Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance today. Clearly, no illegal drugs, performance enhancing drugs or anabolic steroids should be allowed in any form in any of the industries, and today we are talking about the greyhound industry. What about strict liability? Look at Dr. Una May's observations to this committee about strict liability. The witnesses may or may not all be aware of this.

Strict liability is where something arises. It has to be accounted for, and once it is found it is the end of the matter. It can be accounted for by way of mitigation and there can be a lesser sanction. What is the witness's view on strict liability? Once something is present there is no room for manoeuvre. The presence of the substance is the offence.

There is the mitigation application. What is the witness's view on that?

The witness has indicated that the Bill is somewhat deficient. I am inclined to agree with that. There is a broader offence of bringing the industry into disrepute. I would like the witness to expand on that because it is an interesting concept. It is the omnibus offence in law. Unfortunately people are continually devising and developing ways of circumventing the strict rules and regulations which are laid down. They are statute based rather than administrative. I can see an opportunity here for an offence of such character that means that any person who engages in any activity that brings the sport of racing into disrepute should be liable to a significant sanction. I would like to hear the views of the witnesses on that. If there is a code of conduct or behaviour in an industry and if it is breached these offences become relevant.

We have spoken about full-time traceability, which is the cradle to the grave concept of traceability. A large amount of money has been spent investigating doping control procedures and integrity systems in Limerick. How is that operating? Is it operating to the extent that the industry does not have to resort to external systems? Does some of the sampling go to Britain? Samples are broken up, like the drink driving samples, which gives people the opportunity to take their own sample away and get it analysed. Does the industry still have to resort to external laboratories, or is the laboratory in place capable of doing all the testing? Will it be capable of doing all the testing, particularly when there is a wider ambit of offences which will now have to be accounted for? I understand that it has been operational for a few months. I do not know if it is under pressure now. What level of testing has gone on since it opened? What were the results? Why were the results not published? Are they published and are the various infractions set out? Those are all confidence building measures. Transparency is important in this context. Are they set out? What level of sanctions are available now, notwithstanding that they are not statutory based? Do the witnesses feel that this Bill, when enacted, will mean that testing procedures will have to be widened and increased and will laboratory equipment and personnel be needed for that? Will there be a significant cost to that? We are not dealing with the sale of Harold's Cross stadium here, but might some of the money realised in that sale be invested in an area like this, which is of critical importance to the integrity of racing? There are thousands of people out there who own, breed and care for greyhounds and enjoy the sport and look after the animals after their racing days.

We mentioned the number of litters from brood bitches.

Do the witnesses have any views on that? Should there be a maximum amount of litters allowed? This is important in terms of the welfare of the animal.

The ISPCA were before this committee and gave a very interesting presentation. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2013 they do not have a function in terms of greyhound racing establishments operated by the witnesses, or indeed greyhound breeding establishments under the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011. Can the witnesses see an amendment being made to this Bill which would allow the ISPCA to have a function? Permitting a reputable organisation to carry out and exercise their function would be an important protection. They are not currently permitted to visit a greyhound breeding establishment operated under the Irish Greyhound Board.