Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Welfare of Greyhounds Bill 2011. As a person who understands that both animals and humans must co-exist, I welcomed the enactment of the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010. The Minister has been quick out of the traps with this Bill.

Gandhi once said "the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"; that is akin to the saying that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. We, as a developed society, recognise the sentient qualities of animals.

The objectives of the Bill are designed to improve the level of welfare to a specific animal species. The Treaty of Amsterdam which came into force in May 1999, included a protocol on animal welfare designed "to ensure improved protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings". Animals like human have the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, happiness or suffering. A species that demonstrates that capacity has an unwavering right to have their welfare protected. Rather than take an overly sentimental view of the Bill, recognising that the greyhound holds an economic value, it is therefore incumbent on us to maintain their welfare.

The greyhound industry contributes an estimated €500 million to the local economy. This makes it very valuable indeed. The industry is based on the manipulation of a canine species for monetary gain. This would not happen in the natural world, therefore based on this manipulation by us comes the responsibility to protect the species involved, just as we would protect any worker in an industry. It will ensure a level of stability in the greyhound industry.

Apart from the United Kingdom, animal welfare is not a high priority in pan-European legislation, this Bill should therefore ensure a level of stability in the greyhound industry. The welfare of the dogs will be ahead of the European norm. However, I have a number of concerns which I hope the Minister will take on board.

I think one aspect that is missing is a penalty for those who abuse greyhound and in turn abuse the industry. A recurring theme in legislation is a reference to what the local authorities may do, for example "local authorities may appoint welfare officers". As we know, however, local authorities are not being funded from the Government to appoint anybody since the introduction of the ban on recruitment five or six years ago.

The penalty regime outlined in the Bill fails to sanction the offender. I believe that offenders should be removed from the industry. The vast majority of personnel in the industry would also probably choose to do this as well. Abusers must be eradicated from the industry and endure a penalty. I would like the Minister to consider this addenda to that section of the Bill, and to introduce a graduated penalty regime based on repeated offences and according to the seriousness of their conviction. It is disturbing to see those who repeatedly flout the law continue to get away with it. We have a significant problem with the welfare of horses. That places an added burden on the local authority.

I welcome the incentives in the Bill to copperfasten regulation on keeping greyhounds. I commend the Minister of State on bringing on this legislation so promptly. I hope he will consider some of my suggestions.

See this speech in context