Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

My Technical Group colleague, Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, has asked me to apologise on her behalf as she is unfortunately unable to contribute to the debate. Like me, she welcomes all initiatives that promote animal welfare and looks forward to the day when coursing, fur farming, fox hunting and all such activities are banned. All these so-called sports have, at their core, deliberate and wilful cruelty to animals, including death. Deputy O'Sullivan also makes the point that while she would welcome the Bill if it genuinely tackled the issue of greyhound welfare, she is slightly concerned that Bord na gCon has expressed support for the legislation. This is especially the case given, as Deputy Stanley noted, the role Bord na gCon played in the proposal to export greyhounds to China. It is appalling that Ireland could be involved in such an activity. I hope the plans to export greyhounds to China will be stalled indefinitely.

There is no doubt that attention must be paid to the welfare of greyhounds. While it would also make economic sense for the greyhound industry to give priority to welfare issues, sadly the reality suggests otherwise. When the lobby was under way to exclude greyhounds from the dog breeding establishments legislation, it was argued that the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 was sufficient to protect, regulate and monitor the welfare of greyhounds. We must examine this argument more closely. Since the 1958 Act was introduced, a large number of greyhounds have suffered appalling treatment in this country. The argument that the legislation in question protects greyhounds belies the reality.

I propose to cite some examples of cases involving cruelty. There is not a county which has not come to the fore as a result of a scandal involving the mistreatment of greyhounds. In many cases, greyhounds are kept in poor conditions, confined to sheds or barns without light and proper heating and do not receive proper care and attention. Many have been found lying malnourished on concrete, having been denied adequate care. The welfare of animals, specifically greyhounds which do not make the grade, is secondary to the commercial side of the greyhound industry.

Statistics showing that 10,000 dogs were put down last year are an indictment of society. A large number of the 27 dogs put down daily are greyhounds which breeders do not want because they do not make the grade. It is indicative of the inadequacy of regulation that so many of the greyhounds in Britain are bred in Ireland. The media regularly reports on cases of mistreatment of animals and the misuse of greyhounds. In 2010, for instance, the media highlighted a case in which greyhounds, being a relatively tame breed of dog, were used as bait in County Tipperary during the training phase for fighting dogs to give them a taste for blood and practice in fighting. We have also learned of instances in virtually every county of mutilated and abandoned dogs being found wandering the streets with weights tied around their necks, having had their ears cut off to avoid identification.

While wanton cruelty is one aspect of the multi-million euro greyhound industry, another aspect of the business is the use of drugs. A significant number of greyhounds have tested positive for ecstasy, cocaine and viagra, which causes deep trauma for the dogs in question. Abandoned dogs and the use of drugs are aspects of the greyhound business which provide a different picture of the glowing accounts one hears from spokespersons of the industry.

The number of greyhounds being bred in Ireland gives an idea of what the business involves. On average, 35,000 greyhound pups are born in 4,500 litters every year. Of the 35,000 greyhounds born in 2007, only 23,000 were earmarked and tattooed 16 weeks later and only 20,000 of these were given identity cards, making them, if one likes, eligible for racing. What happened to the greyhounds which did not appear on any books or in a race? Clearly, a large number of the 20,000 dogs with identity cards did not make the grade and were discarded on the basis that they did not have commercial value. There have been shocking and repeated cases of vicious mutilations being carried out, the most popular method being the removal of dogs' ears to avoid identification before being abandoned. This practice has been carried out using battery acid, blow torches and other means as people try to avoid the identification of the dog. In other cases, dogs have had their throats cut or have been dumped in rivers having had weights tied to them. These activities have taken place in every county, albeit in some counties more than others, despite the protection of the 1958 Act. That such cases have occurred serves as a warning and demonstrates a clear deficit in the legislation. It also vindicates the position that legislation alone is insufficient to deal with animal welfare and shows that enforcement needs to be examined.

The Bill states that greyhound keepers and those involved in handling greyhounds shall not cause or permit unnecessary suffering or injury to a greyhound. This is a welcome provision, on which all Deputies should be able to agree. The shortcoming in the legislation is that it relies largely on self-regulation, with the greyhound industry responsible for registering and monitoring the new register for breeding establishments and so forth. It is also under the supervision of the Irish Coursing Club and the local authorities. A huge number of organisations have a role so there is potential for a lack of clarity about who really has the overall responsibility. It is unclear in the legislation.

I welcome the fact that the local authorities have a role in this, but that must be weighed against the massive reduction in resources with which local authorities are operating. There is a contradiction in piling more responsibility onto the authorities at the same time as their resources are being cut. Given that the recruitment ban does not allow them to replace the staff they have lost, how are they expected to take on this responsibility in the serious way that is necessary? I do not see how they can. My experience with how local authorities deal with stray dogs and so forth is that they are already stretched to the limit and can just about maintain the status quo, not to mention take on another serious function in terms of regulating the greyhound industry or playing a more serious role in that regard. That is something the Minister must examine. I do not support the embargo on recruitment in the public sector. It is costly and does not work. It has to be reconsidered. If the Minister is serious about giving the local authorities a role in this area, that must be resourced and that will impact on the recruitment embargo.

Much of the cruelty greyhounds experience does not occur in the kennels. The problem mainly arises from over-breeding, which is linked to racing, and the inevitable disposal of the unwanted greyhounds. There are also problems with the tracks, such as the drugs, the injuries and collisions in the racing and what happens to those animals, the unsafe running surfaces and so forth. Bord na gCon is a semi-State company and it has been charged with carrying out inspections for the past 50 years or so. It already has the legal power to deal with many of the issues that cause welfare to be jeopardised but it has not used it. That is a real problem.

I come from the semi-State sector and usually I would defend it. However, it has been in the limelight recently as a result of the disgraceful amounts being paid to its top executives. It is just not good enough that Bord na gCon should be in existence for 50 years and have these responsibilities, yet the litany of abuses I have outlined and which are well documented have taken place on its watch. This is a crucial issue the Minister must address. The legislation is fine, although there is a lack of clarity about who will take overall responsibility, but nobody believes it will be a panacea. If the objectives of improving the animals' welfare are to be achieved, it must be backed up with resources, particularly at local authority level. A good example of where that took place was when the limelight was focused on the Smithfield horse market. Since that occurred there has been far tighter enforcement at that market. We have seen the results with fewer horses being traded and more proactive responses.

Overall, measures such as restricting the litters, trying to professionalise the registration and so forth are welcome but there must be more in the context of animal welfare issues in general. There is a view among many in society who care deeply about these issues that perhaps this Government is trying to row back on some commitments given previously on improving our standards with regard to fur farming, the threat to reverse the ban on stag hunting and so forth. As other Deputies have said, this is an issue many people feel strongly about; they want animal welfare to be addressed in a serious way.

It is often said, understandably, that the country is in tatters. Internationally, Ireland is like Greece, despite what the Government says. We are in a precarious situation where many of our citizens are suffering horrendous problems. Some might ask why people are even wasting their time talking about animal welfare issues when such vast problems are affecting humans. The reality is that the two are not contradictory. All those issues should be addressed, and dealing with animal welfare issues is long overdue. In some ways they are legacy issues which should have been addressed previously. Whether we are economically successful or going through a recession or depression, it is no justification for tolerating cruelty and wilful neglect of animals or anybody else.

A civilised society is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens. I believe there is a correlation between the way this Government is targeting the most vulnerable citizens and how there is a certain rowing back on some animal welfare issues. This side of the House will not allow that to happen.

See this speech in context