Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. May for her presentation.

This part of the proposed Bill will be hugely important. There is a significant public perception that the greyhound industry has problems in regard to the doping of greyhounds and the detection of same. I am a greyhound owner and I am involved in the greyhound industry.

Dr. May recommended strict liability. Listening to her presentation, there was no mention of a tolerance level for products. In much of the current testing, the percentage being found with a prohibited substance is small but trainers whose dogs have been found with those prohibited substances in the past 18 months to two years are adamant that it is as a result of the feed the dog is getting. They say the small residue showing up in the doping tests is not any deliberate attempt to dope the dog.

Senator Paul Daly would be much more aware of the regulations and controls with horses. In the past, horses have lost races because of a small amount of a prohibited substance being found in the sample and it clearly indicated that it was as a result of feed being given or something being administered within the prescribed time. The horse might not have raced for a month after getting a certain antibiotic substance, but a residue still showed up in the test. How can we cater for that, where a person is abiding by the rules but a small level of a prohibitive substance still shows up in the test? It is essential for the industry that we get it right.

I noted in the documentation for the meeting today that the Irish Coursing Club will not make a submission to, or appear before, the committee. That is very disappointing. There are two elements to this, the coursing industry and the track industry, and both of them must get this right.

Coursing takes place in fields in numerous venues round the country. Every weekend during the winter, there could be seven or eight coursing meetings. How can we ensure proper standards apply? It is not a controlled environment, such as a racecourse where one can have professional staff present and ensure there is a security guard when the horse enters the after-race parade ring or whatever. How will we ensure that in a field in the countryside the regulations will be adhered to?

There was a court case a number of years ago resulting from derby final night where a trainer maintained that someone else got at his dog before the race and there was a lengthy legal battle between Bord na gCon and the greyhound trainer. How will we include all that in a Bill - for example, ensuring a dog is kennelled an hour before a race so that no one has access to it? Many of those things have to be tightened up. The proposed Bill has to cover all of those eventualities. If someone is found with a level of substance, I agree fully there has to be strict liability. However, in the much-publicised case to which I referred, Bord na gCon was left with a hefty legal bill and there were major questions about our industry. There were huge question marks hanging over the performance of one dog in the derby final, which is the premier race in the calendar. That, obviously, attracted significant public attention. The public is waiting for this proposed Bill to ensure that in both coursing and dog racing, doping neither happening nor tolerated.

Dr. May questioned there being too much detail in the Bill. To me, that is why the detail is in there. It is the cornerstone of the Bill. We have to rebuild public confidence that this industry is being run on a strict basis and that there is no doping either in coursing or on the track. Whether it is animal welfare or whatever, there is a lot of public money going into this industry. The doping of dogs is not acceptable.

There are a lot of things to get right in this Bill. First, we need to ensure that if someone is found to be breaking the rules, the Bill is strong enough to ensure the proper punishment is administered. Second, many of the events happen in fields around the countryside. How can we ensure the proper standards and supervision is in place and that we do not get a case where someone claims he or she did not administer anything to the dog, someone else must have, and that he or she can then renege on his or her responsibility. The owner of the dog has to bear ultimate responsibility but also the Irish Coursing Club and Bord na gCon have a responsibility to ensure there is a certain amount of protection for competing dogs. This is the essential part. That is not say the rest of the Bill is not important. It is, and the other heads in the Bill are very important, but for the sake of the perception of our industry by the public we must ensure that when this Bill passes through into legislation, we can look everyone square in the eye and say there is no way a dog can run now, whether doped for enhanced performance or for lack of performance, which can also happen, either on the coursing field or the track. We would fail in our duty as legislators if this Bill did not stand up to that scrutiny.