Mr. Conor Dowling:

I will pick up first on Deputy Cahill's question regarding the number of calls relating to greyhounds. The number of registered greyhounds involved is small. We deal with many greyhound-type dogs, which fall outside the industry, but the number of calls received about registered greyhounds is negligible. We must acknowledge that the majority of dogs kept for racing are looked after in an appropriate fashion.

Deputies Pringle and Penrose asked whether the ISPCA could be authorised under the Welfare of Greyhounds Act or whether authority could be extended under the Animal Health and Welfare Acts. They are both possible. There are weaknesses in the Welfare of Greyhounds Act. It requires people to do things but if they fail to do them, there is no facility to act on that unlike under the Animal Health and Welfare Acts. For example, the IGB was dealing with a case to the best of its ability involving a large of number of dogs in a compromised welfare scenario. The board served a welfare notice but the person failed to comply with it. If such a notice is served under the Animal Health and Welfare Acts and the person fails to comply, we can take action to seize and remove animals to ensure their welfare. There is no such facility under the Welfare of Greyhounds Act and, therefore, this case rumbled on for two years through the courts. During this time, the dogs continued to be kept in conditions that nobody was happy with, particularly the IGB. That aspect needs to be examined, particularly if the industry is to be largely self-regulating.

I know that the stewards on the ground would appreciate a little more strength in their armoury in trying to deal with these situations. As Dr. Kelly said, we work closely with the IGB. Just in the past couple of weeks, we accompanied it on two inspections at its request. We all want the same thing. That is important to consider.