John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

-----and that is the point. We will ensure the welfare of greyhounds is looked after under the amended 1958 Act. However, the people in Bord na gCon have agreed that in so far as inspections are concerned, we will have people from the local authorities conducting them. As was stated by a previous speaker, we are not going to have self-regulation as such. We have to have objective criteria. Most people recognise that this has to be part of the legislation. I wish to be very clear. As I said earlier, Deputy Hogan's understanding is correct. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will undertake to make those amendments as quickly as possible. For everybody's sake, and for the welfare of animals, it is important that we proceed as quickly as possible.

I reiterate a point made in my contributions that there are some differences, one of which is that Bord na gCon has a tattooing system, which was alluded to by Deputy Sherlock and which has been in place for quite some time. I regard microchipping as being far more effective. I have had discussions with experts. I refer Deputies to the Australian example and the fact that the Australian greyhound board and the UK greyhound board all use microchipping at this stage. There is no difference in the dogs' performance and it presents no difficulties. It is cheaper, more efficient and I hope we can have ongoing discussions on this issue. This seems to be the way to go, in my view, but I am not laying down any markers as I have left that open for the Bord na gCon people to consider. I want to consult widely. This is not a case of imposing anything but rather it is about consulting and seeing what is best for the industry and what is best for the welfare of animals.

See this speech in context