Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

If we look at section 29(2) it states: "A person who contravenes a regulation made under this section, and which is stated in the regulations to be a racing sanction provision, commits a sanction breach of the Racing code and is liable to a racing sanction." It is important to point out that this carries a lower burden of proof than an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013. I also refer to my own amendment, which is an attempt to tidy up what was poorly phrased.There are requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b), as outlined in the amendment, that I think will be agreed, for measures to be taken by the owner, breeder or trainer of a racing greyhound to protect the health and welfare of the greyhound and to inform the board of measures taken in respect of a greyhound to comply with the requirements of regulations made under this section. It is assumed there that regulations will be made. I take the Senator's point about using a word such as "appropriate", but the "may" allows discretion to make sure that the regulations are compatible and that they do not impose a higher burden of proof for a sanction breach as opposed to a criminal breach, if that makes sense.

I have to stick to this. In making our amendment I have tried to address the fundamental issue, and when it is read with section 29(2), I am sure the Senator can grasp the dilemma that we are in insofar as we are trying to make sure that we can apply a sanction without having to prove it to the degree that we would have to prove a criminal offence, if that makes sense.