Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am happy to co-sign the amendments. On traceability and registration, the substitution of the word "shall" is important because we cannot have an industry in which such things "may" be introduced. Section 28(2) also contains the word "may" where I believe "shall" should be used. I reserve the right, therefore, to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to copperfasten that provision, particularly if we do not see progress in the use of the word "shall" in subsection (1). It is important that there be transparency, traceability and accountability in this area.

I wish to speak to section 29 which deals with the welfare of racing greyhounds and the amendments proposed to it. I urge the Minister to engage on what are very reasoned amendments. The State simply could not stand over a situation where there was no provision or guidelines on ensuring the health and welfare of racing greyhounds. Persons involved in greyhound racing are only required to provide information for the purposes of the administration of the industry or protecting the health and welfare of a racing greyhound. We have talked about the use of the word "shall" instead of "may", but the use of the word "or" is worse. I understand the amendment in that regard is being accepted.

I also want to speak to amendment No. 15 which would ensure provision was made for protecting the health and welfare of racing greyhounds which have been retired by their owner. My colleague has spoken about how we determine what retirement is, but I argue that it is not crucial to determine what it is. The key point is that responsibility rests with an owner during the lifetime of a greyhound. The amendment states the health and welfare of the racing greyhound are the responsibility of the owner in the time in which he or she owns the greyhound.That is important because it is not the case that greyhounds can seek other employment. As the Minister of State said, they may well continue to give monetary benefit as breeding stock, but we must not have a situation where greyhounds are no longer of any concern and do not need to be attended to when they are no longer working. We should not mire ourselves in the technicalities, but rather ensure we have phrasing that is clear. While I do not like to use such blunt terms as those used in trade, we can look to the EU guidance on life-cycle planning and costing. I do not like to think of greyhounds as a product because they are fellow creatures, but life-cycle planning is now recognised as a key aspect of all industries. It is important that those who wish to ensure they are dealing with participants in the greyhound industry who have ethical practices can be assured that this ethical practice extends beyond the working lifetime of a dog. I would like the Minister of State to indicate that he will work with us to ensure the welfare of the animals is given due regard and guidance is provided for when they are no longer racing or working. This is a humane and appropriate thing to do in animal welfare terms and it sends an important signal. Importantly, it also ensures that those in the industry who engage in good practice and make provision for greyhounds when they are no longer racing are not punished. There is a cost to maintaining welfare. It is important that this is recognised and rewarded rather than giving those who cut corners and compromise the health and welfare of dogs an unfair advantage.