Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister, but I am most disappointed with the content of his response for reasons I will explain. He referred in detail to the 1958 Act, in particular the Title. It states the Act is to provide for the reconstitution of the Irish Coursing Club and its recognition as the controlling authority for the breeding and coursing of greyhounds. It is clear that the Act relates to the breeding of greyhounds and gives such authority to the Irish Coursing Club. This is stated in law and should be recognised. The Act is accompanied by a stack of regulations, of which I have copies. There are pages of regulations which apply to the greyhound industry, greyhound tracks and racing facilities. However, they also apply to the control stewards and how they carry out their business.

I refer to the greyhound trainers' regulations of 1961 which read:

12..—(1) The kennels of any person applying for a licence to carry out the duties of a public or private trainer shall be inspected beforehand by a Control Steward or Stipendiary Steward, who shall report on the general lay-out, etc., to the Board.

(2) The kennels of a public or private trainer shall be periodically inspected by a Control Steward or Stipendiary Steward, who shall make a report to the Board. If the Board is satisfied that the kennels are not properly kept, the Board may suspend or revoke the licence of the trainer concerned or take such other disciplinary action as it may deem necessary.

The Minister is trying to tell the House that the 1958 Act has no bearing on how standards are upheld in establishments in which greyhounds are kept. The law is in black and white in front of us, with the associated regulations. It proves there is a very robust regulation and standards system for greyhounds covered by the Act. The Minister is being dismissive in saying the new Bill will have little or no effect on the greyhound industry because it will. It will introduce more bureaucracy and overheads and costs to an industry which is already struggling, an indigenous industry which has been successful over many generations. It is a retrograde step if extra controls are to be introduced.

I would have no problem if the Minister had decided to cross-reference the Bill with the 1958 Act or bring together the supervisory elements of the two pieces of legislation in some way. The Minister's officials could be inventive in doing this but this has not even being attempted. Instead there will be added layers of bureaucracy and regulation which will place significant burdens and costs on the greyhound industry. It might not bother the Minister or his party too much but it certainly bothers me that we are to introduce measures which will, in effect, kill off an industry which has been built up successfully over many years. The Minister may shake his head but that is what will happen. There will be added costs and pressures on an already struggling industry. That is not the way to go. The Act, as I outlined, significantly provides for regulation, control and the supervision of standards within the greyhound industry. The Bill is a backward step. The Minister said he would not be accepting the amendment but I appeal to his partners in government. Some Members on the Government side suggested they would bring forward amendments and the Minister said he was expecting amendments from Fianna Fáil. I hope they will have the common sense to see that this indigenous industry is under threat from the Bill and that they should table amendments to exempt the greyhound industry from its provisions.