Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 14, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(a) the operator of the establishment is registered through the Irish Coursing Club,".

This is an area we spent a long time debating on Committee Stage in particular, namely, that the operator of the establishment is registered through the Irish Coursing Club. The Minister has said he has been in contact with the Irish Greyhound Board, the Irish Coursing Club and so on and he is proposing some amendments. However, I have correspondence from the Irish Greyhound Board, and I would like to read some of it into the record of the House. The board says there are severe implications for the Irish greyhound industry if the Bill is passed in its present form, and I suggest this is true, even with the Minister's proposed amendments, from my understanding of what he said. The board wanted to make it clear that the regulation and management of the greyhound industry was already fully legislated for under the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. That is something my colleague, Senator Coffey, stated categorically on Second Stage and on Committee Stage. He was told it does not regulate the industry and the board did not have the powers. He produced the 1958 Act and read out what it covered, to the amazement of the Minister. The Irish Greyhound Board said:

We have secured legal advice that shows that under the 1958 Greyhound Industry Act we can visit and inspect any establishment where greyhounds are kept. This conflicts with the uninformed correspondence which stated inaccurate and misleading information with regard to our right to inspect.

It was suggested the board did not have a right to inspect. The letter continues:

The legal position was bolstered in May 2010 by a High Court ruling which upheld without reservation the right of officers authorised by the Irish Greyhound Board to visit and inspect any premises at which greyhounds are kept. Furthermore, our legal advice indicates that the 1958 Act can be easily amended by way of a suitable regulation, so as to confer legal power on the Irish Greyhound Board to support the welfare and proper treatment of greyhounds by enforcing legal sanction on our findings. Accordingly, this removes one of the main concerns which officials suggested, at lessening the validity of the 1958 legislation in the context of the proposed Bill.

This is a clear and efficient path to a workable solution to the present concerns of the Irish Greyhound Board as regards the current dog breeding Bill. The proposed amendments by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government simply do not address the genuine fears of the greyhound industry. The measures that are being introduced for other breeds have been in place for greyhounds since 1958, and their record is excellent.

The board is now being asked to submit dual registration and accept double inspection systems. This suggests the industry will be saddled with unworkable definitions pertaining to the greyhound breeding cycle, because it does not want to see the proposed legislation amended for greyhounds. The Minister should have amended the legislation pertaining to greyhounds under the 1958 Act or introduced regulations under that legislation rather than bringing the question of the control of greyhounds into the dog breeding Bill. We made that suggestion to him on Committee Stage, but obviously even with some of the sensible amendments he proposes to table in the other House, these will not be sufficient to assist the Irish Greyhound Board. The proposals the board suggests would be a proper compromise, that is, to amend the 1958 Act and give the board the powers that are necessary.

Like all of us, the Irish Greyhound Board recognises the benefits of legislation to outlaw puppy farming. However, it cannot allow the illogical and misguided extension of legislation effectively to destroy the Irish greyhound industry. It argues that it is a well run industry, driven by continuous improvements in welfare standards and populated by people who care deeply about the animals in their care. I was the first Member of this House, about six years ago, to talk about regulating puppy firms. I said this on Second Stage, and it was confirmed at the time. I firmly believe we should root out those rogue operators. If I had known this type of legislation was being introduced to regulate the greyhound industry and that it would go way beyond the legislation that was anticipated as necessary and which would have been very positively received on this side of the House, I would have seen it as a retrograde step with severe repercussions for the Irish greyhound industry.

We shall certainly be pressing this amendment. The future of the Irish greyhound industry is at stake. This is an industry that gives great employment, enormous enjoyment and has some wonderful people involved in it, both in breeding and every other aspect. What the Minister is proposing will have severe repercussions on that, and I ask him to consider matters further. We have partly grasped what he intends to achieve with the amendments he proposes to table in the other House, and I hope they will be sufficient to satisfy the needs of the Irish greyhound industry, which has been one of the major success stories in the whole area of sport.