Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am always glad to acknowledge positives, and there were positives in the delegation's statement, but I take issue with the implication that, before the 2019 Act, a lack of regulation allowed all of this abuse and neglect to happen and the industry was under no obligation to care about greyhounds, and now that there is this regulation, the industry will care about them. Breaches of the few regulations that were in place had been brought to the IGB's attention over the years, but very little was done about them. In some cases, nothing was done. Can the IGB be trusted to do the work now in respect of animal cruelty that it allowed to continue?

I will cite a couple of examples. One dog tested positive three times for cocaine, yet it was invited to the night of stars. The same dog was nominated for greyhound of the year. Breaches of sales regulations were brought to the IGB's attention down the years. On the export of greyhounds, I point the witnesses to a letter that the IGB received in 2016 that referred specifically to nine Irish-registered greyhounds that arrived in separate shipments in Macao. It also referred to another attempt to export 24 greyhounds from Cork to China via Heathrow, but they were turned back at Heathrow because of the poor conditions in the cages as well as other concerns. The ISPCA, the Dogs Trust and the Irish Blue Cross had made statements that any dog going to China would face certain death. I do not hold with the claim that we cannot stop them from going to China. Other countries do, for example, Italy, France, Australia and the US. They do not export their dogs to countries that do not have animal welfare regulations. The IGB was informed of these exports at the time, but we did not even get a letter of condemnation about it, never mind see anything being done.

In another incident, there was a fine of €800 for an owner because of forgery and failure regarding transfers of ownership, yet nothing has been mentioned about the fact that it had been brought to the IGB's attention that that owner had allowed his greyhounds to be shot and dumped. He would not reveal to the IGB the name of the person who carried out the shooting, yet that same man was licensed to race greyhounds in 2016. These are not isolated cases.

I acknowledge the welfare groups that, through their own fundraising, have been picking up the pieces where unwanted greyhounds and other animals are concerned.

Injured greyhounds are being given medication to continue racing. Requests to the witnesses' organisation for information on same were refused until a newspaper gave the details of the IGB's knowledge of these injured greyhounds being made to run.

Issues like these have been brought to the IGB's attention down the years. I do not accept that a lack of regulation means cruelty to greyhounds should be allowed to continue, yet that is what has happened. The terrible irony is that, if the IGB and other organisations had acted at the time, that programme might never have been made. It is great that the IGB is acting now, but look at what it took. Animals were cruelly abused in the meantime because of a lack of action.

I wish to ask about the board and the application process. Are there people on the board who voluntarily give of their time to the welfare of greyhounds? I heard from one person who had tried to submit an application on which he had stated that the reputation of the industry and the welfare of dogs were his priorities. He did not even get an interview. Maybe the board receives hundreds of applications, but I was taken aback by that. I am concerned about the composition of the board.

The witnesses might clarify something about the €16 million plus. Were there ever cuts to that funding in the past eight or nine years?

I am surprised by the low detection rate of illegal substances, but we know from other situations how these substances can be screened. The low rate is unusual, to put it mildly. I am also bemused that, if a dog tests positive for cocaine or something else, the dog cannot race, yet not much seems to happen to its owner. He or she continues in his or her activities.

The programme was mentioned, but my understanding is that the IGB was not denied an interview. Rather, it was told that the programme had been prerecorded and it was given an opportunity to prerecord an interview. The witnesses might like to clarify that issue.

The IGB has a great plan for re-homing and looking after unwanted greyhounds, but it is short on detail about how that will be done. In the meantime, organisations, some of which have been in existence for many years, have been dealing with unwanted greyhounds through their own fundraising. Since the programme, one of them has been inundated with calls from owners who do not want their greyhounds anymore. There is severe pressure on the organisation, but when it turned to the IGB for some funding, it was denied. We know what the cost is. How will the IGB carry out its plan and why is it turning its back on organisations that have been doing this work?

I attended the committee's debate on the greyhound Bill. I proposed amendments to try to stop exports of our greyhounds to countries where there was no animal welfare legislation, but I was told that it would be too difficult to implement. That is no reason not to legislate. Every Bill that appears before the House would be difficult to implement, but where there is a will, there is a way. It can be done.

I am not a member of this committee - I am substituting for Deputy Pringle. I ask the Chairman to set a date for the IGB to appear before the committee again, give the details of what it is setting out to do and show what actions have been taken in greater detail than was provided in its statement to us today.