Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

There is no need for any Green Party obsession to change it where animal welfare matters are quite well regulated. The industry might be self-regulated but it is governed by law sufficiently well under the 1958 greyhound Act.

The references made by the Minister in the legislation to the breeding programme show he is completely out of touch with the normal breeding pattern of the greyhound industry. For example, he mentions certain months where bitches will be exempt for breeding purposes under the Act. There is much new information for the House that must be examined carefully. The powers being given by the Minister for access to premises are quite draconian, notwithstanding the fact that he has genuflected to the appropriate property rights under the Constitution. Power of access and entry are proposed to be entered into law that would certainly conspire to undermining an individual's property rights.

We should know the definition of the people allowed access to premises. Notwithstanding that a veterinary officer is the only person who can sign off on an improvement notice, people in charitable organisations and dog wardens are mentioned as being allowed on property, with support given in various sections of the Bill. That worries people and there must be clarity in that section to allay the concern of people involved in the dog breeding industry that a personal agenda would not come into play. The ultimate objective and responsibility of the Bill is to ensure dogs are looked after in a proper environment.

People are going over the top with regard to inspection and regulation and not concentrating their full attention on what the objective of the Bill should have been, which is to outlaw the irresponsible patterns which have emerged with puppy farms. It is interesting to note that in the export of dogs, the person in the cab of the lorry must submit documentation to satisfy regulations and the inspection regime for dogs in the back of the lorry is not subject to any regulation when dogs are exported to the UK, Spain and wherever the animals are exported.

Concerns have been expressed by no less a person than Mr. Dick O'Sullivan, chairman of the greyhound board, who has made his opinion clear on the implications of this legislation. He has gone beyond what one would expect a chairman of a State board to do and this has clearly had some effect on the Minister. He has now come to terms with the fact that the 1958 greyhound Act exists - which he did not know when speaking on the matter in the Seanad - and he has probably learned a little about the manner in which the greyhound industry is regulated. He is still seeking to wave a big stick from his Department by threatening the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that if it is not done his way, he will sign a commencement order on 1 January 2011.

Much new material has emerged in this Bill in the same way as it did on Report Stage for legislation this week on planning and development. It seems to be a tactic to introduce extraneous materials in order to rush legislation through the House at the 11th hour without proper examination. Rushed legislation always ends up in difficulty.

I ask the House to consider carefully many of the issues raised today and the implications of the legislation, particularly the matters still on the agenda and which, contrary to the spin of recent days, have not gone away. Powers of entry, those relating to breeding programmes and the powers given to people outside the State veterinary inspection system are excessive. Penalties of up to €5,000 to be imposed on people for very minor offences are onerous. I look forward to hearing the clarifications we need on so many matters before we consider how to vote on the matter.

See this speech in context