Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To insert the following after "20th October, 2021": “; that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine shall:

-conduct a full review of the Exchequer funding to the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund with a view to examining the social and economic impact of the fund, including the efficacy of the fund in supporting the development of both sectors, the broadest cohort of those involved in both sectors and rural communities; also examine whether the use of the fund to subsidise prize funds represents best value for money; and the efficacy of the fund in ensuring the highest levels of animal welfare standards; and

-report to Seanad Éireann within six months of these Regulations being adopted on the findings of the review.”

I welcome this debate on the greyhound and horse racing fund as it gives me an opportunity to raise the concerns I continue to have regarding animal welfare issues in the greyhound racing industry. We have tabled a sensible amendment calling for a review of the funding and of its efficacy in securing the highest level of animal welfare standards.That is appropriate, given that a lot of the welfare standards kicked in in January and November of this year. The review would, therefore, be timely.

I will focus my available time on animal welfare issues, particularly in the greyhound industry. I make no apologies for being upfront about my views on greyhound racing. I do not like it. I fail to see the appeal. However, I know that many Members in these Houses do like it. There are even elected representatives who own racing greyhounds and I hope, when they are speaking, those Members are open about their involvement in the industry. I would like to dedicate this time to highlighting specific concerns, the first of which regards the lack of veterinarians at both official and unofficial trials. That was confirmed to me by Greyhound Racing Ireland only recently and I raised it with the Minister directly at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. His response was to compare the access to medical care at race events and trials with the access to medical care at county and parish games. That was concerning. According to the greyhound code of practice, which came into effect recently, freedom from pain, injury or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment is listed as one of the five principles for best welfare practice. Tell me how a dog fracturing its hock during a trial and having to be brought off-site to receive veterinary care is in compliance with that code. We can compare the situation to that which pertains in our nearest neighbour. In Britain, it is mandatory for a veterinarian to be present at all trials.

I also raise the lack of transparency in the industry regarding injuries and fatalities. Surely the public, who are funding this industry to the tune of €17 million, are entitled to have a publicly accessible database of injuries that are sustained not just at races but at trials and unofficial trials. While 10% of public funding is mandated to be spent on greyhound welfare, there is little transparency in that regard. GRI's annual report claims that €1.76 million was spent on welfare, laboratory integrity and governance, but there is no detailed breakdown on exactly what that money is being spent on and, therefore, the public cannot be confident their money is being spent for welfare purposes.

That brings me to the traceability system, which came into effect in January. Why is this information not publicly accessible? Why is it being funded from a welfare funding stream rather than operational costs? For years, animal welfare organisations have pointed to the thousands of greyhounds that are unaccounted for every year and the introduction of the traceability system was supposed to provide all-of-life information on a greyhound. If that information is not publicly available, how can the public trust that the information is accurate and verifiable? It is only through full transparency that we will be able to see the level of overbreeding that is taking place in the greyhound industry. That transparency would allow us to learn that the majority of greyhounds never make the cut and end up having to be rehomed, if they are lucky enough to be rehomed. It is long overdue that consideration is given to putting a cap on the number of greyhounds that are bred, yet instead we have a situation whereby permission can be sought for a breeding bitch to have a seventh and eighth litter when best practice is for a bitch to whelp four litters over the course of her breeding life. The greyhound industry is already an outlier with six litters. In fact, there are elected representatives in the Dáil who owned a bitch that bred eight times.

I hope the Minister will consider accepting our amendment but, as I said, the concerns on welfare are not going to go away. For those people who are genuinely interested in seeing the greyhound industry survive, the more that is done to ensure welfare, the more chance there is of the industry surviving.