Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. May for her contribution. I have to go to the Dáil for a parliamentary question so I may not be here for the response, but I will get it from the record, so apologies in advance.

I was interested in Dr. May's remarks that the general scheme contains significantly more detailed information than she believes is required and how that would impact on the rapidly changing area and ability of the Legislature to respond or being obliged to respond by changing primary legislation at a future date. This may be in her wider submission on the Bill, and if it is, I apologise as I have not read it yet. Which sections of the Bill does she feel are too detailed? What changes does she recommend regarding that detail to better streamline the Bill? It would be important we do not have to rely on amending primary legislation if circumstances change in the whole arrangement for dealing with doping.

Dr. May says that the application of the concept of strict liability should be the starting point. I presume it would then be possible by secondary legislation to minimise penalties in a case where, for example, the outcome was due to feed. I presume that is how that would be dealt with.

How could article 16 of the WADA code be reflected in legislation here when there is no international body? Could we set it up in such a way that the national body would be the body which would set the regulations? Would that be feasible in terms of the Bill?

Head 14 of the Bill proposes to decriminalise doping sanctions within the legislation. Does Dr. May have a view on whether this is sensible?