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

I welcome the representatives from Bord na gCon. I said on the last occasion that I thought the television programme was significant work by the public service broadcasting service but I also noted that Bord na gCon was annoyed because it never got an opportunity to make rebuttals at the time. In the interests of balance, there should always be an opportunity to put the countervailing argument so that people can contest allegations they believe to be incorrect. Nevertheless, the programme was significant and if it heralded or accelerated changes that are required, it has served its purpose.

I am glad to note from the presentation that significant changes have been made at a number of levels across the industry. Of course, they arose from the 2019 Act, which only came in to force at the end of May. A significant number of these changes were going to be put in place. They kept the health and welfare of greyhounds to the fore at all times. Following recent legislative developments, everybody's focus had to be on the care and welfare of greyhounds and probity and integrity of races to ensure that illegal and performance-enhancing drugs are outlawed, not just verbally but in reality. The number of tests, the application of rigorous and frequent testing and the imposition of stiff and severe penalties, not slaps on the wrist, when adverse results arise following analysis are critical. I salute Bord na gCon as it is on the right track. It is tendering to have analytical devices brought into play. Long may this continue. Irrespective of the profile of the individuals involved, if they err or transgress, there should be no sin bin because there has been too much of this. It should be a case of "out the door with them". Greyhound racing is a very important industry in rural Ireland. I have always supported it and will continue to do so once Bord na gCon carries out the steps on which it has embarked to which I have no doubt it is committed. There can be no room for talking out of both sides of one's mouth. If something incidental happens, one can understand that but where something is interfering with the fairness and integrity of the sport, there can be no room, irrespective of the personalities involved.

Governance must be an overarching and significant point. The welfare of greyhounds at home and abroad in areas like breeding, racing and export is paramount. Perhaps Bord na gCon could encourage the Minister of the day to be at the forefront when it comes to trying to raise at EU level issues pertaining to the export of greyhounds to areas where less than proper welfare standards are applicable. We should raise this at EU level and get the appropriate standards implemented.

I do not subscribe to codes of a voluntary nature. It is like somebody at school telling us to do something. That is the time when we would nearly go and do it. I can understand the thinking behind it, which involves trying to encourage people to do things in a proper way, but I think the witnesses probably realise that codes of a voluntary nature are not as effective as they would like them to be, notwithstanding that they give everybody an opportunity to comply. Substantial changes and progress must be made to engender public confidence in the industry. I think the witnesses know this better than anybody.

Rehoming is an important initiative.

Are the locations and organisations involved spread throughout the country or at least to every location where there is a greyhound track? That would be important.

Traceability is important. It is a matter of ensuring real-time and accurate information dealing with all aspects of the greyhound life cycle, from birth to finishing up wherever greyhounds finish. I refer to the numbers of live registered pups, the number of live registered greyhounds that are breeding, the number registered for track racing, the number registered for coursing, the number exported, the number being euthanised by properly qualified vets, and the number being rehomed. Work is done on this in Ireland. What is the number of broods?

The unique identifier system is to oversee ownership at all times. How will it work? What is the technology pertaining to the total life-cycle of the greyhound? Will the traceability system be implemented on an all-Ireland basis? Since we have very close links with Britain, how will it operate, especially in the context of Brexit? Are the delegates meeting their counterparts in Britain in this regard?

I am 110% supportive of the assertion that primary responsibility for the care and welfare of greyhounds rests with the individual owner. This cannot be devolved to anyone else. Therefore, the focus must be on the owners to ensure they are meeting all the relevant standards set out.

With regard to the statutory instrument for consideration by the Minister, I notice the board is still waiting. I cannot understand how Ministers and officials are so tardy. That is not a matter for the witnesses but I might as well say it anyway. It might resonate with some in the Department. As Deputy Cahill said, a significant issue was raised on the television programme. There is no valid reason the statutory instrument cannot be brought forward. It is not earth-shattering science. One could draft a statutory instrument in an hour if paid for it. They are not too fond of paying anyhow. Mr. Nyhan would be able to draft an instrument himself fairly quickly. The instrument is very important. It is to help the board achieve another objective. The witnesses can take it that I will be asking the Chairman to communicate directly with the Minister to have the statutory instrument brought forward without any more fiddling around. I remember the case of a certain statutory instrument when I was a Minister of State for only nine months. I nearly went mad because I was able to draft it myself in a couple of hours. Four weeks after drafting, it was still going around in rings like a circling bird. I got annoyed and made sure it was dealt with.

Stipendiary stewards are very important. I know a little about this, maybe because I am a voluntary steward of the Turf Club. The stewards are important in regard to various controls. Does the board have the full complement? The stewards give a very detailed direction to the voluntary stewards, who are not stipendiary. Control stewards are also important. They deal with applicable work practices and welfare inspections. Has the board a programme worked out for inspections? The inspection programme is key. While I acknowledge it cannot be implemented all in one slap, has a programme been worked out that will achieve the objectives?

I am heartened by the presentation today. It is very positive. As Deputy Cahill said, it will result in a lot of positivity over the next month or so, when we will have to deal with other issues. All I can say to the delegates is that they should continue with the work and root out those who are not serving the interests of the industry at all levels. If they do this, they will have our support.