Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am still not sold on the reasons for not being able to accept "shall" in section 29. On the other legislation, am I right in saying that is where criminal sanctions would set in? Is it grounded in criminal sanctions? This is about the board. It is stated that "the board, after consultation with the Minister, may make regulations". If the board does not make the regulations, what is the point of having this section here at all? It should state that "the board, after consultation with the Minister, shall make regulations". How is the board given any power to issue racing sanctions when the welfare issues are being made optional?

The Minister of State stated that welfare and other legislation exists. That means that if somebody broke any regulation that exists in other legislation, such as that protecting the health and welfare of a racing greyhound, he or she would then automatically be dealt with criminally. Unless the board is given power by stating that it "shall" make the regulations, it does not have any power in this section to give racing sanctions. Any breaking of regulations would automatically fall under criminal grounds because the Minister of State is stating that it is picked up in the other legislation. It therefore weakens the board. The board will only be strengthened if it can make and create the regulations. It must be able to hold people accountable under the regulations and issue racing sanctions so any infractions do not have to be escalated criminally. These things must be able to be dealt with at board level.

As it stands, however, if I was to break any of these rules, as somebody who raced greyhounds, I would refer to this legislation and point out that it states that the board "may" make regulations. I would then ask what are the regulations and where they are. I would also point out that there is nothing stating I have to adhere to the regulations. The Minister of State is weakening the legislation and the board's ability to keep it at a racing sanction level by not introducing "shall". I do not see the rationale.