Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)

——that the introduction of this Private Members' Bill can only damage the process of ensuring that all the parties to the Dalton inquiry receive due process. The Government should note that the process has been damaged already with the leaking of the report to a number of our national newspapers and the subsequent publication of the conclusions and recommendations put forward by Mr. Dalton. The whole matter is outlined in the Sunday Independent. We could have a debate on the report today based on the leaked information in the lead article of that newspaper and The Sunday Tribune. The content of the final report will not differ in any way from the existing material. The information was leaked to the reporters concerned and they did what any reporter would do, that is, publish it.

As far as the people, including the greyhound fraternity, are concerned, the Dalton report has been published. It featured not only in the lead articles in both the Sunday Independent and The Sunday Tribune but also on RTE's "Prime Time" and in a number of daily newspapers and radio stations subsequently. Does the Minister honestly believe the parties affected by this report have been granted due process given that they received the report for their observations three days after it was published as the lead story in our main Sunday newspapers? Is this due process? One will realise these people have been condemned, irrespective of what side of the argument one is on. Those of us who are fair-minded in this House should at least support due process. Given the deliberate effort by Government sources to spin a specific view on the Dalton report, the use of the term "due process" is a total joke and a misdemeanour. It should not be used because there is no due process. It is not our fault on this side of the House and it has nothing to do with this Bill, it is because of the spin the Government has put on the report.

Does the Minister of State honestly believe Mr. Dalton's final report will differ substantially from the one leaked to the media following the submission of observations from those individuals mentioned therein? It will not. Given that there is already a report, does the Minister of State believe Mr. Dalton will issue a different one? He will not because his credibility would then be at stake, and that is the bottom line. The process has been destroyed because of Government incompetence and mischief. I was accused of being mischievous today, but the mischief is on the other side of the House. Mr. Dalton already had in-depth interviews with all the individuals concerned and he was very much aware of their views before he drafted his report. These people will not change their views because they have been asked for observations on the report. Mr. Dalton knows how all the main players think about this issue already.

Having read the leaked report, it is clear that Mr. Dalton will recommend that the control committee I am proposing be independent of Bord na gCon and that it consist of three or four members, including a judge or barrister and a veterinary expert. This was already published in the newspaper and therefore Mr. Dalton is recommending my approach. Why not accept it now and make amendments later? Bord na gCon also favours this approach given that the chairman and other members said they do not mind handing over control. They would have done so years ago if my Bill had been accepted by the then Government, as I pointed out last night. However, as with everything else, the Government ignored it.

I will outline clearly the background to this Bill and I hope somebody is listening. I made a commitment on 28 January on RTE that I would bring forward a Bill immediately to take the control of doping out of the hands of Bord na gCon and I said I would introduce it in the Dáil at the first opportunity. I published it on 16 February. I did so rapidly because I had available to me a section of the 1997 Bill, which I nearly had ready for introduction in that year. I worked on that Bill and did not leave the job to officials. I made a commitment to several interested media representatives that I would introduce the current Bill during Private Members' time before the summer recess and did so before the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, appointed Mr. Dalton on 1 February. As we all know, very little legislation will pass through this House when we return in the autumn. Business will be conducted in a helter-skelter manner before the election and a Bill of this type will not be considered a priority.

Today represents a repeat of history. I was looking over some papers in preparation for today's debate and noted that on 14 December 1955, James Dillon, the then Minister for Agriculture, introduced a Greyhound Industry Bill in this House. It was opposed all the way by the Fianna Fáil Members, including Sean MacEntee. However, after the change of Government in 1958, Mr. MacEntee, then a Minister, introduced a Bill with the same provisions as the one he had rejected and fought against for two years. Mr. Dillon stated in his reply in 1958:

This Bill is substantially the same Bill as I brought in, which was argued at such exasperating length in the past by Deputy MacEntee.... The Bill was discussed ad nauseam in the House before. As submitted now, it incorporates the Committee Stage and Report Stage amendments that I had offered to the House.

I hope I will not have to say this.

My Bill will have the same fate as that of the 1950s. There is no other solution to the problem. A Bill I once proposed on the mothering of greyhounds was opposed by the then Government but, lo and behold, it introduced the same Bill a couple of months later. I am introducing the Greyhound Industry (Doping Regulation) Bill using all my knowledge of the industry. I believe I have some credibility in this regard because I appointed Paschal Taggart in 1995. I did not do so for political reasons but because I believed he was the right man for the job. He has been in his position for 11 years and the Government claims credit for what he has achieved.

This is a sad day for this House. The issue that has arisen has nothing to do with the Dalton report. Last night, when I was introducing the Bill, I did not even mention the report. However, the Government focused its discussion on the report because of its intentions. It is obvious that it did so deliberately because a certain spin is being put on the issue for a certain reason. I commend the Bill to the House and will put it to a vote.

See this speech in context