Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Tuesday, 4 April 2017
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine
General Scheme of the Greyhound Industry Bill 2017: Discussion
4:00 pm
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We now come to pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the greyhound industry Bill 2017. I welcome from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine Mr. Brendan Gleeson, assistant secretary general and officials from the Department, Mr. Gerry Greally, principal officer; Mr. Dermot Murphy, principal officer; Ms Jane Dempsey, assistant principal officer and Ms Joan Kennedy, assistant principal officer. I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today to brief members on the general scheme of the greyhound industry Bill 2017, and to outline the rationale for the provisions contained therein.
Before we begin I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the Chairman to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members of the longstanding parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or an entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
The format of today's meeting will be that Mr. Gleeson will make his opening statement and them we shall take each heading or group of headings depending on their importance or priority. Members can then discuss each heading at a time and I will allow questions before we move on to the next session.
I now invite Mr. Gleeson to make his opening statement.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I thank the Chairman I am pleased to be here to present the heads of the greyhound industry Bill 2017 to the Committee. The draft general scheme of the greyhound industry Bill 2017 was approved by Government at its meeting on 7 March. In accordance with procedure, the draft general scheme has been published on the Department's website and forwarded to this committee for pre-legislative scrutiny.
Following the conclusion of this phase of the legislative procedure, the general scheme will be sent to the Office of the Attorney General for the drafting of a Bill. Consideration of the final drafting will be informed by the deliberations of this committee during the pre-legislative phase. It should be noted that the Office of the Attorney General has already highlighted a small number of drafting amendments that we intend to address at the drafting stage. I will point these out as we work our way through the heads of the Bill.
Bord na gCon is a commercial State body established by the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, to control greyhound racing and to improve and develop the greyhound industry. It is responsible for the control, promotion and operation of greyhound racing. Its activities include the licensing of greyhound tracks and their officials, the authorisation of bookmakers to conduct business at tracks, the operation of tote betting at greyhound tracks, the regulation of public sales of greyhounds, the making of grants for prize money and to improve amenities at tracks. Bord na gCon licences a total of 17 greyhound tracks and owns and operates a number itself.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine commissioned Indecon to prepare a report into certain matters in relation to Bord na gCon, which was published in July 2014. As part of that review a wide-ranging stakeholder consultation process was undertaken with 17 submissions being received from a broad range of respondents. That report made a number of recommendations in relation to governance, regulation and financial matters, and has broadly been accepted as a roadmap for the development of the sector. A number of those recommendations require modifications to the existing statutory framework. Recommendations were also made in a 2016 report of this Committee, and in the 2015 Bord na gCon commissioned report on anti-doping and medication control, known as the Morris report. Elements in these reports are also taken into account in the draft legislation. The Department has also spoken directly with Bord na gCon, the Irish Coursing Club and the Bord na gCon stakeholder forum on the issues being address in this draft general scheme.
In broad terms the draft heads are intended to strengthen governance, improve regulation in the sport and make it more transparent, and to give Greyhound Racing Ireland a very clear role in relation to the welfare of greyhounds. I will provide greater detail as we go through the document head by head but I will now give a broad overview of some of the key provisions. We propose to rename of Bord na gCon. We believe the time is right, with the promulgation of this new Bill, for a new start for the organisation. We also intend to improve governance. The heads of the Bill provide for an increase in the size of the board to a maximum of eight, with fixed terms for the chairman and ordinary members and a maximum number of terms for each. The increase in the size of the board will facilitate the appointment of individuals with specific expertise as necessary.
The heads of the Bill also lay down the functions of the board around the administration, governance, regulation, development and promotion of the greyhound industry and there are statutory provisions for the delegation of functions to a chief executive. Members of the board, the control committee and the appeals committee are subject to a statutory maximum of two terms.
The board is being provided with the statutory powers to introduce a comprehensive set of anti-doping rules, including the ability to make regulations prohibiting certain substances and setting limits for other substances. The matters that Bord na gCon can investigate are being extended and include matters in relation to welfare of greyhounds. The powers of authorised officers are being amplified for a variety of purposes including investigating the use of prohibited substances. In addition, the powers of entry and inspection of authorised officers are being greatly strengthened.
With regard to disciplinary processes and structures the legislation proposes that the control committee should be provided for in primary legislation, with its functions and independence clearly outlined. Its members will be appointed by the Minister, rather than the board, and will include at least one veterinary practitioner and a practising solicitor or barrister. Decisions in relation to breaches of the racing code will be transferred from the board to the control committee, and the legislation also provides for a statutory appeals committee which will also be independent in the exercise of its functions.
The jurisdiction of both the control committee and appeals committee extends to people participating in the sport of greyhound racing, including the training, sale or breeding of greyhounds for racing, who are subject to the racing code. The heads also provide for the publication of the decisions of the control committee and the appeals committee.
On sanctions, the legislation provides for administrative, rather than criminal, sanctions for breaches of the racing code and increases financial sanctions to a maximum of €5,000. Currently the legislation provides that dogs may be disqualified from racing and trials. The Bill extends the scope of disqualification orders to transfer of ownership, sale and use in breeding activities. The Bill also provides that exclusion orders issued by the control committee, which prohibit persons from attending race tracks or public sales, will have like effect at coursing meetings, and similarly that exclusion orders issued by the Irish Coursing Club will apply equally at greyhound racing meetings.
An amendment is being proposed to the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 to allow the board to make regulations to ensure that bitches have only eight litters certified for racing, regardless of where the litter is born. This is to ensure that the current legislation is not being circumvented by sending bitches abroad to have additional litters where eight are registered in this jurisdiction. These are some of the key elements of the Bill.
This sector needs a strong governance and regulatory framework. I look forward to working with the committee to ensure that that objective is met as we work our way through the heads this evening. We have circulated a highlighted version of the Bill. In part, it is to assist me and also members. It is not intended in any way to deflect discussion from any part of the Bill. They are simply matters I believed might be worth highlighting. I recognise we are at the start of a process here. What we end up with in this Bill might be somewhat different from what we present here tonight. We are open to that possibility, subject to obtaining legal advice and approval from the Government.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As Mr. Gleeson says, this is the start of the process. I expect that when we come to the end and are going through all the various stakeholders, we will have him back in. We will probably have him back to sum up or answer some of the queries that may arise. If members have no questions, we will proceed through the various heads?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 1 concerns the short citation, construction and commencement of the Bill. It is a fairly standard provision. It provides that the Bill, or a part of it, comes into operation on dates to be decided by order. I am not sure whether this requires much further discussion but I am open to any questions members may have.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is straightforward enough. We shall move on.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 2 is the interpretation section. I draw the committee's attention specifically to the definitions of "racing code" and "racing sanctions". These are the second last and third last bullet points in the list of matters interpreted. These are significant because we are establishing controls and appeals committees by statute to administer the sanctions. If members are amenable to it, we might have a more substantial discussion on these when we get to the relevant heads pertaining to the controls and appeals committees. These are important provisions. The provision here is simply a definition that is required elsewhere.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If there are no questions, we shall move on.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 3 is again a standard provision. We are simply changing or updating the name of the Minister and we are updating the definition of "veterinary practitioner" to match the definition in other legislation. If in the future we agree on the change of name, we may need to insert a definition of "the board" here also. We can have a discussion on that when the time comes.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is reasonably straightforward.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 4 pertains to notification notices and documents. This is standard stuff on the service of notices in proceedings. The question arises as to whether this is superfluous because there are similar provisions in the Interpretation Act. I draw people's attention, however, to one addition that is not covered in the Interpretation Act, namely, the provision on the service of notices by electronic mail. We believe that is a positive development. We favour retaining the head but we are open to the possibility that others might have a different view.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The members have no questions.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
On head 5, there are two statutory instruments that establish the control committee and the control appeal committee. The need for them is obviated by these heads because we are now establishing these committees in primary legislation. Therefore, this head provides for their repeal at the appropriate time. Again, it is pretty straightforward.
On head 6, we have decided to change the name of the organisation to Greyhound Racing Ireland. We are open to hearing the committee's views on this. This change does not obviate the need for positive action on a range of other fronts. We are not suggesting that but we believe it could be a positive first step for the organisation following the promulgation of this legislation. It does not strike at the core or substantive issues in the Bill but we believe it would be positive. We are entirely open to hearing the views of the members of the committee on this point.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Have any members any views on that?
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are we on head 6?
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. It is on page 9, and it concerns the change from Irish Greyhound Board to Greyhound Racing Ireland.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does it also concern the make-up of the board?
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I believe we can move on.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
May I just ask a question? The pre-legislative scrutiny of the Horse Racing Ireland legislation took up a lot of time, including in respect of the make-up of the board. How open is the Department to change? Representatives from the various bodies will be looking for additional members, for example.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
There are a couple of points to be made on that. First, there are currently six members and a chairman. We are proposing eight members and a chairman. We are, therefore, proposing two additional members. It is entirely open to the Minister to decide that he wants to appoint representatives of the industry under this new provision or, indeed, under the existing provision. That is possible. The question is whether one wants to provide, as a matter of law, for that representation. We have not done it here. If a report of the committee proposes that we do so, we would have to consider it. Issues arise over who one would appoint, for example. There would still be decisions to be made. It is possible to do it anyway without providing for it in the primary legislation.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We might hear more about that as we proceed.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If one were to grant nominating power to a body, it would want to have a very recognised structure and a very recognised election process for its own structure.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
If we were to provide for something in the Bill, it would be difficult to provide for a nominee from a specific body. What it might be possible to provide for is the nomination of a representative or representatives of the industry. That would tie one's hands. Ultimately, under the existing provisions, all of these appointments go through the Public Appointments Service. A short-list is then presented to a Minister. Therefore, there is a ministerial decision at the end on the basis of the short-list. With all the recent appointments, we have advertised for specific skill sets. We have had an independent assessment of the skill sets of applicants. They are then short-listed. The Deputy is correct that it would be difficult to provide in legislation for an appointment from a specific body. It might be possible. If it were felt to be desirable to provide for a representative or representatives of the industry, any such appointment would be open to issues. I am sure people would have different views on who the appropriate representative should be. It is possible for a Minister to decide anyway that a representative of the industry should be appointed. We are providing for two additional posts on the board.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know that there are changes coming in regard to people getting on public boards as how they are interviewed, as opposed to being selected by the Minister. How will that come into play here?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Even under the current provisions, there is a job specification advertised through the Public Appointments Service. People apply. A committee, including independent people, would sit and evaluate the applications and a short-list would be created, which would then be sent to a Minister. Even though it does not say it in this legislation, those are the provisions of the code. That is how the system operates at present. If there were any changes to the code, that is how any new appointments would be handled.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Shall we keep moving?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
That is a good question. I remember having a long discussion with Deputy Ó Cuív in the context of Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, about the number of board members. We commissioned Indecon to examine this and it recommended eight. There is no magic significance to eight, other than if the board is too big it becomes unwieldy. Indecon's view was that the board at the moment is quite small as boards go. Indecon picked eight but if someone has a view that it should be nine or seven, nobody will die in the ditches over it. That said, it was not something that we just plucked out of the air but was in the Indecon report.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it fair to say that the vast majority of the provisions of this Bill are based on the recommendations of the Indecon report?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes, exactly. Moving on to head 8.2, the chairman of the board holds office for five years from the date of appointment. The position under the 1958 Act is that the appointment is indeterminate. The Act does not specify how long the appointment should be for so we are providing in primary legislation for a five year term. Similarly in head 8.3, we are providing that an ordinary member of the board holds office for three years from the date of appointment. That is consistent with the codes of practice and governance but we are now saying it explicitly in the legislation. Further down, in head 8.5, we are providing that a person who has served two terms of office as a member of the board is not eligible for reappointment. That is consistent with the code of practice but is not provided for in the 1958 Act. That Act does not specify any limit on the number of reappointments to the board.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the chairman appointed for one term only?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes, the chairman is a one-term chairman. Under subhead 6, a member of the board to whom subsection (4) applies may, subject to subsection (5), be eligible for reappointment. We are allowing members of the board to be reappointed but only for one extra term. They can serve a maximum of two three-year terms. There are other provisions there but this committee will have an opportunity to go through this again at a future date. I have highlighted the significant elements. The other provisions are reasonably standard and relate to the terms on which a member holds office.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Regarding head 3A, which refers to a member being adjudicated bankrupt, is that the same kind of provision that was in place for Members of the Oireachtas?
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Supreme Court ruled that it was not appropriate for Members of the Oireachtas.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes and if the provision for the Oireachtas has changed, then it would be reasonable to change this. For formality's sake, I must point out that any changes that are proposed here will have to go back to Government. I might express a willingness to adjust something but obviously that is subject to the processes and procedures.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That would seem logical, though, would it not?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I think so, yes. In fact, we had the very same discussion when we included it on the list.
On the same list on page 11, a board member ceases to hold office if he or she is guilty of an offence involving cruelty to animals or relating to animal welfare. We have set the quorum for a meeting of the board at six. The quorum has increased because of the increase in board membership. Head 7 contains reasonably standard provisions relating to the exclusion from membership of the board if elected to political office which hardly warrant discussion. Head 8 deals with disclosure of interests. Disclosure rules would apply anyway under any kind of code of governance for a board but the Indecon report recommended that we include something specific in the legislation. There is a specific statutory requirement for any member of a board who has an interest in a topic for discussion or consideration by the board to disclose that interest, not to seek to influence a decision relating to the matter, to take no part in the consideration of the matter, withdraw from the meeting and not to vote or otherwise act as a member in relation to any such matter.Again, these are sensible provisions that are applied anyway under the code of governance but we have specifically referenced them here for inclusion in the Act.
Under head 9 we have inserted a function to make it clear that the board is entitled to provide funding for the enhancement of the welfare of greyhounds. In practice, the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 makes clear that the board has a function with regard to the welfare of greyhounds but we wanted to include it here too in order to make that crystal clear. We are also inserting a new section that provides, more explicitly, for the general functions of Greyhound Racing Ireland.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The welfare of greyhounds is a very loose statement.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
It is loose, yes. What we are doing here is empowering the board to deploy its resources for that purpose. Of course, the extent to which and the manner in which it does that is a matter for the board. We could have chosen to tie that down more tightly here but we did not do so. Members may have a view on that as they go through this process but we wanted to make it clear that this was something the board should occupy itself with and to which it can deploy its resources. In practice, the board does this already. It has powers under the Welfare of Greyhounds Act but we felt that it is important, when dealing with a Bill to define the structure and purpose of Greyhound Racing Ireland or Bord na gCon, to specifically include a reference to welfare.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there a suggestion that a certain amount of funds should be allocated for animal welfare?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes and again, in practice, that is the case. It happens anyway but there is a little bit of symbolism involved here. We felt it was important to include something explicit in this Bill and not to rely on the provisions of another Bill to give the greyhound body vires when it comes to animal welfare. That is why it is included here.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The amount of resources devoted to animal welfare would be a bone of contention at the moment.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes. To the extent that I am aware of the public narrative around this, the tendency seems to be to suggest that not enough resources are put into welfare. Whatever about the tensions around this, there is a State body established here with its own functions under Statute. It has to manage the industry and make determinations on how resources are deployed. We are providing a legal framework for it to deploy those resources. It is not our intention to - and we could not really - bind its hands extremely specifically in legislation. It should be directed by Government policy, public sentiment and so forth.
Section B outlines the general functions of Greyhound Racing Ireland and provides for the delegation of executive functions in line with the recommendations of the Indecon report. The Indecon report suggested, not in a pejorative sense, that there was an unusual degree of involvement by the board in executive decisions and day-to-day operational matters. Our view is that certain functions of Greyhound Racing Ireland are carried out by the board but the day-to-day executive operational matters should be carried out by a chief executive. The function of a board should be to provide guidance, set policy, monitor the implementation of that policy and so forth but the chief executive should be responsible for doing what has to be done on a day-to-day basis.
It is a normal division of governance responsibilities, which we have stated in our document. Further on we mentioned the functions of the chief executive might be. Indecon made the recommendation. The committee might argue that it is unnecessary but we have chosen to follow the recommendation.
Head 10 explicitly requires that the board has regard to the code of governance for State bodies. It does anyway. One can argue that the provision is superfluous but, again, we wanted a make a specific reference to the code of governance in the Bill. The provision is short and simple.
Heal 11 explicitly brings the activities of board subsidiaries within the ambit of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I want to make it clear that there is no issue but at present the board produces a consolidated account, which includes the activities of all of the subsidiary companies. The subsidiary companies produce their own accounts that are lodged with the Companies Registration Office. By convention, the Comptroller and Auditor General audits the accounts of the subsidiaries. We wanted to put this matter beyond all legal doubt. It is not that an issue has ever arisen or there is a risk to the convention. We feel that we should not rely on a convention for subjecting these particular accounts to an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and that is why we have provided for same in this legislation.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there a specific date by which to submit the accounts?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
The code of governance provides that completed accounts for State agencies must be completed by the end of August of the following year. There have been issues about the late submission of accounts for Bord na gCon that I believe will be addressed this year. From time to time there can be issues and difficulties with concluding an audit on a set of accounts. We have experienced it with State agencies. Is it wise to stipulate a date in primary legislation? I personally do not believe it is necessary. The matter has already been provided for in the code of governance. The matter should be taken seriously. It is something against which people can be held to account but I am not sure that the date should be stipulated in primary legislation.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does anyone else wish to express a view on the matter? No.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
We have already talked about the functions of the board. Head 12 provides more details about the functions of the chief executive. It is intended to provide a basis for some distinction between the functions appropriate to the board, which I have already mentioned include policy, leadership, oversight and direction, and the day-to-day executive functions that should be delegated to a chief executive officer. The provision was recommended by Indecon. It is arguable that the provision is unnecessary because it should form part of the normal governance arrangements in organisations. We have specifically inserted a provision in order to make a distinction between the functions of the CEO and the board.
Head 13 adjusts the penalties for offences to bring them into line with modern legislation. Section 1 refers to a person who operates a greyhound racing trace without a licence. Section 2 stipulates that such a person will now be subject to a class A fine, which means a sum of up to €5,000 under the Fines Act. I am not sure exactly what the provision has been up to now but I know that it was substantially lower. Section 2 also stipulates that the fine will be increased, on conviction on indictment, to a fine of up to €250,000. Again, that is standard fare in terms of the modern law for offences. The provision is not unusual.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The provision is straightforward.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 14 deals with significant issues related to rules and regulations for greyhound tracks. This provision grants extensive powers to the board to make regulations. In summary, the measure extends the scope of regulatory powers to kennel hands who were excluded, for some reason, from the list contained in the previous legislation. The measure refers to the operation of electronic surveillance. I do not think there was electronic surveillance in 1958. Such surveillance is now a control function at greyhound racing tracks. The provision also refers to powers to restrict the use of mobile phones in defined areas at greyhound racing tracks. Again, the provision is a result of modern technology.
Head 14, page 23, contains strong powers on the introduction of regulatory powers for doping.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I wish to first state that I am a director of a track. I wish to comment on the provisions for the establishment, layout and construction of a track. The layout of a track has become an important issue and we have had a number of cases. Controls are mentioned later. However, we cannot stand over the layout of the track. People cannot say that different people had uncontrolled access to different areas of the track. This provision, definitely for provincial tracks, needs more scrutiny. If we are going to tighten up the regulations afterwards, as I am sure this Bill will do, one must first start with the layout of a track. We must also have controlled access to a track. If we do not then one cannot stand over the other regulations that the Department is trying to implement. Reference to the layout of the track has not been marked in yellow in the submission. The layout will be extremely important when we try to implement the regulations later.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
It is important to state that we are amending and not revoking section 25 of the 1958 Act. If one reads the section one will find out that the board has the power to make regulations on the layout, construction and maintenance of racing tracks. The power has been stipulated in the existing legislation. I cannot say whether the provision has been regulated. It may be that there is no relevant statutory instrument. The 1958 Act contains the power to make regulations and the Department has not sought to revoke that provision.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a question prohibiting the use of mobile phones. In what circumstances is the provision relevant?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I was afraid that the Deputy might ask me that question. I will have difficulty explaining the matter. Perhaps Deputy Cahill might explain it. I am sure he can explain it better than I. In our discussions with stakeholders this matter emerged as a potential requirement. I will find out for the Deputy and will explain because I cannot do so at the moment.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will take the matter up with Deputy Cahill.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Cahill has the inside track. Will we continue?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Page 23 has real substance. I draw the attention of members to section 2B which states: "The Board may make regulations for the purposes of subsection (2A), in relation to substances that may be harmful to greyhounds or affect the performance of a greyhound in a greyhound race." Up to now, as I understand it, there have been rules of racing that are non-statutory in nature. There are also powers afforded to the board to regulate various bits of legislation, including the Welfare of Greyhounds Act and the animal remedies Bill. There are powers afforded to the board to regulate under various piece of legislation, including the Welfare of Greyhounds Act and the Animal Remedies Act. We have brought these powers into the legislation that deals with greyhound racing. Unapologetically, we are saying these are powers for the regulation of greyhound racing. They are not powers for the regulation of medicines or other things. We are saying that we want the Greyhound Racing Control Board to have the power to regulate because these substances can interfere with integrity in the greyhound racing sector. By that I mean they can increase or inhibit the performance of a dog or interfere with the welfare of a dog. We are saying that the board may make these regulations on substances that may either be harmful to greyhounds, which is the welfare element, or affect the performance of a greyhound.
We have given it very strong regulatory powers here and, as I said, the Attorney General asked us to have a look at some of these provisions. What it says here is - this is subject to the advice of my lawyer beside me - that because we are giving extensive powers to make regulations, we might have to articulate more clearly in that opening paragraph the principles and policies around those regulations, in other words, outline in exactly what circumstances we can prohibit the use of a substance and say that other substances are to be controlled. We might have to return with some text drafted by the lawyers to outline the principles and policies here. We will do that if we appear again before the committee.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There are arguments taking place at present with trainers saying that some of the feed that was imported could contain certain residues, which is having an effect. How will that be addressed in this?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have another question when we come to that.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My question is related to Deputy Cahill's. It says the board may make regulations. Is the word "may" strong enough? That implies that it does not have to. Should it have to make regulations?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes. This is an empowering provision and this is the way these provisions are generally drafted. It would be unusual if it did not draft such regulations. There is much public narrative on this but it is an incredibly complex and technical area. There are issues around this that I cannot explain to the Deputy. With regard to deciding what substances can be prohibited and how they should be managed, the board has established a scientific advisory committee. There are a number of experts on that committee, including the director of veterinary medicines in UCD and a Danish person. The latter two people are on the veterinary medicines committee of the European Medicines Agency. There are issues around whether one tests for the metabolites of a substance or the substance itself and they are incredibly technical. What is needed here is empowerment for the board. There are already regulations in these areas based on other legislative measures and the racing code. However, it is impossible to provide for every situation and for every new substance in the regulations. It is also impossible to provide for every new piece of technology that is developed which might be able to find substances at such an extraordinarily low level that they were never found previously. It would not be appropriate, or even possible, to provide for mandatory provisions here. It is too complicated.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The integrity of the industry has come under fire, unjustly I believe. For me, this is the most important part of the Bill for the reputation of the industry. I accept it is technical but surely a threshold can be inserted, such as finding minute substances that would not affect the performance of a dog. In all tests for residues there is a tolerance level allowed as it does not have any impact on the safety of a product, whether it is a food or otherwise. Surely the same thing can be worked into this, whereby some minute tolerance is inserted so that a minute trace of a substance is not going to disqualify a dog as it cannot affect his performance. That is lacking at present. One could say that if a dog drank a sup of tea before a race and was tested, he could fail the test. That is not what we want from this Bill.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I will address that point as I go through the points here. We are saying it has the power to prohibit substances. Some substances should be prohibited and that is the end of it. If they are banned and any amount of them are found, it is a problem. We are saying the board can control substances by reference, class or otherwise that may be given to a greyhound. If a substance is controlled, one is saying that the substance might be useable in certain circumstances. For example, there are substances that have the potential to impact on the performance of a dog which might be legitimately used for therapeutic purposes. I am not sure if any trainer has never medicated a dog, and they might have medicated the dog for perfectly reasonable reasons.
The next provision (c) addresses the exact point the Deputy makes. It empowers the board to set limits for residues for controlled substances. What does that mean? Effectively, it means a limit will be set for the residues. That addresses the Deputy's point. In other words, if a test is conducted and a level above the limit is found, that is an adverse finding. If something below the limit is found, it is not an adverse finding. I spoke earlier about how technical this area is, and determining what those levels should be is not an arbitrary matter. One needs people who know what they are talking about. The reason the board has established the scientific advisory committee is so it can advise the board exactly on these issues. When one applies penalties in these areas, they can be significant and the possibility of ending up in court over the application of a sanction is not insignificant, so it is important that when one sets a limit for a residue it has some scientific rigour behind it. That addresses the point the Deputy made.
The next matter is about setting periods following the administration of a substance during which a greyhound may not participate in greyhound racing or trials. The same thing happens in the food sector, where there are withdrawal periods. If one medicates an animal, it cannot be slaughtered within a certain time of medication. The same provision is here. It provides for the publication of the substances that are prohibited or controlled. Obviously people can only apply these rules or adhere to them if there is adequate publication of the rules. It sets out procedures for recording substances given to a greyhound. Those procedures would be applied by the keeper or trainer of a greyhound. In other words, they might have to keep a medicines record. It sets out procedures for notifying when a greyhound has been treated by a controlled substance. One of the questions in my head is about who they would notify. I will have to reflect on that.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would there be a testing regime?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes, and there will be authorised officers. Later we will come to the powers of authorised officers and where and how they can operate. We can discuss it then in greater detail.
Next is the controls to be applied by an owner, trainer or keeper of greyhounds. This is an important general point. This is not just about the policemen, but also about the participants in the industry having their own responsibilities and obligations. We can, by regulation, require owners and trainers to regulate their own behaviour. Again, it is an empowering provision to allow regulations to be made in that area. Skipping over to (j), it provides for the sampling of greyhounds at any location and at any stage in a greyhound's life. In (k) we refer to powers to approve laboratories and methods of analysis. I will outline what might happen. The board might find a substance or a result in its own or another laboratory. However, somebody might have a sample tested in a private laboratory using an entirely different method of analysis and might arrive at a different result. Again, it means that the official finding can be undermined unless there is a provision which allows the board to state that if somebody is going to challenge the finding, they must use its technique or an approved laboratory.
Provision (l) is something the board is doing at present anyway, which is publishing details of adverse analytical findings in respect of a prohibited or controlled substance. That is a strong measure. It is not the application of a sanction. We are simply saying that if there is an adverse finding, it is published. It does not imply that somebody is guilty of anything, but the details of an adverse finding will be published. That is strong medicine but it is something the board has already started to do.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there an appeal process?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
When there is an adverse finding, it goes to the control committee, which we will discuss shortly. Only the control committee decides whether there has been a breach of the racing code and whether a sanction should be applied. Appeals processes are provided for there.
We will come to those provisions and talk about them in some detail. We propose in a new subsection (4), "A person who contravenes [these regulations] is liable to one or more Racing sanctions." These sanctions are provided for in head 17, and we will have a discussion about them when we get to that head. In the next section-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the legislation as it stands cover checking at trials and sales?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is not done at present.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand there is testing at trainers' yards but I have never seen any testing done at a sale. Did it start last year?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would approve of provision being made for it in the Bill. It should be in the Bill. If it is to be provided for, two or three dogs should automatically be picked out and tested.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
In any event, it is put beyond any doubt here that samples can be taken anywhere. When we come to authorised officers, we will talk through this. We have given them very extensive powers to the extent that I imagine there might be some resistance to some of the measures we propose. We will talk through the matter in detail when we get to the relevant provisions.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are there many laboratories approved at present?
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This would be a change-----
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes. They have their own laboratory and they occasionally have tests done in the UK. I think this is reasonably well known. The significance of this is that if someone challenges a result, it allows them to say the test must be done to a standard using the same technique we have used. That is the reason for that provision. It is not really about their own laboratories or their own testing-----
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The question I am asking is whether it means the test can be carried out at other laboratories other than their own laboratories?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes. Their own laboratory is accredited for the purposes for which it is used. Again, this is about regulations that will state that if there is to be a test to challenge a result, it must be carried out at an approved laboratory and must use the technique provided for. Otherwise, there is chaos and a variety of techniques can be used and a variety of substances tested. The results one might get from blood and urine, for example, might be entirely different, so it is important that if one compares results, one does so on the same basis.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask Mr. Gleeson to move on to head 15.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I wish to make one more point on head 14. We provide for these persons to be liable to one or more racing sanctions. They are provided for in head 17. In subsection (5) there is a highlighted provision that if there is an adverse finding, the greyhound will be disqualified until such time as the control committee has decided whether a racing sanction will be imposed. We are not saying that is a racing sanction; we are just proposing that if a positive result is found, the dog cannot race until the matter has been determined. I think this was the subject of criticism by various people. It is strong medicine, but I believe it has support in the sector.
Head 15 concerns investigations by Greyhound Racing Ireland. We propose to leave Greyhound Racing Ireland with its investigative powers. The significant proposals here are to provide it with explicit powers to conduct investigations in welfare-related areas and to empower the board to make regulations for the conduct of investigations and related matters.
Head 16 concerns the powers of authorised officers. We propose that the board may appoint authorised officers. Ms Dempsey, is this one of the areas in which we may have to provide for principles and policies?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
We propose to provide extensive policing-type powers for authorised officers. These are exercisable where there is a risk of disease, a risk to the welfare of a greyhound or a breach of the racing code. The powers do not extend to entering a domestic dwelling other than with the consent of the owner. This is because this kind of power is only exercisable through the use of a search warrant, and the use of a search warrant is only appropriate where there are criminal offences. The use of these powers is possible for breaches of the racing code because participants in racing are subjected to the rules of racing and the jurisdiction of the control committee under head 18. The point here is that we have very extensive powers which extend through the next few heads, and it may be worth reading down through these powers. They refer to entering and inspecting, at all reasonable times, any land or premises where a record relating to a greyhound is present or where equipment or machinery used in connection with a greyhound is present. It is proposed to grant authorised officers the power to "examine a greyhound animal feed, equipment, machinery or other thing"; to require the name and address of a person; to inspect vehicles, equipment, machinery, etc.; to require a person to provide them with such assistance as they need and copies of records; to take, without making a payment, samples from a greyhound animal feed, water, equipment or machinery; and to restrain a greyhound.
Page 29 outlines what the authorised officer can do where there is a risk of disease, a risk to the welfare of a greyhound or a breach of the racing code. The committee will note that the authorised officer can search land or a premises, search a vehicle, equipment or machinery, require a person in charge or in control of the vehicle to refrain from moving it, give information regarding its place, seize and detain animal feed, and remove equipment or machinery. The proposed subsection (5) states, "An authorised officer shall not enter, except with the consent of the occupier, a private dwelling."
I wish to explain something about this, and I hope I explain it adequately because it is a little complicated. There are offences under this Act which are criminal offences, and in those circumstances it is possible to seek a warrant to search a domestic dwelling. We have provided that breaches of the doping provisions are breaches of the racing code. In those circumstances, we have all these extensive powers for authorised officers but we do not have the power to get a search warrant or enter a person's home. Why did we put these doping provisions under the racing code rather than the criminal provisions? As well as being an industry, this is a sport, and we want a system that allows for the reasonably quick administration of justice in circumstances in which there are breaches of the racing code. We felt that this was best achieved by providing that these provisions regarding doping are breaches of the racing code and should go to the control committee and be appealed to the appeals committee, and we will make reasonably quick decisions then as to whether a sanction is applicable. These provisions were included for the sake of speedy resolutions to such matters. Because we are dealing with a sport, we decided these should be breaches of the racing code and not offences. There are offences under the legislation, but these are not offences, and we think that is a very good thing. That is the advantage of this idea. We provided that these be administrative sanctions. The disadvantage is that one cannot get a search warrant or enter a person's home. We have thought about this because it is a significant enough issue and we felt that this was still the right way to go, that is, that we give authorised officers extensive powers and that where we find a problem, there is reasonably quick administration of the case and an administrative sanction applied. The administrative sanctions are significant. They are equivalent to what one would get in a district court. However, we do not want to have to go through the courts system every time an adverse finding is made in respect of doping, for example, because we feel this would result in interminable delays, to be honest. That is why we have made these provisions and why I draw the committee's attention to the provision in the proposed subsection (5).
What we are talking about is the administration of the racing code and racing sanctions rather than the criminal offences. If we decided these are to be criminal offences, we could get a search warrant and search somebody's house but then every offence would have to go through the courts system. That is an issue that requires some reflection but I wanted to draw it to the members' attention.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Any questions?
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This may be a stupid question but if it was discovered that somebody was supplying prohibitive substances or something like that, that would be a criminal rather than an administrative offence.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
We are talking about legislation that specifically deals with greyhound racing. The Animal Remedies Act provides for criminal offences in cases where people are supplying or administering prohibitive substances. It would be possible to take action under the Animal Remedies Act in appropriate circumstances where it applied but what we are providing for here are issues relating to greyhound racing. One of the criticisms in the Indecon report and in the general public narrative is the length of time it takes to administer justice in this system and we felt that addressing that was best served by having very strong powers for authorised officers when they are administering racing sanctions. Unfortunately, however, the legal limitation on that is this power to search a person's home. It can only be done with the person's consent.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are there authorised officers under the Animal Remedies Act as well?
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could they be the same person?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
They could be but, in practice, the authorised officer under the Animal Remedies Act is generally a veterinarian appointed by the Minister. These are authorised officers appointed by the board. Under the Act they are appointed by the Minister and, generally, I believe it would be a veterinarian appointed by the Department.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
These authorised officers would be able to act on their own volition. They would not have to have anyone else accompanying them, for example, a member of the Garda Síochána or someone like that when they turn up because they could end up in some tricky situations.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
That is a point. We are giving these people very strong powers. We are giving the board the power to give these people these powers. It could be the case that, for example, they would not give all these powers to every authorised officer. It could be the case that a fairly rigorous training programme would be needed because the Deputy is right. These are tricky situations and we are trying to strike a balance between strong regulation and administration and avoiding infringing people's rights. That is the reality.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are they almost the equivalent of the special investigation unit?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes, but if they were investigating an offence they could get a search warrant. They are at liberty to seek the assistance of the Garda Síochána or any other authority and there may be circumstances in which it would be wise to do that. Subsection (6) of head 16 explicitly provides that an authorised officer, "when exercising a power under this section, may be accompanied by other persons or those persons and may take with him or her, or those persons may take with them, any equipment or materials to assist the officer...". These are strong policing type powers. We believe they are needed and they will have to be exercised carefully.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
"Any equipment" is a broad term.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not being funny.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask about a code of conduct for the authorised officers.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
We dealt with head 15 but there is specific provision for the board to make regulations for the conduct of investigations and related matters. The board has explicit power to make regulations for the conduct of investigations. It would be in anybody's best interests to make sure he or she had-----
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A code of conduct.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will move on.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I presume it is not a criminal offence if somebody refuses to co-operate. That is more of a racing matter.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sanctionable under the racing code.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the person is not a registered breeder or owner, it is not sanctionable.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I refer the Deputy to 43C. (1) on page 30 where we list people, and it does not necessarily reference registered breeders or owners. It states: "A person who has ... (a) a greyhound or animal feed, or (b) a vehicle ...shall [provide] assistance to an authorised officer ... and [shall provide] information to an authorised officer ...". In 43C. (2) it states: ""The owner, occupier or person in charge of land or premises used in connection with a greyhound or animal feed shall, if required by an authorised officer, ... provide [suitable] equipment or facilities ...". In 43C. (3) we state: "An authorised officer may require a person to give to the officer such information as is in the person's power or procurement ...".
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Am I right in saying it is a criminal offence if people do not co-operate with that? They are breaking the law.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The only person the racing code could apply any sanction to is an owner or somebody involved directly in the industry. If people obstructed, a sanction which hurts them could be applied but if they are not a breeder or an owner and they do not comply and they have relevant information, unless it is a criminal sanction it would not stand for much.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
That is a very good point. We will have a look at that and revert to the Deputy on it. There are offences provided for in section 44 of the 1958 Act which states that a person who fails or refuses to furnish any information within his knowledge, etc. in the context of an investigation by the board shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €500; that figure may have been increased subsequently. However, we will make sure we have those two aspects tied in. It appears to be an offence not to co-operate with an investigation by the board under the 1958 Act but we will check it out.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I may be jumping ahead somewhat but when the board conducts an investigation an authorised officer goes out, the report comes back in and there is a finding by the committee. The matter can go to the appeals committee, a sanction can be applied to the dog, a fine may be imposed, it may be banned from racing or whatever. If the owner wants to object to that at any stage that would have to be done through the appeals committee. Am I right in saying that the only way they could revert to the court would be by way of judicial review?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They would have to initiate a review in terms of procedures that may not have been done correctly.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will move on.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Paragraph 43D is about a search warrant. It is the point I made earlier. For offences, one can look for a search warrant which allows one to search the dwelling of the individual concerned. Racing sanctions is a new provision. It is significant that the control committee and appeals committee determine whether there has been a breach of the racing code and whether a sanction should apply. The sanctions are provided for. We are talking about a financial sanction not exceeding €5,000, which is equivalent to a criminal offence on summary conviction in the district court; making a disqualification order which would relate to a dog owned by a particular person; or we an exclusion order which would prevent an individual person from participating in racing or coursing. We are also talking about the revocation or suspension of licences or permits.
Section (2) of head 17 is pretty important, and provides that: "A person who fails to pay a financial sanction and the costs or expenses of investigations or hearings imposed on him shall not be permitted to train, transfer ownership of or race greyhounds or attend at a greyhound race track until the amount is paid in full." I am told that it is quite difficult to get people to pay sanctions at the moment. This makes it clear that if they do not, they cannot participate in racing, full stop. It does not require any further process. I see Deputy Jackie Cahill smiling there. He may know more about this area than I do.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How can they prevent someone from attending the track? Is there going to be high security on the gate?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is done in the horse racing industry, I would not say frequently. People can be banned from racecourses for a period. While it has never been in greyhound racing legislation before, it is there in the horse racing legislation.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If there was a steward or whoever at the gate, he or she might not know the person, although the person might want a brass neck to go there in the first place.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If a person who has been sanctioned or banned in another country and comes here to train, is there any provision to extend the sanction or ban to Ireland? Are we going to operate independently? Can someone who is banned in the UK come here to train?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The person's past record is taken into account.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Anyone on Mr. Gleeson's team can answer any of the questions here, if it is helpful, rather than going through Mr. Gleeson, although he is doing a great job.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the same point, if somebody who is banned by the racing control committee from entering a track does so, the legislation provides that such a person may be required to leave, and "a person who fails to leave may be removed by any person acting under the direction of the licensee under the greyhound race track licence relating to the track." What happens next? It is going to be very difficult to physically remove somebody who is being particularly difficult. That is a difficult thing for anyone to do, whether it would be a security man or whoever. What is the sanction? Is the person then trespassing? Can the race track call the Garda or is there a follow-on? If not, it is open to somebody to be totally obstructive and there are no means available to the track to follow through.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the person is there and has not paid the fine, would he or she not just be taken to court for non-payment of the fine anyway?
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It would go the legal route then and the courts would be sent to collect the fine.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Correct. In the meantime the person under sanction cannot participate in racing. A dog owner or trainer certainly cannot enter dogs in a race. These things will be published. While it might be difficult to prevent the entry of an individual into a track, he or she certainly will not be able to enter dogs in a race or take on dogs for training.
In respect of head 18, the control committee has been the subject of some public narrative. Several times on this committee, people have discussed making it more independent in the exercise of its functions. That is not to suggest that those already on the control committee are not independent in the exercise of their functions. We wanted to establish a control committee by statute, as a statutory committee in its own right. Under the old regime, it was the board that appointed the members of the control committee. We are providing here that it is the Minister who appoints them.
The control committee's function is to determine matters in respect of racing sanctions. We have already had a discussion on that. The members can see the list of persons to whom they might apply: owner, trainer, agent, kennelhand, handler of a greyhound - there is a very extensive list in subsection (4). Any person who enters a greyhound in a greyhound race subjects themselves to the jurisdiction of the control committee and the appeal committee in respect of any breach of the racing code. That may result in the imposition of a sanction. That locks people into the jurisdiction of the control committee and the appeal committee.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a good development that they are to be appointed by the Minister.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
It is important that this is now provided for in primary legislation. It is a body in its own right. The members are appointed by the committee. We have provided for a significant increase in the number of people on the control committee. I will come back to that in a while. It is so they can move along more quickly than they do at present. We have also provided by statute that they should be provided with whatever resources they need to conduct a case. We have provided a mechanism that is included in the Horse Racing Ireland Bill, to the effect that if there is any dispute between the committee and Greyhound Racing Ireland as to those resources, they can get an arbitrator in to make a determination which would be binding on both parties.
In practice, these are not issues for the committee but we wanted it sewn into the legislation here to make it clear that this is a body which is independent of Greyhound Racing Ireland and can ask Greyhound Racing Ireland for any resources that it needs and would have some mechanism for ensuring that it gets those resources if there is any dispute about them. That all comes later in the Bill.
Head 19 concerns disqualification orders. These relate to specified greyhounds, "kept, owned, trained or managed by a specified person". These are dogs disqualified from entry in any greyhound race, transfer of ownership - that is a new thing and we will come to it in a minute - acceptance for sale at any public sale, or use in breeding. A disqualification order is a racing sanction. As I understand it, it was at least technically possible through a kind of loophole in the current regime to transfer the ownership of a dog.
A disqualification order is served on an individual. As I understand it, one very imaginative solution to that is that the individual could transfer the ownership of the dog to another individual and that, therefore, the disqualification order would not technically apply. That is why we are adding this provision. There may be more ingenious solutions to this but, in any event, we are trying to close off that particular loophole by preventing people from transferring ownership if a disqualification order is served.
The next topic is the exclusion orders under head 20. Exclusion orders relate to persons and are issued by the controls committee, not the board. That is part of the general dispensation here. We are moving things from the board to the control committee, including the application of sanctions. The proposed subsections (4) and (5) provide that anybody who receives an exclusion order from the board is also prohibited from attending a coursing meeting. Anybody who receives an exclusion order from the ICC is prohibited from attending a greyhound racing track or from being at a public sale of greyhounds. We were faced with the potential situation of somebody who is involved in the greyhound sector getting a sanction from one of the bodies regulating the sector, for example, the racing body. That person could still go off and participate in coursing if he or she wished. What we are now saying is that if a sanction of an exclusion order is applied by one of these bodies, it also applies to the other body's events. That will be difficult to implement. There is no doubt about that. However, I think it is an important principle and it is established in this provision.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Under head 21-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would that be reversible? If there is a sanction on coursing, will it apply to the track as well?
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Let us move to head 21.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 21 is a new provision. I have spoken a bit about this already. The control committee will be established for the first time as a creature of primary legislation. Up to now, the functions of Bord na gCon were delegated to the committee by regulation. In the proposed legislation, it is given independent statutory basis and functions which are to be exercised independently. Its function is to decide whether there has been a breach of the racing code and to make determinations on the potential application of racing sanctions. Subsection (3) states that it is independent in the exercise of its functions. Subsection (4) states that it may make rules for its own procedures and shall publish those rules. Transparency is important when one is administering rules like this.
We are increasing the number of members to a maximum of eight and allowing for the nomination of a deputy chairman. The control committee currently sits with three members. It was explicitly referenced in the Indecon report that work can take time, even though this body meets about once a month, and there can be backlogs of cases. What we are allowing for in this provision is that there may be more than one committee operating at a time if there is a backlog. Therefore, the committee could appoint a deputy chairman to sit on the separate committee to try to make its way through the backlog more quickly. One would have to be careful to ensure there is consistency between the committees. If that were done-----
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It would be a tricky enough road to go down to have two committees in one, as such.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
What we are providing for here is a maximum of eight members. I am not suggesting that this will be a regular feature. I am simply saying that if there was a backlog for some reason, this could be done. It is a technical possibility. However, the Chairman is right. It would be a tricky road. There is a range of issues here that are racing sanctions, including these doping offences that might be provided for by regulation. It may be necessary to have two committees. I agree with the Chairman that it would not be something one would do lightly, but the power is here to do it if one wanted to do it.
The purpose of making these sanctions administrative in nature is to try to speed up the administration. This is another piece of that jigsaw. We are increasing the membership to a maximum of eight, though we might never have that number. We are also allowing for the nomination of a deputy chairman. We are providing that there is a three-year term for members with a maximum of two terms. We are providing for a mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest. We are providing for a guarantee in the subsection (20) that the committee will have sufficient resources to cover its cost. Where there is a dispute between Greyhound Racing Ireland and the committee, we are providing for an arbitration procedure.
At present, there are no issues with resources in the practice of the control committee. People turn up, get a fee for turning up and the committee does not have significant resources. We simply wanted to provide for the possibility that the control committee might say that it wants independent advice on something or some other resource. If it does that, we want to make sure that it is given the resource to cover that and to shore up its independence. We have also provided explicitly for the power of the control committee to make policy recommendations to Greyhound Racing Ireland. I believe that is a reasonably sensible provision. These are people who are looking at these cases regularly. They may well have a view on how the policy needs to be tweaked or adjusted. It should be empowered to make those recommendations to the board.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
With regard to the qualified people needed for that control committee, we are talking about a limited group of individuals. Is it sensible to have the term of office the same as the board? The committee might find a good vet or a good barrister who is prepared to serve. How many of those will be found who are willing to devote their time to a greyhound control committee?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
The Deputy makes a good point. Again, this is technical stuff. We are providing that the committee must have at least one lawyer and one vet as members. The current control committee also has an expert in pharmacology. These are the kinds of skills that are needed. We are trying to strike a balance here. For any body administering justice - that is probably not the right legal term - the balance has to be struck for a kind of visual independence. That is served by a reasonably regular turnover of people. Deputy Cahill is aware that there is a narrative out there of disparaging enough stuff about the control committee, which I do not feel is justified. We are trying to provide a system that will make provision for a reasonably regular turnover of people. Will we find the right people with the right qualifications who will be willing to do this? After all, this is a labour of love for these people. I do not know. If there is a view from the committee that the term of office provided for in the proposed legislation is impracticable, it is something we would listen to.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I just think that the pool of people who would be willing to do this is very limited.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is a fair point. In a different life, I was involved with GAA disciplinary committees. Those are not committees that anybody wants to be on, but it is very difficult to find the right type of people who are independent. The same applies in this case.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Even more so in this case in that they must have serious expertise to sit on the control committee. The number of people with that expertise who are willing to devote their time to the committee could be very limited.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I am inclined to agree with the Deputy. We wanted to make these provisions reasonably consistent with the membership of the board. That is why we picked the three years. There may be a view that the latter is not practicable in the circumstances which apply. This is not a job that people would easily volunteer for unless they had an interest in the sector, to be honest, especially people with the necessary professional expertise. They are the kind of people we are looking for to do this. It may be that it is not practical to limit it to three years. One thing we could do is provide by regulation for a maximum period. That would be a slightly more flexible device. It would be easier to adjust a regulation afterwards than to change the provisions of the Bill.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not disagree with having the term of office in the Bill, but in this instance I think that it might not be practical.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Perhaps that is a potential halfway-house solution, subject to the committee's discussions with other people.
Instead of providing explicitly for three years in the Act, we could provide a power to regulate what the term of office should be. Then, it would be reasonably simple to produce a statutory instrument that might adjust the period, depending on the experience. One has to provide somewhere for some term of office although I do not know whether three years is the right term.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will take that on board as we go along.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not think that would work in practice because of the significant turnover of people. I do not believe a sufficient pool of people would be available.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The point is taken.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 22 relates to the hearings of the control committee. It is about fair procedures. The person concerned has to be notified. The person concerned can make submissions. If the person does not turn up, the committee can make decisions in absentia. Such a provision is necessary. The control committee must keep a record of its decisions and the reasons for them. It must publish details of any sanctions it imposes. It is important to have openness and transparency in the way the committee conducts its business, why it makes certain decisions and what those decisions are.
Head 23 relates to appeals relating to the control committee. This head deals with proceedings in the committee. That is the way it is established. Again, the appeals committee must keep a record of its decisions and the reasons for them. It must also publish details of its decisions and details of any racing sanctions. Deputy McConalogue made a good point earlier to the effect that when it comes to recourse to the courts, we are talking about judicial review for any breach of procedures. This is the appeals provision for racing sanctions.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know we have gone through the question of sanctions already. What happens in the event that a person has a record and accumulates several sanctions over a period? Will there be any additional penalties? For example, if a player gets two yellow cards or three red cards in a year, then he is gone for the big match.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If Mr. Greally wants to contribute, he is more than welcome to do so.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
There is no explicit provision for that in the heads. We will have to check this but it might be possible to take it into account in determining whether an applicant gets a licence or permit.
The other point is that we could change the nature of the sanctions. Financial sanctions are provided for in the heads but there are exclusion orders as well. We could apply an exclusion order to someone who had, over a reasonably long term-----
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It could apply if a person had a bad history.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the fine of €5,000 for a breach?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes, it is for a breach.
Head 24 is next. This is complex but essentially, there is already a greyhound racing appeals committee. This head provides for the new version of it. It provides the committee with new functions. It abolishes the current control committee by regulation. Essentially, this is doing away with the existing control and appeals committees because we have now established new entities. I do not think there is much more to it.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will the committee be a subcommittee of the board?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who will appoint the appeals committee?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
The Minister will appoint the appeals committee. Under existing provisions, the chairman has to be a judge of the Supreme Court, High Court or Circuit Court or a practising barrister or solicitor. There are two ordinary members as well. Again, we are investing significant powers in these people and they have to be competent to do the job. It is not an easy job.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Department will run into the same problems in this area that we discussed earlier.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes, that is possible. We will have to think about that. However, the relevant person has to have some term of office. Perhaps the sensible or prudent approach would be to provide for that by regulation rather than having it in the primary legislation.
The existing provision for the chairman of the appeals committee is five years.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can we keep moving?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 25 relates to fair processes. The control committee is required to make its decisions known to the person at the conclusion of the hearing or by notification sent within one month. The head provides for the appeal of decisions of the control committee. This provision is reasonable. The idea is that we withhold the application of the racing sanction until the matter is appealed and the appeal is heard. That represents necessary due process. We would not get away with anything less, nor would we want to.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How long does a person have to appeal?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
The period is 21 days.
Head 26 updates and modernises penalties for various offences provided under the existing Acts. Fines that were previously £500 are converted to class B fines. This is provided for under the Fines Act 2010. It increases the maximum penalty to €4,000, where previously a fine of that type was £500. Fines that were previously £1,000 are converted to class A fines under the Fines Act 2010. This measure increases the fine to €5,000. Again, in the context of the sanction regime, a fine of €5,000 is the maximum permissible by law.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is basically all about updating fines.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Head 27 is next.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Head 27 is a short and simple provision, but the explanation is somewhat longer. I imagine the committee members will be familiar with the issue. It is intended to deal with a potential loophole in the current welfare provision in respect of the ninth litter.
Section 11(3) of the Welfare of Greyhounds Act prohibits a person from causing or permitting a greyhound bitch to have more than six litters during her lifetime. However, it allows two additional litters if a veterinary surgeon certifies that the pregnancy and birth do not represent a risk to the health or welfare of the bitch. That brings the maximum to eight litters for greyhound bitches.
Section 11(4) of the Welfare of Greyhounds Act prohibits the keeper of the Irish greyhound stud book, namely, the Irish Coursing Club, from entering the progeny of litters in breach of that provision into the stud book. Let us suppose a greyhound bitch has a ninth litter. The progeny cannot be entered into the stud book. However, there is a potential circumvention of that provision. The potential circumvention is that a person could export the bitch to another jurisdiction, for example, a neighbouring jurisdiction. Then, the bitch could have a ninth litter there. There is an arrangement of reciprocity for registration in stud books between the UK and here. Therefore, technically there is a way around this provision.
We are providing two lines that close off this potential loophole. We are saying that progeny from the ninth litter or subsequent litters of a greyhound bitch shall not be certified to race. Therefore, even if a person circumvents the registration of the stud book and a bitch has a ninth litter, it does not matter where she has it because the progeny of that litter cannot race. This is a reasonably well understood problem and we are trying to close it off with this ninth litter provision. We are also saying that a person who races a greyhound in contravention of these provisions commits a criminal offence.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is an issue with regard to the straws used for insemination. They can be used for years after the dog is long dead. This question was brought up at some stage.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Department is keeping the good wine until last.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I notice that I have a very short provision here beside me and I have a full page of notes, so I will try to explain it as best I can. This provision states that: "A greyhound registered in the stud book and certified to race by the Irish Coursing Club is eligible to race, unless the greyhound is the subject of a disqualification order."
This provision is intended to deal with a matter which has been the subject of some public commentary - the Deputy is right - over the past few years. It relates to the eligibility of progeny of artificial insemination using semen from dogs which have been dead for more than two years.
I will try to go through this step by step. In 2005 rules were introduced which permitted frozen semen from deceased stud sires to be used for artificial insemination, but only for two years after the death of the dog. I think those rules were introduced potentially for two reasons. One might have been a concern about the narrowing of the gene pool in the greyhound sector. In other words, if one used semen from the same few dogs all the time and did not bring any kind of diversity into the breed it would be problematic.
There might also have been a concern about how this might affect breeders - that is, people who were breeding dogs here - and whether there would be any demand for the semen.
The reality is that this two-year limit was never enforced. There might be various issues of practicality that others can explain better than I can, but it was not enforced. It was clearly the intention to revoke the rule early on, but this was not done.
In 2014 this was the subject of significant public commentary and people were unhappy that semen from these dogs was being used. The Department took the view that either the rule should be changed or it should be applied. The decision ultimately was that the board, with the consent of the Minister, introduced a statutory instrument in 2014, which removed this two-year restriction, so that the regulations matched the practice on the ground.
The board can make regulations anytime it wants to, limiting the use of semen from dogs. In the meantime, however, there are progeny that were registered and that were the progeny of semen from dogs that were dead for more than two years. The progeny of those progeny may be running now. One could have several generations of dogs running which were the progeny of dogs that had been dead for several years.
When we introduced the regulations in 2014 they drew a line under this and said that the rule was gone. They could not apply it retrospectively, however, so there is a degree of debate about the eligibility of dogs to race or not. There is a strong view that owners who registered dogs in a stud book and were certified to race, have a reasonable and legitimate expectation that they should be allowed to race. There is also a view that once they were registered in a stud book they had to be allowed to race, so this is a difficult issue. There are people out there who will never be satisfied that it has been dealt with appropriately. I am saying that frankly and I am sure the committee will have people saying that in here.
We have tried to put the issue of the eligibility of dogs in the stud book to race beyond any doubt as of today. We do not believe that there is an issue but we are putting it here in the primary legislation that any greyhound registered in the stud book and certified to race is eligible to race. It therefore puts the issue beyond doubt for now. We cannot put a provision in here that is retrospective in impact. It cannot be done, but we are trying to put that particular issue beyond doubt to the extent that it is possible to do so. That is what this provision is about.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does that answer Deputy Kenny's question?
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, I think so.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The point is that if the straw was used from ten years ago and the dog was dead three or four years before that, up until 2014 there was an issue with that but it was not actually being dealt with in practice.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is gone since then.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is no longer the rule. Clearly, however, the issue that the breed would all come from the one line is the problem. One would say that is an issue for anything in nature.
Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How does one overcome that?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes and I should have added this point because it deals exactly with that point. At the time, the board undertook to engage with a geneticist and have him examine the greyhound issue. The board was to get advice from that Teagasc expert and make a judgment on whether or not the rule needed to be reintroduced based on the output of that exercise. I think that is still going on, to be honest. However, it is open to the board to reintroduce that rule at any time. If they reintroduce it, it has to be applied of course. They are looking at that, however. There could be issues, although I cannot articulate them here, about the practicability of applying the rule. Others who sit where I am sitting now might say there are not and they might be able to explain.
This is an intractable situation. It is very divisive and the cause of much public debate. We cannot legislate retrospectively, so this simple provision is an effort to deal with it in that any dog now registered on the stud book is eligible to race, full stop. If the board feels it appropriate, based on the advice they get on exactly that point, to reintroduce that regulation or any other regulation that limits the use of straws from dead dogs, then they are entirely at liberty to do so.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It could change in the future, of course, but at the moment there is no dominant stud dog. There was a time when a dominant stud dog was being used virtually exclusively to any other dogs. I went to a major puppy stake in Limerick which had 12 heats with 72 dogs. There were 65 different sires for the dogs.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That shows that at the moment there is no dominant stud dog. In his day, Top Honcho, was being used exclusively to the detriment of other stud dogs.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In the racing industry one has Galileo and very close in-breeding there. The in-breeding that is going on is more of a problem for the racing industry at the moment. In the dog industry it is not an issue, but that is not to say that in five years' time a stud dog could not become dominant again and would be used to the exclusion of other stud dogs. At the moment, however, there is definitely no problem in the greyhound industry because there is no dominant sire.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes, but the powers that make that regulation remain there. My understanding is that the board has been taking some technical advice on whether or not it is necessary to reintroduce it. I am quite certain that this provision will not satisfy everyone but, to be frank, it is an effort to draw a line under it.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are there any other questions before we conclude? I think we have gone through the legislation in a fair bit of detail. That concludes our business for today. I wish to thank Mr. Gleeson and his team for coming here this evening. I am sure that we will have him back in at the tail-end of this discussion in a number of weeks when we have had all the other groups appearing before us. The beginning may not be the same as the end, but we will eventually get there.
I thank the witnesses once again for appearing before the joint committee.