SUBMISSIONS 2.1 OVERVIEW In total, 117 submissions were received in response to the public consultation process. The breakdown is below: Country Personal Organisation Political received Ireland 76 33 2 111 Northern Ireland - 1 - 1 Great Britain 1 3 - 4 USA - 1 - 1 TOTAL 77 38 2 117 The call for submissions under the consultation process was explicit in requesting suggestions or comments relating to the revised draft Guidelines. However, many responses referenced much broader but related issues including definition of DBEs, DBE licensing system, national inspectorate, national dog database, Local Authority impartiality, export of dogs, education programmes, buyer and breeder obligations, etc. In general, the comments fall into the following categories: Which Department should have legislative responsibility; Relating to the Guidelines, and requesting changes which could potentially be taken on board by redrafting the Guidelines; Relating to the Guidelines, but requesting changes which it would not be possible to implement under the existing legislative framework; and, Generally relating to the area of dog welfare, rather than the Guidelines. These are outside of the scope of the original consultation. Section 2.2 to 2.4 provides information on the submissions, which are published alongside this paper . ANALYSIS PROCESS Information is provided in this section regarding the process that has been completed to date to analyse the submissions received.
SUBMISSIONS 2.1 OVERVIEW In total, 117 submissions were received in response to the public consultation process. The breakdown is below: Country Personal Organisation Political received Ireland 76 33 2 111 Northern Ireland - 1 - 1 Great Britain 1 3 - 4 USA - 1 - 1 TOTAL 77 38 2 117 The call for submissions under the consultation process was explicit in requesting suggestions or comments relating to the revised draft Guidelines. However, many responses referenced much broader but related issues including definition of DBEs, DBE licensing system, national inspectorate, national dog database, Local Authority impartiality, export of dogs, education programmes, buyer and breeder obligations, etc. In general, the comments fall into the following categories: Which Department should have legislative responsibility; Relating to the Guidelines, and requesting changes which could potentially be taken on board by redrafting the Guidelines; Relating to the Guidelines, but requesting changes which it would not be possible to implement under the existing legislative framework; and, Generally relating to the area of dog welfare, rather than the Guidelines. These are outside of the scope of the original consultation. Section 2.2 to 2.4 provides information on the submissions, which are published alongside this paper . ANALYSIS PROCESS Information is provided in this section regarding the process that has been completed to date to analyse the submissions received.
Review-of-DBE-Guidelines-Consultation-Summary-Report.docx