Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with the pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Greyhound Industry Bill 2017. Before beginning, I remind members, witnesses and people in the Visitors Gallery to ensure their mobile telephones are turned off. I welcome the representatives of the Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dr. Andrew Kelly, chief executive officer, and Mr. Conor Dowling, chief inspector, and the representatives of Dogs Trust Ireland, Ms Suzie Carley, executive director, and Ms Lucy Cronin, public affairs. I thank them for appearing before the committee to discuss the heads of the Bill. I also thank them for their written submissions which have been circulated to the members of the committee. These will be published on the committee's website for general observations. We will hear a short presentation from the witnesses for each group, which will be followed by questions from the members.

I wish to bring to the attention of the witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they 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. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Dr. Kelly to make his opening statement. We will then hear from Ms Carley.

Dr. Andrew Kelly:

I would like to start by thanking the committee for giving the ISPCA the opportunity to present our comments and opinions on the heads of the Greyhound Industry Bill.

As many of the members will be aware, the Irish Society Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is widely recognised as Ireland's national animal welfare organisation. We have been at the forefront of delivering animal welfare services for over 60 years and we are also an umbrella organisation for 19 local SPCAs throughout the country.

The ISPCA is an animal welfare organisation. We are not an animal rights organisation, and it is important to point that out. We recognise that animals are used in a number of ways and our objective is to prevent cruelty but also to promote kindness to animals. We pride ourselves on the fact that our policies are evidence based and ethically sound.

The ISPCA has a team of eight uniformed inspectors, represented here today by Conor Dowling. Currently, those eight inspectors can only cover 17 counties, although eventually we hope to cover the entire country. Our inspectors are authorised officers under the Animal Health and Welfare Act by means of a service agreement with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is pertinent to point out that there are some exemptions to our authorisation, including that we do not exercise a function under the Animal Health and Welfare Act in respect of a greyhound racing establishment operated by the Irish Greyhound Board or a greyhound breeding establishment within the meaning of the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011. Since becoming authorised officers, our inspectors have initiated over 70 prosecutions, 28 of which have been finalised in the courts to date, with eight in 2017 alone.

We have a series of animal welfare policies. The most pertinent one today is that we are concerned about certain sports requiring the breeding of large numbers of animals in order to select the fastest, strongest or fittest, thereby giving rise to a large number of animals that are unwanted or have no value, and essentially are a waste product. The ISPCA believes in engagement, and we do engage with the greyhound industry through the International Greyhound Forum, which consists of represents from the Irish Greyhound Board, the Irish Coursing Club, the Greyhound Board of Great Britain and a number of animal welfare organisations, including our organisation and Dogs Trust, representatives of which we are here with us today.

Our main concerns in terms of welfare within the greyhound industry are for dogs that are injured or that are disposed of inhumanely which, regrettably, does happen. We know a large number of dogs are surrendered to dog pounds for euthanasia once they become valueless. Over a six year period, 3,410 greyhounds were surrendered to pounds. We welcome the reduction over that six year period but that is a lot of dogs. It causes some members of the public considerable distress that dogs are surrendered for euthanasia. We believe that the cost of that should be borne by the industry; I believe the polluter pays principle applies in this regard. The burden to re-home them seems to be passed on to rescue organisations. I point out that 75% of greyhounds surrendered to pounds were euthanised in 2010 compared to 55% in 2015. There has been a reduction, which is welcome, but we still believe it is too many.

It does not help the greyhound industry's case when previous members of the Irish Greyhound Board make comments. For example, on radio recently, when asked if it was considered to be acceptable for large numbers of dogs to be killed as the result of a sport, the person in question replied, "Absolutely I do". That kind of attitude does not go down well with the public and perhaps a culture change is required in that regard.

On the heads of the Bill, the committee has our written submission in which our comments are detailed but I will highlight one or two aspects. We are concerned that there seems to be an apparent move away from criminal sanctions towards administrative sanctions in some cases.

We believe there should be a significant deterrent for people who are determined to commit offences, either internal or criminal offences.

The Greyhound Industry Bill presents opportunities in terms of amendments to the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011. For example, we would like to see an amendment to the Welfare of Greyhounds Act that would limit the number of countries to which greyhounds can be exported, the so-called white list. In that regard, we support Dogs Trust and its Bill to introduce that amendment.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Kelly. I invite Ms Carley to make her statement.

Ms Suzie Carley:

I thank the Chairman and the members for inviting Dogs Trust to speak to them today and I welcome the joint committee’s scrutiny of the general scheme of the Greyhound Industry Bill. They will have seen our written submission so I will quickly go through some key points and not keep them too long.

This draft Bill provides an opportunity to protect Irish greyhounds from export to countries for racing where there is inadequate welfare legislation or welfare standards which are far below that which we have in Ireland, such as Pakistan and Macau, in China.

Dogs Trust is Ireland's and Europe’s largest dog welfare charity. In 2016, we re-homed 2,853 dogs. We never put a healthy dog to sleep and take a cradle to grave approach to all the dogs in our care. We do not receive any Government funding, and it is with thanks to our tens of thousands of amazing supporters across Ireland that the far-reaching activities of Dogs Trust have had an impact throughout the country.

We welcome the general scheme of the Greyhound Industry Bill 2017 and we hope that through thorough investigation and scrutiny from stakeholders and legislators we will provide the best legislation possible to protect Irish greyhounds. In our submission to the committee the members will find a number of proposed amendments to the general scheme of the Bill for the protection of greyhounds, but due to time constraints today I will focus on what we consider to be one of the most crucial from an animal welfare perspective, namely, the export of greyhounds for racing to countries with inadequate welfare legislation and deplorable animal welfare standards.

No legislation exists in Ireland which prevents the export of Irish greyhounds to countries where welfare standards are below that which we have in Ireland. We are proposing an amendment to the Greyhound Industry Bill which provides for a regime to ban the export of greyhounds for racing, and we hope the committee will support this amendment. I refer members to Annex I of our written submission.

We have engaged with the greyhound industry in Ireland through the International Greyhound Forum, which was established almost 13 years ago by the former CEO of Dogs Trust, Ms Clarissa Baldwin, to ensure the welfare of greyhounds is at the core of the industry. Starting from a low base, significant improvements have been achieved through the work of the forum, which has developed a mutual respect and understanding between the industry while rigorously pushing for improvements in animal welfare standards at all levels.

In recent years, grave concerns have been raised about the export of Irish greyhounds to race in countries where the welfare standards are poor or non-existent. One such case which was highlighted in national and international media in May of last year was when 24 Irish greyhounds were stopped at Heathrow Airport while being exported to Macau, in China. To be clear, the Yat Yeun Canidrome in China is cited as one of the most deplorable racing tracks in the world. Loud music is played on race night to drown out the cries of the 800 greyhounds living there. The track provides little space for greyhounds to turn around in their steel cages, and there are little to no veterinary services for dogs when they become injured. That is one of the reasons they are often destroyed in the most cruel and inhuman ways. Ultimately, no dog retires from the Canidrome; they all die there.

Those 24 Irish greyhounds did not make it to Macau simply because their cages did not meet the transport requirements and so they were returned to Ireland. I mention this case specifically because it is one which has been well documented; many other greyhounds are exported for racing and are untracked and untraceable. This case led to a petition with over 65,000 signatures and demonstrations in Ireland and outside the Irish Embassy in London as well as calls from worldwide animal welfare organisations for the Irish Government to ban the export of greyhounds to China. Not only are these scandals incredibly difficult to read about as a nation of animal lovers but they are seriously damaging to Ireland's animal welfare reputation.

As I am sure the members are aware, Deputy Tommy Broughan introduced a Private Members' Bill to amend the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 on 21 March 2017.

This Bill, if adopted, will allow for the welfare members of the International Greyhound Forum, IGF – Dogs Trust, ISPCA, PAWS, Retired Greyhound Trust in the UK, and the Irish Blue Cross - and a representative of the veterinary profession along with the IGB to produce a draft list of countries that meet minimum standards with regard to the welfare of greyhounds and to which licensed export of greyhounds from Ireland can be permissible. This draft list will be open to public consultation for a minimum of 30 days. The final list - the white list - will be submitted to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and will be revised annually.

Following discussions with other welfare organisations and with a number of public representatives, we believe that the provisions set down in the Bill tabled by Deputy Broughan could be integrated into the Greyhound Industry Bill. Given the support publicly provided by the greyhound industry for the prevention of the export of greyhounds to countries where the standards are below those in Ireland, we see no reason not to introduce this sooner rather than later. In reply to a parliamentary question on 4 May, the Minister fully endorsed the IGB's advice to only export to destinations with sound welfare standards. We do not wish to see Irish greyhounds treated in a way other than they are treated in Ireland.

Ultimately, Dogs Trust and the welfare members of the International Greyhound Forum as well as the wider Irish welfare community want more robust regulation throughout the industry with better welfare provision for greyhounds before they get to the track, when they are racing and when they are retired. Dogs Trust is not calling for a ban on the export of greyhounds per sebut, as a society, we have a duty to protect the animal which gives its all during its short racing career. As an animal welfare charity, our main concern is that welfare standards are appropriate to ensure the protection of greyhounds and that they are adhered to. Our current view, which I am sure all members will share, is that changes are required to the current legislation to safeguard the well-being of our greyhounds.

I thank members for their time and I welcome any questions they may have.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Carley. The heads of the Bill will be on the screen in front of her if she needs to refer to them.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the two groups for their submissions. I am a greyhound owner and the director of a greyhound track and, therefore, I have a serious interest in the industry. Our industry has received a great deal of negative attention in the past few months. The industry's participation regarding the welfare of greyhounds must increase. Anyone who is serious about the industry recognises that. While I may not agree with everything the witnesses said, they have made many sensible points observations, which have to be taken on board and examined in the drafting of this Bill. Dr. Kelly said the ISPCA receives 16,000 calls each year about cruelty to animals. What percentage of those calls relate to greyhounds?

Ms Carley gave examples of countries to which greyhounds are exported where standards are a long way below ours. If we are serious about greyhound welfare and enhancing the image of our industry going forward, the legislation must prohibit the export of dogs to countries where standards are significantly below those of Ireland. Who will set down criteria for the countries to which the dogs are exported? Do we have the ability to determine fairly for or against an importing country? Ms Carley cited one country as an example and I accept that. I discussed this issue with greyhound owners last week in the context of another country. I thought its standards were not that high but I was assured that the conditions in which the greyhounds are kept are absolutely superb and the country's standards are even higher than ours. Just because a country is outside northern Europe does not mean it its standards are below an acceptable level.

What format do we have? Is there a body that will be acceptable to everyone with regard to the standards? Will standards be agreed? How can we do this for the various countries to which greyhounds go from Ireland?

The industry must recognise that it has a responsibility to contribute to the welfare of greyhounds. The day of leaving it to someone else to deal with retired greyhounds is over. Whether we will be able to cater for every case economically is an argument, but breeders, owners and the industry as a whole will have to make a financial contribution to try to secure homes for retired greyhounds and the welfare of greyhounds. There is a percentage of dogs which must be euthanised. It is a prerogative that the industry bears its share of responsibility and its share of the cost. Our industry has suffered a lot of damage in recent months. If we are to protect the image of our industry going forward, we must have greater participation in dog welfare. Anyone who is serious and interested in the industry will accept this.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. The recommendation on the export of dogs is sensible and should probably be included in the Bill. Obviously we only want to see dogs exported to countries with proper welfare standards. The ISPCA spoke about authorised officers, and the fact it is not authorised under the under the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011 but is authorised under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. There is provision for the board to appoint authorised officers. As the legislation stands, could ISPCA inspectors be appointed as authorised officers by the board? Is it something that would meet its requirements with regard to welfare checks?

It was stated that people convicted of animal welfare offences are not excluded from being on the board, but under head 6 they will be excluded from being members of the board. With regard to the maximum number of litters allowed being no more than five, is there a rationale for this? The Bill proposes nine. Is there a rationale for this other than the desirability for fewer litters?

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the two groups for their excellent presentations, which were succinct and very informative and all the better for it. I am somewhat surprised that legislation on animal welfare seems to be deficient with regard to the ISPCA's authority to enter establishments. If possible, we should examine whether an appropriate amendment can be made to incorporate greyhound establishments as being establishments within the meaning of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. It seems to be a significant lacuna in legislation.

It is important to point out this is significant legislation the sole aim and focus of which is to incorporate the welfare of greyhounds from the cradle to the grave. Much work has gone into the legislation, including by the committee's predecessor and this should be acknowledged. Every Member is aware and awake to the situations that can arise, but we must not tar everybody with the one brush. There are people in all walks of life who may not take appropriate care of animals in the way we would like them to.

It is important that the vast bulk of people involved in the industry as owners, breeders, trainers and everybody else do their very best in this regard. Anybody who does not take appropriate care or who behaves in an inhumane fashion in any form has to be excluded, whether that is from boards or from participation. Deputy Pringle is correct. I thought that this legislation was taking steps along those lines, as outlined by the witnesses.

Head 9 deals with the provision with regard to welfare. Clearly, most groups have indicated that this is not all-encompassing. It is pretty weak, if I was to summarise what many of the witnesses are saying. That can also be related to the level of funding referred to by the ISPCA of €2.4 million versus €60 million, which is a comparison of what the ISPCA and all of the groups involved in the animal welfare industry get to affect the greyhound industry with what the greyhound industry gets. There is a factor of almost six or seven of a difference. Have the witnesses any view on what additional funding might be needed to improve the greyhound welfare? What level of additional funding is required for the enhancement of racing greyhound welfare? The Welfare of Greyhounds (Amendment) Bill 2017 has been published by our colleague, Deputy Tommy Broughan. It is clearly something that has a significant degree of stakeholder interest. Can the witnesses comment upon that?

Some of the witness organisations are members of the greyhound forum already. I think the ISPCA is as well. How does that work and does it need to be strengthened? We have ten or 12 pieces of legislation. Some of that emanated from the witnesses themselves advocated strongly in this regard. What more needs to be done in that regard? Does it need to be strengthened? Does there need to be a statutory format to give the forum more teeth?

With regard to criminal sanctions versus the administrative sanctions, the witnesses are clearly not fans of the administrative sanctions. Where would they wish to see criminal sanctions being imposed? We saw from the Morris report that one of the big problems in the industry is doping. Apart from other welfare areas, is that an area the witnesses believe should be subject to criminal sanction? Where in this Bill can criminal sanctions be introduced to deter people from abandoning animals or doing anything else? Animal abandonment seems to be fairly significant. That seems to be the genesis of the witnesses' plea that numbers would be curtailed. The witnesses were comparing Ireland to Britain in terms of numbers. How could one implement that? It seems that we would be better off working at the welfare end of it rather than having a restriction on numbers.

The Welfare of Greyhounds (Amendment) Bill 2017 is something in which we can implement particular standards, even though they need to be strengthened. Nevertheless, there is a good corpus of legislation dealing with welfare standards and we should acknowledge that. If there is a deficit of welfare in countries in which greyhounds or indeed any animal are being exported to, then we should call a halt to that straight away. That is apparent. As Deputy Cahill said, we cannot have a preconceived notion about this. It has to be established beyond a doubt. Sometimes one might say that a certain country is not an acceptable place. We cannot do that. It cannot be based on anecdotal evidence. It has to be based on very strong empirical evidence for us to do those things. There is no use taking a blunderbuss approach and then living to regret it. We have to be careful to do the right thing for the protection of animal welfare, but we must do so based upon evidence as opposed to hunches or anecdotes.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are all very welcome. With regard to the number of litters, what is the norm at present? I would like to know this for my own expertise, if nothing else. With regard to sanctions, it was stated a person convicted of any animal welfare offence should not serve on the board. Surely such people should not own greyhounds or be involved in the industry at all, never mind be on the board, at least for a period of time. I would like to tease this out a little because it seems a little strange that this would be the only sanction. I am sure it would not be that big a sanction to be taken off the board. With regard to the export of greyhounds abroad, traceability and tracking, all dogs in the country have microchips. I was interested to hear comments on the effectiveness of this and its potential to ensure adequate traceability and tracking of every dog in the country.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the two organisations before the committee. I thank them for their presentations and commend them for their outstanding work throughout the country. The ISPCA in its submission and comments stated it is not in favour of criminal sanctions. When we went through the heads of the Bill at previous meetings we focused on the administrative burden of criminal sanctions, and how these would work and operate was on the Department's mind. I would like to hear the thoughts of the witnesses on this. It is why the heads of the Bill are going down this particular route.

In its submission, the ISPCA stated the number of greyhounds born in the UK has dropped from 10,000 to 1,000, with 95% going on to race. This is a very high percentage. Dogs Trust, in its presentation, outlined how 16,000 greyhounds were born in the Republic in 2015. What are the thoughts of the witnesses on how this has come about and why there is such a difference between the two countries?

With regard to the welfare Bill on the export of greyhounds put forward by the Dogs Trust, it has had engagement with the international greyhound sector. Has it had meetings with domestic greyhound organisations and, if so, how have they reacted to the proposals?

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I go back to the witnesses for answers, I wish to put on record I am a personal friend of the chairman of the Irish Greyhound Board. I do not own a dog at present and do not intend on owning one in future. A number of questions have been asked. Do the witnesses wish to start with the ladies?

Ms Suzie Carley:

I will combine my answers to the questions asked by Deputies Cahill and Penrose. With regard to the white list and the countries to be determined, this is a very good point and I want to avoid any confusion. It is with regard to export to countries whose welfare standards do not meet the same standards as we do in Ireland. We must be mindful that many greyhounds being exported from Ireland are exported for rehoming. We propose the welfare members of the international greyhound forum put together the white list. This would be informed by the past record of the relevant country relating to the welfare of greyhounds and the welfare of animals more generally; the existence in the relevant country of enforceable welfare protections for greyhounds being equivalent to protections available in this State; the monitoring and enforcement in the relevant country of the welfare protections referred to in the Bill; and the standards of care and management to which greyhounds are likely to be subjected in the relevant country. A little work will need to be done, and it must be an inclusive process where conversations take place among welfare members.

That list would be open for public consultation for 30 days so that we could get feedback from the public. When the list is provided it would then go to the Minister to ultimately stamp his or her imprimaturon it. We need to take into consideration research on the countries and whether they have the relevant welfare legislation and enforcement around that legislation as well.

Ms Lucy Cronin:

Just to add to that, I refer the committee to page 10 of our full written submission and the list of countries to which export is permissible. The list that Ms Carley has just given is written out in full in order that the committee has full sight on what conditions or criteria would be used by those bodies to assess which countries should be put on that list and which should not.

Ms Suzie Carley:

The proposed list would be revised annually. That would then give us an opportunity to revise as per the countries increasing or decreasing their animal welfare standards.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the witnesses then be happy if it can be proven that a country's standards, after starting off on this exclusion list, have come up to scratch, that obviously-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Back on the list.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Can it then be resumed?

Ms Suzie Carley:

Yes, absolutely.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fair enough. Who would measure it and how would it be measured? Would it be the receiving country or would it be us? Who would be the arbitrator of that?

Ms Suzie Carley:

It would have to be us. As we are one of the main breeders and exporters of greyhounds, we are best positioned to understand that, given the welfare legislation that currently exists and the work we are doing around it. I think we are experts in this field and we will be by the end of this process. Therefore, we should determine that.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the witness says "we", who does she mean? Does she mean the Department, Bord na gCon or who?

Ms Suzie Carley:

I mean "we" as in the welfare members of the greyhound forum in conjunction with the Irish Greyhound Board and the Minister. As to the inclusive list, we will decide.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In order for this to happen, the Greyhound Industry Bill would have to be in play to give it a statutory basis. Otherwise, we would be back in for a kind of administrative decision, which the witnesses basically condemned, if you like, or were not in favour of. It would have to be statutorily grounded with objective criteria laid out because if not it could be subject to particular challenges and would become a subjective, opinionated matter.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Clearly there is work to be done on it.

Ms Suzie Carley:

Absolutely. As Ms Cronin indicated, the proposal is within Deputy Broughan's draft Bill. I think that we can do that. We have discussed it. I might take the opportunity to address another question. The committee may forgive me for my-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we leave that question, if everyone is to buy into this, and as I said, I think it is the way for the industry to go, I would feel that it would have to be the Department that would inspect the countries being exported to. If we want the dog owners to be satisfied that they are getting fair play, from the witnesses's side, they should be happy that the Department would ensure the welfare of dogs and that it is paramount to it as well. If we are going to examine the criteria in a country to which the dogs are being exported, it should be the responsibility of the Department to do it. Dog owners might feel that the witnesses have standards that are too high whereas I feel there would be more confidence in everyone getting a level playing field if the Department had responsibility for it. If we are to get buy-in from everyone, which is essential in this going forward, the inspection criteria should be under the umbrella of the Department.

Ms Suzie Carley:

That is a fair point and I-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I tend to agree with Deputy Cahill. I am sorry for cutting across the witness. If we compare it to the export of live cattle, it is the Department that is the arbitrator in that regard. Perhaps that is not a fair comparison, but the point I am trying to make is about moving forward, trying to achieve fairness and everybody buying into it, which is very important.

Ms Lucy Cronin:

It is also important to note that regarding section C of the list of countries, where we detail how this works, there is no less than a 30-day public consultation period before the Minister even begins to consider the list that has been provided. It is not a question, therefore, of the organisation sending a list to the Minister and him or her signing off. There is a public consultation provision in the amendment.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Minister add or subtract from the list?

Ms Lucy Cronin:

On the basis of the responses to the public consultation.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which effectively the Department has done.

Ms Suzie Carley:

Exactly. It is done in consultation with the IGB. The IGF has welfare members and industry members, which are the IGB, ICC and GBGB.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ultimately, the Minister can issue or refuse the licence.

Dr. Andrew Kelly:

There absolutely needs to be strict criteria and sufficient evidence, and the process has to be open and transparent. I agree it is something the Department should do but with input from the IGF. Currently, there is no representative of the Department on the forum. It might be useful if there was in future.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Dr. Kelly like to address the other questions while he has the floor?

Dr. Andrew Kelly:

I thank the Chairman. With regard to Deputy Cahill's question, a small, almost negligible number, of our 16,000 calls relate directly to greyhounds.. A total of 70% relate to dogs but we receive a few calls annually about greyhounds. As we are not authorised under the Animal Health and Welfare Acts to investigate in licensed greyhound premises, we defer to the IGB on those calls. Mr. Dowling may come in shortly with replies on the legislative issues but he works closely with IGB on investigations that have come to its notice, which is important.

I refer to Deputy Pringle's points. I tis good to hear that there are exclusions for people who have been convicted for the offences he mentioned. I must have missed that. The number of litters relates to what is suggested for the dog Breeding Establishments Act. The proposal for nine litters is too many and we would like that reduced to a maximum of five or six. I will ask Mr. Dowling to comment on the differences between the Animal Health and Welfare Acts and the Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011.

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.

Ms Suzie Carley:

With regard to the remarks of Deputy Penrose, on the International Greyhound Forum and any additional support, we have discussed within the forum Dr. Kelly's point on having a representative from the Department at the meetings. It has been very well received by the members. We would very much welcome a representative from the Department.

We spoke before about the welfare committee and stated the IGB would be appointing a welfare committee and that we could, perhaps, have a representative from the International Greyhound Forum on it so we could make a contribution on our work to the forum at the committee.

Dr. Andrew Kelly:

Deputy Willie Penrose asked what level of additional funding the ISPCA would require to help to deal with these issues. Last year, this committee recommended that the ISPCA should receive additional funding to recruit enough inspectors to cover the whole country. That has still not happened. We currently have eight inspectors covering 17 counties. My estimation is that we would require another ten inspectors to be able to cover the whole country. It costs an average of €50,000 per year to keep an inspector on the road, with motoring costs, equipment, veterinary costs, salaries, etc. It is a significant sum of money-----

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It amounts to at least €500,000.

Dr. Andrew Kelly:

Yes.

With regard to criminal sanctions, there has to be a significant deterrent for greyhound owners, particularly for doping and welfare breaches. We would like to see criminal sanctions and significant penalties. There is a proposal that the fine be reduced from a class-A €5,000 fine to a €1,000 fine. Whether one receives the maximum fine is another issue. That is a decision for a court to make. We believe, however, a reduction of the penalty would be a retrograde step. Abandonment, which I am thankful we do not see very often these days, is another potential serious offence.

I believe I have answered all Deputy Penrose's questions. I shall move on to the questions of Deputy Martin Kenny. He asked me to state the current norm for the number of litters. I am not sure what the average number is. I do not know whether Mr. Conor Dowling would know. With regard to sanctions, there has to be a significant deterrent. There is the option within the draft Bill for exclusion orders, for example. I believe, however, that this has to be across the board for offences rather than for specific technical offences. It would be useful to see full exclusion orders. There are some potential breaches. There is the potential to exclude from race grounds or from public sales, but one could just have somebody else go to the public sale. A full exclusion order might be better in those circumstances.

We have covered the exportation of greyhounds. The Deputy asked about chipping. It is now an offence not to have any dog microchipped in Ireland. We conducted a survey with UCD that showed that approximately 85% of dogs are now microchipped. It has been a success. It remains to be seen whether that impetus will continue. It was already a requirement for greyhounds to be microchipped.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is doping considered to be an animal welfare offence? To me, it is.

Mr. Conor Dowling:

It could be an offence to administer a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal. Yes, it could potentially be.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would an offence in that category carry a greater sanction than a doping offence?

Mr. Conor Dowling:

It probably would under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. It is potentially an indictable offence. I would have to check the exact position.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, could there be both a criminal sanction and an administrative sanction?

Mr. Conor Dowling:

Potentially. If it was an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare Act, probably only the Garda would have the authority to investigate the matter. Currently, the stewards in the IGB are not authorised under the Act. That possibility might be considered also.

Dr. Andrew Kelly:

On Deputy McConalogue's question, we have talked about criminal sanctions. In terms of the percentage of dogs bred in Great Britain that go on to race, I believe the figure is 96% of 1,000 dogs. That shows quite clearly that quality over quantity might be a good way forward. There are large numbers being bred. Some are rejected at birth because it is known they will not be good enough. Some are rejected when they are a bit older. It would be useful to examine in more detail what happens in Great Britain in selecting dogs to breed and to get quality rather than quantity.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Carley want to comment in that regard?

Ms Suzie Carley:

I wish to add to that. In Ireland, we bred 16,000. The number is so much higher than in the United Kingdom. Some 80% of the greyhounds that are raced in the United Kingdom come from Ireland.

Let me address a question asked by Deputy Martin Kenny. On tracing and trackability, one of the ways in which we would like to see the exportation of greyhounds tracked and traced would be through the pet passport scheme that is currently in operation so every dog exported from Ireland would go under that scheme. We propose that when the owner is seeking to export the greyhound, they would go to the IGB, which would have to annotate the pet passport to sanction it and say the greyhound may be exported to the country in question. Before that goes to the Department, the Balai certificate would be obtained. It is already in play. We have the pet passport scheme and the Balai scheme so the proposal would incorporate into existing paperwork work that people already need to do.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any other questions?

Ms Suzie Carley:

I thank the committee so much for its support. It is much appreciated. I thank the members for availing of the opportunity to hear what we have to say. Their support of the export (amendment) Bill is greatly appreciated.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for appearing before us today. This is part of an ongoing process of scrutiny, which will take a little time. We are meeting the animal welfare groups, obviously. We will be dealing with the industry representatives in the next couple of weeks. I hope the witnesses' contribution today will inform legislation in the future. I am sure they will be tuning in to our meetings as we meet over the next couple of weeks. Again, I thank them for appearing today.