Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I give my support to the Senator's concern for the welfare and treatment of greyhounds after their time racing. I recognise that the Government refers to their racing and breeding careers. As my colleague mentioned, we are willing to withdraw our amendment No. 29 in recognition that the Government has come a distance to meet us by proposing amendment No. 28. I have a small remaining concern that will need consideration. Our amendment No. 29 speaks specifically to the health and welfare of a racing greyhound but amendment No. 28 speaks about provision for the "rehoming" of greyhounds. I recognise that the Minister of State has come a distance to meet us on this and previously he spoke about prevailing animal welfare legislation.

I would have liked the phrasing around welfare to have been explicit in the Government amendment as it is important there should be some monitoring of what welfare and health conditions tend to apply. For example, if a pattern emerges perhaps it could be dealt with through animal and welfare legislation but maybe animal welfare inspectors should be apprised of the matter. Perhaps there should be checks on rehoming processes to ensure no bad patterns emerge in terms of health and welfare. I welcome the Government amendment and that the Minister of State has taken this concern seriously and addressed it. I just wanted to flag that some follow-up work should be done to ensure the Minister of State's amendment achieves what I accept to be its good policy intention, which is to serve the health and welfare of greyhounds.

I will speak briefly to amendments Nos. 16 and 18. We will not rehash the full discussion of "may" versus "shall", as my colleague noted. However, I have put forward a complementary approach that would make it easier for the Minister of State to accept the substitution of "shall" for "may". When we spoke previously the Minister of State expressed the concern that if the Bill stated "shall make regulations" rather than "may make regulations", there is a danger that the regulations could, in some sense, be contradictory to other legislation and provisions therein. In amendments Nos. 16 and 27, I indicate that we might put the word "appropriate" before "regulations". By inserting the word "appropriate", there is a clear indication that only such regulations as are appropriate and which are compatible with existing legislation or regulatory regimes should be made. This is an attempt to respond to the Minister of State's concerns and to be constructive. If he accepts amendment No. 27, he should perhaps be in a position to also accept amendment No. 26. The same issue applies in respect of amendments Nos. 16 and 18.Will the Minister of State consider accepting this amendment? Even if not, I hope he will ensure this legislation is effective and not just aspirational. If we have the term “may make regulations” in every section, there is a danger that regulations may not be made in respect of all of these issues. I am sure the Minister of State does not want to put forward a Bill which runs the risk of being toothless. Will he accept this amendment or come up with his own version for the Dáil Stages?