Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Martin Browne.

At the outset, I want to disassociate myself from those who have attacked the fact that this debate is even taking place. No organisation, body or sector can receive tens of millions of euro in public money without expecting public debate on the expenditure of that money. Having said that, we know that the greyhound sector plays an important social and economic role in many communities. It is made up of many good individuals who care for their dogs and contribute positively to society, but there are real and very genuine concerns - these are shared by many people - regarding animal welfare in the sector and the accountability and transparency relating to the State funding given to the sector.

We in Sinn Féin support Exchequer funding for sectors that bring a benefit to rural economies and communities, including the horse and greyhound sectors. We also believe that with Exchequer funding comes responsibility. When public monies are invested, there must be public accountability. Funding for the greyhound industry in 2020 amounted to €17 million, which, by any standard, is a substantial level of funding. We know that a 2017 assessment suggested that greyhound racing delivers an economic benefit of around €302 million, primarily in rural communities, which means jobs, investment and resources in areas that are often devoid of opportunities for development. The sector is facing the same pressures as others as a result of Covid-19, and that is a reality which also cannot be ignored.

A number of questions have arisen in respect of the funding of the greyhound sector as a result of this debate. The first of these is whether any funding at all should go to the sector. The motion tabled by the Social Democrats calls for the phasing out of all funding by 2025. Sinn Féin does not support this proposition. As I have said, this would have a detrimental economic impact on many rural communities that have already been left behind. It would also be detrimental to the stated objective behind the motion.

Should all State funding to the industry be removed it would result in the sector operating purely on a for-profit basis. I believe that most people will starkly see what this would mean for animal welfare. The motion also relies heavily upon analysis that the sector would not be financially viable independent of Exchequer funding. This fails to acknowledge that almost all social sporting and cultural pursuits would face the exact same challenges if all Exchequer funding was withdrawn.

Accepting the premise that funding can be warranted, the second question is around what conditions come with the funding. I mentioned the very real and valid concerns regarding animal welfare. All funding must be contingent on the highest standards of animal welfare and care. It is not good enough to just say that the standards are high. There must be robust monitoring and enforcement of those standards, which must be carried out independently. Aside from welfare, there is a requirement to ensure there is full accountability and transparency in how all moneys are spent. An organisation that receives millions of euro in public funding should present all of its accounts for scrutiny. There must also be an assessment of how the moneys are distributed.

The greatest concern and complaint I have with greyhound industry funding comes from within the sector itself. Many breeders and smaller operators tell me that they do not get a fair slice of the cake despite doing everything correctly, from their point of view. There is no point in lauding the economic benefits of these funds if we do not make sure the funds go to where they will have the greatest benefit. I am sceptical that the diversion of huge portions of the funding into prize money actually results in the trickle-down redistribution that is often suggested.

The third question is whether the Government's proposal to increase the funding to the greyhound sector by €2.4 million in 2021 is warranted. Sinn Féin cannot support that proposal. The Government has failed to offer an outline for the rationale for this particular increase. Why was €2.4 million necessary? Why was €1.4 million not sufficient? Why was €3.4 million not required? The truth is that it is an arbitrary figure. It is arbitrarily linked to the horse racing fund that has been divided on an 80%-20% basis for several years. When I asked the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, in committee yesterday for the rationale for this particular breakdown he essentially responded that it was always done this way.

This House has not been provided with a business case, with an economic assessment or any independent analysis that this funding is particularly required for this sector next year. Given the many competing and urgent demands on public services such as our health service at this time, Sinn Féin does not believe it is prudent to increase funding to the greyhound industry this year in the absence of such analysis. Even within the Department of Agriculture and the Marine there are several sectors that require additional funding. Our suckler farmers are under immense pressures. Our sheep farmers are struggling to make ends meet. Many family farms have been hit by Covid-19 in a variety of ways, including through the loss of second incomes and other pressures. They too would benefit from additional funding. The case has not been sufficiently made that the greyhound sector deserves it more than any other.

Sinn Féin's amendment recognises that funding is required for the sector but calls for an increase of €2.4 million to be waived. It calls for funding to be contingent on the highest animal welfare standards being in place and for these to be adequately monitored and enforced. The amendment calls for full accountability and transparency to be in place. It also calls for a long-term strategy for the sector to be developed. This strategy is pivotal. If there is to be a future for the greyhound sector in Ireland, and it is our wish that there will be, then there must be a plan; it cannot be business as usual. It cannot be a case that Governments come to this House year after year proposing increases in funding without adequately outlining how this money will be invested.

In 2014 the greyhound sector received an annual payment of €11 million. This funding has risen every year since, bar one year. The Government now proposes that next year the funding will be increased to €19.2 million. Quite frankly, the sector should be thriving with such support. Those at the heart of it, the local breeders, the trainers and those ancillary workers tell me that it is not. The obvious deficiencies need to be addressed before any more blank cheques are signed. While recognising that the industry has made some improvements in animal welfare it would be absolutely foolhardy to suggest that all is fixed. It is not. Most people in the sector will acknowledge that. If the issue of animal welfare is not given the urgent consideration that it necessitates, then public opinion will quickly move to a point whereby no Government will be in a position to allocate these types of resources.

I thank Deputy Cairns for bringing this issue to debate in the House. It is one of those issues where both the original motion and the Government amendment warrant consideration and make valid positions, but for the reasons I have outlined I believe that the Sinn Féin amendment is the most appropriate course of advancement on this issue.

See this speech in context