reform of 2020. It has brought about much reform in the claims settlement framework in Ireland.

The NCID has consistently provided evidence to demonstrate the positive impact the personal injury guidelines have had on lowering costs across all settlement channels. The Injuries Resolution Board alone has seen the volume and value of personal injuries awards reduced by 25% and 39%, respectively, over the period from 2019 to 2024, which included the introduction of the personal injury guidelines. Furthermore, the volume of claims in this period dropped by 33%.

However, the Judicial Council, which is entirely independent in its function, reviewed the personal injury guidelines as set out in the Judicial Council Act 2019 and now proposes to increase the personal injuries guidelines by 16.7%. In accordance with section 7(2)(B) of the Judicial Council Act 2019, the next step is for the Minister for justice to lay a draft of the amendments to the personal injuries guidelines before each House of the Oireachtas. That is a process by which we can either accept or reject the recommendations. We have no ability to differentiate or to set a different level. That is a matter for an independent body.

The application of the SME test is a little more complicated than perhaps I would like it to be. It has been used over 20 times in legislation since it was introduced last year under the Minister, Deputy Burke, but the test is a matter for all Departments to consider in respect of policy and legislation under their remits. It is not simply a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. It would also have to take in the Departments of Finance and justice as well feedback from all other affected Departments, which, on something such as this, is all of them. As I said, whether to accept the personal injury guidelines is a matter for the Oireachtas.

Speaking personally, although I am probably breaking the rules here, I would be very concerned about the introduction of the test. I have heard the very real concerns laid out by people who do not usually agree with each other on this area. We heard it this morning on the radio and have seen it over recent days and weeks. It needs very serious reflection by all parts of government and the Oireachtas. I have no objection in principle to the application of the SME test but I am not sure that is the exact tool that is necessary in this regard due to the nature of the system by which these recommendations are brought to the Houses.

I thank the Minister of State. I really appreciate it and the acknowledgement of my work and his own on everything to do with insurance. It is the reason I got into politics seven years ago when I nearly lost my business over it all. That is why I am passionate about it. It can be hard when you know something is wrong and you feel it is going to happen. I just know it will be wrong if these rates increase because it will have a catastrophic impact. One lady told me yesterday that if her insurance goes up by anything, she will have to close her business. The cost will be passed on.

We need to give it more thought. We should not rush into it. I hope there will be time to reflect on it and debate it more. Maybe the SME test is not the thing for it. We will see the decision about that. I am just looking out for everyone’s business, as well as sports clubs, festivals and everything else. I am glad to hear the Minister of State say he is concerned about it too. I really appreciate that. Many others have spoken about it here, so I thank them.

I will ensure the relevant Departments look to see if the SME test should be applied. I am not ruling that out. I just wanted to be frank and direct to make sure I was not misleading the Chamber about what can be achieved by the SME test on this compared with other areas of policy or legislation where it may be applied. However, the case the Senator has laid out, not only here this morning but over the last number of years along with colleagues, is very coherent and needs to be borne in mind. I appreciate the role of the Judicial Council. I acknowledge and respect its independence and it is important that it is independent, but we have a decision as legislators to make and we have to make that mindful of all the impacts it may have.

I thank the Minister of State for attending this morning to hear this Commencement matter. A new professional doctorate in educational psychology will commence in September and the Government has very generously made available a bursary of €40,000 per student at taxpayers' expense. I do not know if it is generally understood in Cabinet that this course will only qualify its graduates to work with the National Educational Psychology Service, NEPS. It an excellent service. It is very well managed and has no wait lists. However, the course will not qualify its graduates to work with the 400 HSE primary care teams throughout the State or with our 91 children’s disability network teams. None of the graduates of this course will be able to work with the 90 child and adolescent mental health services teams in the country, to work with the section 38 or section 39 care providers or to work with Tusla. That is an extraordinary waste of taxpayers' money. Similar doctoral programmes in educational psychology, such as the ones run in the University of Limerick, UCD and Queen's University Belfast, qualify their graduates to work in all those settings and NEPS. The course in Maynooth is an outlier in its course design. It is very narrow in its scope. Having spent 22 years in the academic setting designing courses and supervising students to PhD and at postdoctoral level, I know it would take the course design team maybe one or two meetings to change the design ever so slightly so that its graduates could address the very pressing needs in all those other care settings.

The Minister of State will be aware that in our primary care teams there are children waiting up to nine years for a psychological intervention. Throughout the country, there will be 25,000 children waiting on an assessment of need that can be carried out by an educational psychologist were they to be properly qualified. This is countrywide. For example, in Dublin north city and west, there are 2,816 children waiting to see an educational psychologist, while Cavan-Monaghan has 3,550 and Louth-Meath 1,447. For each one of those children, there is also a family. In many cases they are waiting two, three or four years to see an educational psychologist. We know we face a very significant recruitment and retention challenge for psychologists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. I welcome this development – it is a great initiative – but for the want of a little change in the course design, graduates will only be able to work with NEPs. It is an excellent service but it is already well resourced. It does not have waiting lists. In the areas of most acute need in our communities, in CAMHS and in the primary healthcare areas, none of its graduates will be able to work. It is an anomaly in that the similar courses run in UCD, Queens and UL qualify their graduates to work everywhere. I hope someone can speak to the president of Maynooth University and get that little change put in place to benefit us all.

I am grateful to Senator Clonan for raising this issue. The importance of the National Educational Psychological Service, which he raised, is not lost on this Government. It provides a critical service to almost 1 million children and young people and almost 100,000 staff who work in our primary, post-primary and special schools daily.

The Government has set its commitment to double the number of educational psychologists in schools. There are 240 educational psychologists in NEPS but, as with any service, there are ongoing vacancies due to statutory leave, retirements and promotion so to really deliver for children we need so many more in our system as a matter of urgency. To give some idea of the scale of the need, there is one NEPS psychologist for every 4,600 children in schools in Ireland. In other countries there is an educational psychologist for approximately every 1,900 children, so there is a very significant gap which we need to address. Bridging that gap will require approximately 550 educational psychologists, which means an additional 330 psychologists working in the system.

The Department of Education and Youth has progressed a number of initiatives over the last few years in order to increase the supply of educational psychologists including running annual recruitment campaigns and providing bursaries to students in the two existing programmes.

The House may also be aware that there are only two courses in Ireland providing professional training programmes for educational psychologists and, as Senator Clonan laid out, graduates are shared across the education and health sectors. NEPS is committed to employing the graduates of the courses supported by the education bursaries but unfortunately these existing courses provide fewer than 15 graduates annually to NEPS. If our ambition is to grow the statutory National Educational Psychological Service in the way I have described, we need a complete change in mindset and a willingness to work in new ways to make this happen.

The Minister was delighted, last March, to welcome the announcement by Maynooth University of its intention to commence a new professional training programme for educational psychology, which will start, as the Senator set out, in September. This course is much needed. After a competitive interview process, 20 candidates of the highest calibre have now signed up to start their professional training on this programme. The Department is extending its bursary scheme to support these students and the programme will support a substantial increase in the number of qualified educational psychologists available to NEPS. This new programme is a significant step forward in the Government's commitment to significantly increase the number of college places for educational psychologists as outlined. I can absolutely reassure the Senator that this programme will adhere to the very highest standards of education and training that are in line with international accreditation standards for educational psychologists.

The NEPS service is committed to supporting this programme, as it does the other professional training programmes, through the provision of practice placements, supervisory support and input to the training itself. Over the three-year programme, trainees will develop expertise in the core skills of assessment, intervention, consultation, training and research within a variety of educational and service settings. They will gain hands-on experience working with children, young people, families and professionals, ensuring they are well prepared to support the learning, development and emotional well-being of children and young people. They will also gain expertise working with multidisciplinary teams with continually evolving opportunities for such work within the education sector, including as part of the multidisciplinary team in the north-east inner city, working with other multidisciplinary teams in education, including the education therapy support service and the new national therapy service which will be introduced from this year into special schools.

I fully understand the points made and the career-wide bona fides of the Senator in this regard. However, a deliberate decision has been taken to focus on NEPS. It is not to exclude other services. Other areas will be provided for. I am more than happy to make the Senator's points to the Minister directly and to the president of the university. However, there is method in the process here.

NEPS is a great service and it absolutely needs to recruit educational psychologists, but this method is tailoring a doctoral training course to be specific to the needs of NEPS to the exclusion of all the other areas where the need is more acute while children are going into psychological distress for want of a brief intervention. Some of those children go on to develop serious issues and problems that become life-altering and life-limiting. If we were to look at the area of most pressing need, the logical conclusion would be to accredit a course that qualifies graduates not only to work in NEPS, where they are absolutely needed, but also to work elsewhere. I appreciate the Minister of State's assurance that he will speak to the Minister, Deputy Lawless, about this. It is a mistake. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it is a lost opportunity when all the other areas could benefit.

However, I thank the Minister of State for his engagement and I appreciate his assurances.

It is important to say that I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth, as opposed to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The Senator will understand the need for the Department of Education and Youth to make sure there are qualified psychologists coming into NEPS in particular. That goes to the heart of the issue at play. I have been assured by the relevant Ministers that this course will be of the highest standard and will be fully integrated and aligned with the wider governmental need in the education sector, but it will not be either-or. Other supports for training in the wider scheme will be made available. I will be more than happy to take that forward for the Senator.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to discuss the matter of XL bullies.

Despite recent changes, XL bully legislation continues to fall short in several key areas, particularly in fairness, due process and clarity. The introduction of a review process for private owners of dogs to seek a certificate of exemption is welcome and important, but the legislation still lacks several important amendments causing concern for rescue organisations, dog owners and advocates. Currently, a private owner of an XL bully can appeal for an exemption, if necessary. That is welcome. The difficulty is that the same does not apply to rescue organisations and pounds and if it does not, many dogs will be killed. The language in the legislation and regulations is vague. There is currently no legal provision that allows dogs held in rescue centres or local authority pounds to receive an interim certificate of exemption. This omission creates an inconsistency whereby dogs cannot be re-homed without a permanent certificate of exemption, but a permanent certificate of exemption can only be applied for after a dog is placed in a home. Therefore, those dogs are left in limbo, unable to move to homes where they would legally be allowed to receive the exemption. There should be a temporary or interim certificate process for rescues and pounds to facilitate lawful re-homing and prevent the unnecessary killing of dogs, which, if they were reviewed, would be spared.

There is also a clear inconsistency in breed identification. There is no published training standard or certification process for vets to ensure accurate and consistent breed identification. This is a glaring issue, given the widespread misclassification of XL bully dogs. Dog wardens have been arbitrarily misidentifying XL bully dogs. At the very least, a mandatory, uniform training with a written examination is needed for all dog wardens. The absence of such training will continue to lead to misclassification, the suffering of dogs and an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money. As recently as this week, a presa canario was euthanised as an XL bully in a Limerick pound. Such mistakes will be made because of the lack of clarity. The confirmation standards used to define XL bully-type remain vague, unamended and open to interpretation. How it is decided that a dog is an XL bully is vague and unclear. There is still no maximum height despite height being a critical trait in breed classification. The continued use of the term "type" fosters subjectivity and inconsistency, enabling the misclassification of dogs that do not possess core XL bully characteristics. This vagueness perpetuates the risk of over-reach, penalising responsible owners and wrongly targeting dogs which are not XL bullies. It throws the net so wide that it covers all bully breeds and that is a dangerous precedent to set.

The lack of legal protection for dogs in rescue centres and dog pounds has contributed to high stress, burnout and morale injury among staff and volunteers. The psychological trauma caused by these preventable outcomes is immediate and long-lasting, not to mention the cruel and unnecessary suffering inflicted on the dogs themselves. Until these issues are resolved, the legislation will continue to result in unnecessary animal deaths, undermine public confidence and cause serious distress to those working to protect these animals. The Government must urgently consider these issues and commit to meaningful revisions of the regulations.

Furthermore, I understand ongoing legislative work is being done in this area. It is important that the issues affecting XL bullies are not ignored and that the relevant advocacy and rescue groups are included in the consultation process.

I thank Senator Andrews for raising this matter. I ask him to bear with me. I have a slightly lengthy answer which I will deliver on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Heydon, who has asked me to take this Commencement matter.

The Control of Dogs (XL Bully) Regulations 2024, SI 491 of 2024, that banned XL bully dogs came into force in two stages beginning on 1 October 2024, with a full ownership ban coming into force on 1 February 2025. The ban was brought in by the then Minister for Rural and Community Development, who was responsible for dog control at that time. The XL bully-type dog is a variant of the wider American bully breed. It is typically larger in height and body shape and more muscular than other American bully-type breeds such as the micro, pocket, standard and classic breeds. It is acknowledged that XL bully is not a recognised breed and that XL bullies are a cross of restricted breeds.

Therefore, it was unanimously decided by the implementation team that was established to develop the regulations that the term used with regard to describing the dogs should be XL bully-type. The only legally recognised method of identification of a dog as an XL bully-type in Ireland is by use of the physical conformation standard contained in the regulations.

The ban was brought in over two stages to give XL bully-type dog owners who wished to keep their XL bully-type dog the time to obtain a certificate of exemption. There was a four-month period between 1 October 2024 and before 1 February 2025 where owners were able to apply for a certificate of exemption. Charitable organisations were also able to apply for certificate of exemptions for XL bully-type dogs in their care during this period if they wished. As part of the regulations, any registered charitable organisation that had an XL bully-type dog in its care before 1 October 2024 had until before 1 February 2025 to rehome the dog to a new owner.

Since 1 February 2025, if an owner is found to have an XL bully type-dog in his or her possession, as determined by the dog warden in accordance with the XL bully-type dog physical conformation standard, without a certificate of exemption or proof of application for a certificate of exemption, the dog warden may seize the dog and have the dog euthanised in a humane manner. In addition, such owners may be charged with an offence under the Control of Dogs Act 1986.

A small number of animal welfare organisations sought a judicial review of the regulations. As part of this process, the organisations concerned had sought an injunction to extend the 1 February deadline for rehoming XL bully-type dogs in their care until the judicial review process was completed. This injunction was denied by the High Court. Therefore, it remains illegal for these organisations to rehome an XL bully-type dog after 1 February. As outlined in the regulation, the only dogs that were permitted to be rehomed up to 1 February were those that were in the care of the relevant bodies before 1 October 2024. It is illegal for any person or organisation to rehome an XL bully-type dog after 1 February of this year. I am informed that the case has been settled and the matter is due for mention in the High Court on 15 July.

An amendment to the initial XL bully regulations came into force on 9 June 2025. The amended regulations define a review process in circumstances where a dog owner may disagree with the determination of a dog warden that a dog not in possession of a certificate of exemption meets the physical conformation standard. If, following review, a dog is determined to be an XL bully-type dog, the review process allows for the relevant owner, including a charitable organisation, to obtain a certificate of exemption which will allow them to keep the dog until the end of its natural life, provided that the dog was born before 10 December 2024. If a person or organisation does not wish to keep an XL bully-type dog, they can surrender the dog to their local authority dog warden service where the dog will be euthanised in a humane manner.

The dog control stakeholder group, established in 2024 by the Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, has been tasked with considering the policy and legislative matters with regard to the control of dogs. The stakeholder group meets regularly, and the work of the group is wide-ranging and complex in nature. The group's remit includes considering the need for legislative change. This requires in-depth analysis and consultation to ensure amendments are robust, fit for purpose, implementable and deliver the best outcomes for communities and for dogs themselves. This work will take some time. However, the Minister, Deputy Heydon, has no objection in principle to any measure that may improve the overall regulation of the dog breeding sector and support public safety and the welfare of dogs, and he is more than happy to engage with the Senator directly to achieve that.

I do not believe for a second that dog bans work for a variety of reasons. I do not have the time to go into it now. The key point is that the appeal process afforded to private dog owners should be afforded to rescues and pounds. However, because of the vague language in the legislation proposed, such as the use of the word "type", it encompasses all bully breeds and that is going to have a really negative impact because many of the dog wardens do not have the training that is required to identify a dog. They have not had the training in the past and there are no plans to have dog wardens trained in the future for identifying dogs. That language then leaves it open to interpretation. I honestly feel that the Minister is on the right track but we need to refine the language to ensure that dogs in pounds and rescues also have the ability to get an exemption.

I will make three points in very brief reply to the Senator. First, with regard to the use of the word "type" and how it came to be and the need to separate, there is an XL breed but then, within the breed, there are types of dogs. That is the differentiation that was sought because there is a very specific thing at play here. In terms of the training in respect of identification and those processes, I fully take the Senator's points on board, but I have been reassured that those processes are in place as best as is possible.

It does come to the issue with regard to the ideological and ethical issue of whether one believe bans work or not. The Government has made a decision to ban this type of breed of dog for very particular high-profile reasons, and we are not alone in doing that. At some stage in politics, we all have to live with agreeing to disagree. However, improvements can always be made to legislation and that requires the full engagement of all aspects of the House. I am sure the Minister, Deputy Heydon, will be more than happy to go along that path with the Senator as quickly as possible.

Sin deireadh an chláir. The House stands suspended until 10.30 a.m.