Dr. Colm Gaynor:

Members asked a large number of questions. I hope I will answer them all, although I will leave questions on Harold's Cross stadium to one of my colleagues. Deputy Cahill asked us to indicate how bad we believed the public perception of the greyhound racing industry has become. He also raised the issue of sanctions and the tests that are carried out and asked how confident we were that this work is done well. He referred to trainers, doping and tolerance levels. I will deal with all these issues and the export of greyhounds, while one of my colleagues will deal with other aspects of welfare.

I will first deal with how the public perception of doping and medication control by the Irish Greyhound Board, as a sports regulatory body, will be improved. The Bill addresses a very important issue in this area. While the control committee is independent, there is a perception among some that it is not as independent as it could be because its members are appointed by the board.

This Bill will address that issue once and for all and put it in a truly independent place. That will give confidence to the disciplinary system.

The disciplinary system will be looking at an enhanced testing, doping and medication regime. The sanctions are set out in the Bill. I apologise that I do not remember the exact amount now but as I recall, there is a possibility of a sanction of several thousand euro. The tests will be taken and sent to the laboratory. The laboratory is accredited, approved and examined regularly by the requisite auditing body.

This Bill also provides, in statutory form, that the results of adverse analytical findings will be published in every case. Transparency and accuracy is what I would say will happen in that respect.

The Deputy's second question was about trainers. There is a belief that at least some of the positives are coming from feed. The last time the Deputy spoke on this, he specifically mentioned pentobarbitone. Pentobarbitone is a substance which, as he knows, is used to euthanise animals and, as such, should only end up in category 2 meat, not in category 3. My understanding is that the type of meal dog food and the like is made from should always be either produced in Europe or outside of Europe from meat which conforms to category 3 requirements. In theory at least, this should not be happening.

Pentobarbitone is an issue we are examining. We are anxious to try to track both the parent molecule and the metabolites in dogs. We have a trial going on for that purpose, looking both at urine and blood. We will know more about it then. It is an issue we have raised with our scientific advisory committee on doping and medication control which will examine the results of these tests to see what can be done. There is a bit of a mystery about the metabolite of pentobarbitone and why it appears. We will try to get to the bottom of that, but in the meantime, as the Deputy probably is well aware, in common with the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, GBGB, policy was adopted and changed earlier this year in which pentobarbitone was recognised as a feed contaminant as distinct from merely a prohibited substance. Work is ongoing and there is a solution there for the present.