Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. I understand where he is coming from but I do not necessarily agree with it. Both of these amendments are under section 27, which concerns the administration of substances to greyhounds, where it says that: "The Board may, after consultation with the Minister, make regulations for the control restriction, prohibition or administration of substances".

I do not have the confidence in the board at the moment to deal with this issue effectively based on its past performance. Maybe under the stewardship of the new chairman and the new CEO that will change, but to date its performance has been shocking in this matter to say the least.That is why we should make a distinction. Class A drugs should be subject to zero tolerance. We are not talking about class B or C drugs. I have made a distinction around class A drugs. I would be willing to work with the Minister of State between now and Report Stage if he felt that was useful with a view to strengthening the provisions. Otherwise I will have to press amendment No. 8b today. In respect of amendment No. 8d, is there an alternative agreeable solution? The other example that was mentioned today was tuberculosis in cattle. If a test was positive, there would be two further tests and if they were negative the cattle would be allowed to be sold. Is that a way of dealing with this? There would have to be two negative tests after a positive test for the greyhound. I am just trying to strengthen this issue.

The Minister of State might outline what exactly happens at the moment and why dogs that test positive one week are allowed to race the following week. That appears to be happening but I do not know how. They can test positive in one stadium and then race again. Another question I cannot understand is around the testing regime. The dog is tested and the results are sent to the laboratory which, I understand, is located downstairs in the same premises as the Irish Greyhound Board in Limerick. The laboratory results are then given, I presume, to the head of regulation in the Irish Greyhound Board, before they go on to the control committee. Effectively, the head of regulation deals with all the samples that come back.

If the Minister of State does not have the answer to my question today, maybe he or his officials could get back to me. Of the tests that were carried out in the laboratory in Limerick, were all of the positive results sent to the control committee? Did any of them accidentally fall between desks somewhere between the laboratory and the control committee? The only way we could find that out would be to add up the numbers for those that left the laboratory and those that arrived with the control committee. The Minister of State will not have that information today but I would be grateful if it could be made available over the next week or so.

That is the second amendment. It is about trying to strengthen the provisions. If the Minister of State has a suggestion I am willing to accept it but I think there should be a minimum ban. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport took on a minimum ban recently which people criticised but people now know it is there. They should know it in this case as well. Trainers and breeders should know that if their dog tests positive, they and the dog will be out for a minimum of four months. I think that is reasonable and do not see why there would be any issue. If it were to take six or eight months for a negative test result to come back, the dog would not race for that period anyway. This is a minimum period of four months to try to cut out the situation where a dog that tests positive can miraculously have a negative test within ten days and be racing again. There is no disincentive for drug abuse there. These provisions aim to create a stronger disincentive for abusing drugs in the sector.