Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 19, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) A person who fails to comply with an improvement notice or a direction of the District Court under this section shall be guilty of an offence.".

I am hopeful of a much better turnout in support of this amendment. It seems, as a matter of public policy, that a responsible political party, particularly one which has the luxury of supporting such amendments from the Opposition, must support an amendment that would simply have the effect of promoting respect for a decision of the District Court and an order for improvement.

Section 18 establishes the procedure for improvement notices but fails to establish any offence for failing to comply with such a notice. The implied threat may be that failure to comply will result in a closure notice but that may be seen as draconian in the specific circumstances. Therefore, such a closure notice might be revoked on appeal. Therefore, it seems that, for this legislation to have proper effect and be properly applicable, it would be more effective if there was an equivalent of what we find in section 19(2)() which states a closure notice may contain the statement, "If the operator of the dog breeding establishment concerned contravenes the closure notice, he or she shall be guilty of an offence". Section 19(7) provides that a "person who contravenes a closure notice or a direction of the District Court under this section shall be guilty of an offence".

Sauce for the greyhound is surely sauce for the pup. I would have thought that, if it was appropriate to include such a provision in section 19, it was also appropriate to include it in section 18. Why is it that a person who fails to comply with an improvement notice or a direction of the District Court will not be guilty of an offence but that a person who fails to comply with a closure notice or a direction of the District Court in that regard will be? In view of the need for consistency, apart from anything else, the amendment cannot be rejected. Surely those who have difficulties with aspects of the Bill and what it requires by way of a regulatory inspection regime cannot have a difficulty with the rule of law, a decision of the District Court or a requirement that people comply with whatever orders are made. I propose the amendment on that basis and I will ask for a vote on it.