Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Cairns. I commend her on bringing forward this motion and I thank all the Deputies from the different groupings for their contributions to the debate. It is regrettable that Government time was not set aside for this important debate and that it must instead be taken in the limited time available for Private Members' business. Government members often say that Opposition parties do not offer solutions or only put forward solutions that cost money. This motion is constructive. It aims to save money, improve animal welfare and redirect much needed resources into other areas.

The motion is about animal cruelty but it is also about what we prioritise, as a Dáil and as a society. It is not a radical motion. All we are proposing is that the market should decide what happens to the greyhound racing industry and that it should no longer be propped up with State subsidies. There should be a very strong case and rationale for propping up any industry in that way, but I have not heard any such strong case or rationale in this debate. The one argument that has been made which does have a measure of validity relates to the importance of the jobs in the industry. However, if resources being put into it were redirected to another area, we would retain and create jobs in that way. Retaining jobs is not sufficient rationale for State subsidies to the sector.

I do not agree with the argument put forward by the Labour Party that we must subsidise the industry in order to be able to scrutinise it. If that argument applies in this case, does it apply everywhere else? Does every industry have a claim to State subsidies on the basis that we can only regulate and scrutinise those sectors that are subsidised by the taxpayer? That does not make any sense. We must be cognisant of the impact of this particular industry on gambling addiction, taking account of the clear power of the gambling lobbying industry in terms of its influence on politics.

Several speakers referred to greyhound racing being part of our culture, tradition and heritage. We cannot make decisions about how we prioritise resources based simply on what happened in the past. If we consider some of the areas that are not getting the resources they should, the culture and heritage argument does not make sense. In the context of the €19.2 million that is put into this industry, a relevant comparison is the funding provided this year for people who have become homeless and the resources it would take to ensure they get a long-term, secure Housing First tenancy. The people involved have complex needs. They include people who are sleeping rough, people who are in and out of emergency shelters, and people with addiction, mental health and other complex issues. The amount we are spending, as a State and a society, on providing long-term, secure Housing First tenancies for that group of people is €2.9 million this year.

If we redirected some of the resources for the greyhound industry into long-term, secure Housing First tenancies, we could ensure that everyone who has a need in this regard could have that need met. It is not part of our culture, heritage or tradition to have people who are homeless left in those situations. It does not speak to us, as a society, at all, and yet this is an area in respect of which we are not providing sufficient funding. For the sake of the kind of sums of money that we are talking about, we could be making real inroads.

That is the choice that is being made today by the Government in deciding to put additional resources into the greyhound industry, which, in my view, does not have a future and the time of which has come. In any event, let us remove the State subsidies. If there is a demand for the industry, and I do not believe there is, let it be self-sufficient, which is the case, of course, with so many other industries.

See this speech in context