Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Minister of State's engagement. In regard to section 29, I suggest that there are other ways. In this House we often deal with legislation which intersects with or is layered on top of other legislation. There is still scope to use the word "shall" in section 29, for example, by amending the wording to "shall make appropriate regulation". That might be a way to do it. I acknowledge that the regulations should not contradict other existing legislation, but that is part of the task of making legislation rather than a reason to make regulation optional. We can establish that we should make regulation, and it does not in any way endanger other measures. The process of making those regulations should seek to accommodate and recognise other intersecting legislation. With respect, I suggest that the Minister of State's argument relates to how regulations are made rather than the question of whether they should be made. Perhaps the way to accommodate the concerns raised by the Minister of State would be to insert the phrase "such as appropriate" in the context of the regulations as this might allow sufficient scope to be flexible.

It is not adequate to deal with the question of retired dogs through the existing legislation. Consider the provision and planning made for any one of us who is working. The arrangements we have with our employers for our retirement are made during the period when we are working. It is important that provision for retirement is built into the planning of the working period. To simply say that a dog that is no longer working takes on some other capacity, like a pet, and is dealt with under general animal welfare regulation is much weaker. As the Minister of State stated, pursuing such matter through the criminal courts is extremely laborious and unlikely. It is very important that the animals at the core of the greyhound industry are given protection in its business planning. This legislation effectively relates to the planning and administration of the industry and concerns the dogs when they are working. As I mentioned, life-cycle planning and thinking is now a core requirement of all industries. It is completely reasonable for the board, which sets regulations for the industry, to also set regulations on making provision for the retirement of the animals that are at its heart.This is the appropriate place, with the protection of those significant sanctions, for this rather than simply moving greyhounds into the wider pool of general animal welfare legislation. Perhaps the Minister of State could review this between Committee and Report Stages and see if there is a form of words that would allow for the health and welfare - or even the planning for the health and welfare - of greyhounds in retirement to be included in this Bill?