Mr. D.J. Histon:

This is why we are looking for a way around that, or certainly to make it more complicated and add some layers of bureaucracy to prevent dogs from going to countries such as China, etc. We are to meet the GBGB on 24 July. The meeting will touch on other topics, not just this issue. The IGB has indicated that it will attend the meeting as well, so the three bodies involved in the industry will be present. When this is brought in, the GBGB and we in the ICC will say that any owner must register as an owner before he or she can even buy a greyhound. At present one does not have to do that. One can buy a greyhound and register afterwards. We want to reverse that such that the owner is given a specific number and every greyhound he or she owns will be attached to that number. That will be part of the traceability. We will ask the GBGB to do the same thing in order that when a dog is sold to the UK we at least have the identity number of the person in the UK. That way we can then notify the UK that the dog has gone from us to the UK. If the dog then happens to end up on Facebook as being involved in illegal activity or whatever Deputy Cahill said, the GBGB can go to that owner, ask where the dog is and exclude that person from the industry over there. The GBGB is not a semi-state body. It is a limited company.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned funding. To be clear, the ICC does not receive any Government funding. We are self-funding.

Deputy O'Sullivan spoke about people being forced to register their dogs even though they are against coursing. However, they register their dogs with the Irish greyhound stud book, which is an all-Ireland stud book, and have been doing so since 1923. I personally have never received one letter from anybody objecting to registration with the Irish greyhound stud book. I am not disputing what the Deputy says. I am just sharing with her my experience.

Deputy O'Sullivan said the number of detections of illegal substances was low. I cannot comment on that except to say we test the dogs and the samples are sent to one of the top five labs in the world - they have an extra accreditation of 63 labs in the world - so if those labs cannot find an illegal substance, I do not know who will. We have done an awful lot on testing. We bring in amendments if we see loopholes. We have done so every year. As I said, even this coming year we will put an amendment before the AGM to the effect that if a dog is found to test positive and the owner is in breach of rule 88, the dog is no longer allowed to run in a classic, that is, in the big events. This is a serious deterrent. It is like saying a dog on the track cannot run in the Oaks, the Derby, the Laurels or any of the other big events. It is about deterring. It is also about acknowledging the people who play the game straight, for want of a better phrase, because there is a balance to be struck there as well.

Regarding euthanasia and knackeries, we do not regulate knackeries and cannot prosecute in that regard. As the chairman of the IGB indicated, however, under the Greyhound Racing Act 2019, which has just come in, the Government will introduce a statutory instrument whereby a greyhound must be put down by a vet. One cannot bring the dog to any other person, only a vet. That will be statutory legislation, so it will be a criminal act to euthanise a dog under any other method. As part of the traceability, which the UK has as well, that vet must sign a form and that form must come back into the traceability system. That is then updated on the system as well. I think they were the main points Deputy O'Sullivan raised.

I do not think Senator Lombard asked a specific question but he touched on traceability. Again, the only way we can have traceability is if the ICC, the IGB and the GBGB are involved. It is one greyhound system. Many of our dogs go over to the UK. Some come back here for breeding and go back again. Our organisations depend on one another to survive, so the only way forward is to work together.

I firmly believe that illegal hunting is a huge issue. As I said, the president of the Irish Coursing Club and I met the IFA, the Garda, the NPWS and the ISPCA. Someone spoke about the ISPCA seizing dogs. Unfortunately, if one seizes a dog, the dog must be held, there is a cost to that for the ISPCA, and then, when the court case takes place, the dog might be handed back again. It is not straightforward. Perhaps this is where legislation needs to be changed as well to make it easier to seize dogs without having that cost factor. It is a rampant problem. It has improved, I think, because the Garda, in conjunction with the NPWS, has held a number of seminars around the country to educate gardaí on wildlife legislation. These meetings are ongoing, and we will also attend them to make the distinction between what is illegal and what is legal.

Senator Paul Daly was the final speaker. The way I see traceability working is that everything is captured at puppy stage but that we do not then wait until the dog is 12 months of age, and instead that it is examined again at six months of age. The dog must be named at six months of age, so now we have puppy stage and an examination at six months of age. If there is a gap there, we know about it then and do not leave it until the dog is 12 months old. At 12 months I suggest that one must register as to whether one wants the dog to go coursing or track racing. One must nominate. Then the dog goes on the system. When the owner is finished racing, he or she either retires to breed, keeps the dog as a pet or rehomes it. If it is not suitable for rehoming - realistically, not every dog will be - the vet must euthanise that greyhound. The idea is to create as many rehoming opportunities as possible to make it as easy as possible for every owner to avail of that facility. That is where the focus should be. There was mention of ring-fencing moneys for the fund. There was also mention of levies at registration stage, which is where we come in, and we will certainly play our part in that. People involved in coursing will also be more than happy to play their part in it because it is our industry. Ultimately, the greyhound owner is responsible, but we are accountable in policing the sector, and that is why we are here today. I believe traceability will bring accountability.

I hope that when we come back here in September, we will be able to update the committee on the changes we have discussed today, the timelines, what can be achieved, and public confidence, which is the reason we have been brought before the committee. We must try to restore public confidence and bring back our sponsors, which I think will happen. That would be a better place to be. The industries in England and Australia have gone through similar changes but have come out the other side. This happens in a lot of industries. It is now, unfortunately, our chance to do this, and we must take it on for the decent greyhound people out there who get up at 6 a.m. and go to bed at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. and love their greyhounds. It is our job to represent them and to do the best job possible for them. I have been in the greyhound industry since I was five years of age. I have worked in the industry since I was 18. The word "passionate" is often used by greyhound people, and I know it slips off the tongue nice and easy, but there are passionate greyhound people out there, and they are the people we represent. We do want to exclude people such as those Deputy O'Sullivan has mentioned. I have no qualms in doing so and I know that the executive committee of the Irish Coursing Club has no qualms in doing so. Therefore, I think the committee will see changes on that front as well. The changes are all needed.