Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 1993

Greyhound Industry (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister and his officials here to discuss the Greyhound Industry (Amendment) Bill, 1993. The Bill proposes to amend and repeal sections of the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958. The Bill comprises five sections. Sections 2 to 4 are substantive sections of the Bill and provide for the reconstruction of Bord na gCon, and for the reduction of terms of office of ordinary members of the board from five to three years, terminating on a rotational basis.

The Bill empowers the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to make regulations for the muzzling of greyhounds at coursing meetings and for veterinary supervision of hares before, during and after such meetings. It provides for the removal of the prohibition of greyhound racing on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day. The Bill represents the first amendment to be proposed in respect of the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958.

Prior to consideration of this Bill on Committee Stage, it should be noted for the record that the following Deputies have put down amendments: Alan Dukes, Tony Gregory, Liz McManus and Robert Molloy.

Section 1 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 10 are related and can be discussed together.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, before section 2, to insert the following new section: "Section 5 (4) of the Principal Act is amended by the inclusion after the word ‘made' where it first occurs, of the words ‘by the Minister or"'.

The purpose of this amendment is simple. Section 5 (4) of the Pincipal Act provides for the procedure to be adopted when regulations are made by the Bord, and provides that regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made, and that they are valid if not annulled within 21 days. It is the standard provision.

I am not going to ride my hobby-horse on this issue because I believe that that is the appropriate form of regulation for the matters covered by this Bill. However, nowhere in the Principal Act is there any reference to the Minister making regulations because, as far as I know, it was not envisaged under the Principal Act that the Minister would make any regulations. There were only to be made by the Bord. The provisions of the Bill before us enable or require the Minister to make certain regulations, notably under section 3 of the Bill, and there is no provision in the Principal Act for the procedure to be followed when the regulations are made. In order to put matters beyond doubt it seems to me that we should make this amendment to section 5 (4) of the Principal Act so that regulations made by the Minister would be explicitly subject to the same procedure.

My amendment No. 10 states:

In page 3, paragraph (a), line 30, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

This amendment proposes that, rather than the Minister merely having the option of introducing regulations regarding the use of muzzles on greyhounds participating in events, the Minister shall be obliged by the legislation to make such regulations. The Bill is greatly lacking in that respect. The intention of the Minister, as he informed us on Second Stage, was to ensure that, in future, muzzles would be used at all coursing events. Yet we find that in the Bill the Minister merely states that he may make these regulations. It is essential that the word "shall" be inserted to ensure that when the Bill is passed there is a legal requirement on the Minister to do what he says he intends to do. The Minister has not placed any legal obligation on himself to do that if the word "may" is retained in the Bill. It is self explanatory.

Amendment No. 10 is in my name also, Chairman. While it may look as if I am arguing for muzzling, as you know from my Second Stage contribution and other contributions I have made on this issue, I am completely opposed to the use of live hares for coursing. I would prefer if this House had grown up, stopped the practice and introduced drag coursing as they have done in Australia. In his contribution the Minister spoke about the decline of the greyhound industry and how badly it needs a new impetus. It is interesting to note that while they used to have live hare coursing in Australia it is now a serious criminal offence there. They have introduced drag coursing which has given their greyhound industry a huge boost.

However, I am a practical politician and accept a majority here are in favour of some form of live hare coursing. In that context, the Minister's introduction of muzzling is clearly progressive. However, I agree with Deputy Molloy that the Bill merely states the Minister may make regulations providing for muzzling. It is a nonsense to introduce Bills on the basis that Ministers may take certain actions. If the general consensus is that greyhounds should be muzzled — that appears to me to be so after having listened to the debate on the Bill I introduced earlier in the year — the Bill should clearly read "the Minister shall make regulations providing for the muzzling of greyhounds". Such regulations should provide for the muzzling of greyhounds at all events, regardless of whether they are trials, training sessions, official coursing events or any other events. I concur completely with Deputy Molloy.

On Second Stage I made similar points to those made here. Bearing in mind what was said on Second Stage and regardless of the amendments which have been tabled, is the Minister in a position to say precisely when the regulations providing for the muzzling of greyhounds will be made and enforced? Such regulations should have the widest possible effect. As Deputy Gregory said, they should apply to all events, whether they are trials, training sessions or coursing meetings.

In relation to amendment No. 1, is it not usually the case that a Minister has discretion when making regulations? It is not usual for a Minister to be directed to take certain actions; he must have some discretion. In this case I am sure the Minister will use his discretion not only in the best interests of the coursing fraternity but also to take account of the wishes of all Members. We should not impose our wishes on him at this stage.

In relation to amendment No. 10, it would be ridiculous to tie the Minister's hands by telling him exactly what regulations he should introduce. It appears some Deputies have not kept in close contact with coursing. The coursing season began with the semi-final stages of all stakes. At that stage the ICC imposed a rule on its members that dogs should wear muzzles. Having experimented for a month or six weeks with varius types of muzzles, it was decided, at the wishes of the members of the ICC and the direction of its executive, that muzzles would be worn from the first round at all trial stakes, including dog, bitch, and all age stakes and from the semi-finals onwards at other stakes such as the duffers.

It is expected that from January the Irish Coursing Club, as a result of the success of the muzzles, will have all stakes muzzled from start to finish. There will be no need for the regulations which people are demanding the Minister shall introduce today, because they will already be part of coursing from January. As I said, dogs are wearing muzzles in nearly 80 per cent of coursing at present. It would be ridiculous to tie the Minister's hand by introducing that amendment because flexibility is required in the future.

It may be wiser if I wait for the Minister to reply to that, but I must respond to my colleague.

Can we allow that there are other speakers, Deputy Molloy, before we engage in replies? We can take the matter when the Minister responds.

It is important for our credibility and that of coursing that it is specifically and categorically stated that the Minister will make provisions. Otherwise it could be left to the whim of the Irish Coursing Club to revert to its old procedures. There would be nothing to prevent it from so doing. It is important that it is enshrined in law that the Minister shall make provision for muzzling and any other requirements which he deems necessary, otherwise the position of those of us who support coursing but would like to take the blood out of it would be tenuous. I appeal to the Minister to use clear language in regard to muzzling and the other regulations which he is to put in place.

I agree completely with the last contribution. The previous contribution seemed to imply that the Irish Coursing Club suddenly, out of the blue, decided to introduce muzzling at semifinals and finals. Everybody here knows the background to that decision; there is no doubt about that. I do not want to get into slagging anybody but if nothing had happened in the Dáil and it had been left to the Irish Coursing Club, there would not be muzzling of greyhounds at any events. The same dreadful savagery would still take place throughout the coursing season at all events. The change only happened because the Dáil decided that it was time to change and the Minister decided that what had been happening was unacceptable and it was necessary to bring in muzzling. The Irish Coursing Club, listening to what the Minister stated in the Dáil, introduced muzzling in the finals and semi-finals.

I have already said that I am dissatisfied with the measure, which does not go far enough. It does not eliminate cruelty to animals, which is going to be a big issue in this country, as it is in other countries, in the years to come. Accepting the Bill for what it is, it is essential that the Minister make these regulations. The wording must be clear, specific and direct and state that the Minister shall make these regulations and that there is nothing lift to chance. If there was, then the whole thing would be pointless and a waste of time. I join with Deputy Deenihan in appealing to the Minister to accept this amendment.

It is important to remember that the regulations the Minister is being empowered to make do not just apply to the necessity to muzzle greyhounds during coursing events but also to the supervision of the hares by a vet. The regulations will empower a vet to issue a direction as to whether or not certain hares may be coursed. That is an important part of this Bill.

The Bill would be absolutely useless if it did not include the word "shall" as we are proposing here. I will be amazed if the Minister does not accept the amendment. The Bill will have to be vehemently opposed if it is merely to be an enabling provision which leaves to the discretion of a Minister whether muzzles will be required in the future or whether a vet should have supervisory powers and the right to direct that hares shall not be coursed if they are not considered to be in good condition.

It is essential to the thrust of this Bill that the word "shall" be inserted here. Before the Minister replies I appeal to him to accept the amendment, otherwise one would have to question his good faith in this matter.

It appears that this amendment complies with the wishes and practice of the coursing interests, so I do not see the necessity for continuing this debate. We all agree that what is happening now is what should happen. I would like the Minister to reply to the debate. He may agree with this amendment.

I agree with everything that has been said about amendment No. 10. The Minister's remarks, in his reply to Second Stage, about his intentions to make regulations were rather tentative. He seemed to indicate that he was not going to be in any rush to make regulations. I do not intend to reopen the argument and this prompts me to ask why we have this Bill at all if the Minister is not in a rush to do any of these things. The Bill might as well be as close to our intentions as it can be.

As far as Deputy Fitzgerald's remarks about amendment No. 1 are concerned, I should point out to the Deputy that it is a standard provision in all legislation which provides for the making of regulations by the Minister or any body nominated under the legislation that the Houses of the Oireachtas have some function in supervising these regulations. The provision made in the Principal Act in section 5 (4) is the least constraining of all provisions concerning the making of regulations.

I proposed this amendment in the hope, indeed in the firm belief, that this was merely an omission from the Bill and that the Minister would tell me he had intended to amend it. It would be inconceivable to pass legislation giving the Minister power to make regulations without provision for an overview by the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is not constraining the Minister in any way. This is a power rightly given to the Houses of the Oireachtas to enable them to have the final say in every case where regulations or orders are made. That is as it should be and that is the purpose of my amendment.

I assure the Committee that it is the absolute intention of the Government and my own intention that muzzling be introduced. I wish to examine what has happened to date. At the beginning of the coursing season, muzzling was introduced on a trial basis for semi-finals and for finals. The leather muzzle which was used at that stage has not met with universal approval. A plastic muzzle has subsequently been used. When a Minister draws up regulations in relation to an area such as muzzling, it may or may not be opportune to describe the exact type of muzzle to be used. The best approach may be to specify a range of muzzles, as one greyhound may not be suited to the muzzle which a generality of greyhounds are suited to.

As Deputy Molloy pointed out, the section which amendment No. 10 refers to relates to more than muzzling. It relates to a range of veterinary controls. The objective is to eliminate the kill. Muzzling is probably the major part of that but there are other aspects to eliminating the kill which relate to the veterinary area, so when the regulations are introduced it is important that they are as effective as possible. Deputies may say that this could cause delay. The indications are that all coursing will be muzzled after Christmas. I have not heard that officially, but the information the Department is getting seems to be reliable. Muzzling will certainly be universal by the beginning of the next coursing season. That is the Government's position. I wish to deal with Deputy Duke's amendment. In the Principal Act the Minister has no power to introduce regulations. This power is given to Bord na gCon. The areas in which Bord na gCon can introduce regulations are wide-ranging and intrusive. Under section 25 of the Principal Act, Bord na gCon has power to make regulations with respect to the establishment, layout, construction, maintenance, equipment, use, management and control of greyhound tracks and the conduct generally of greyhound racing at such tracks. I can cite other provisions here but the same point applies.

If we make the addition that Deputy Dukes's amendment seeks to make, that any regulations made under this Act could be referred to the Dáil, we are saying in effect that we want the Dáil to rescind a regulation requiring the muzzling of greyhounds or the veterinary supervision of hares. We would be asking the Dáil to rescind the very regulations that the second amendment here is seeking that the Minister "shall" rather than "may" make. This Minister has no other agenda than to achieve the elimination of the kill.

Deputy Molloy's and Deputy Gregory's amendment deals with the insertion of "shall" rather than "may". This amendment takes flexibility from the Minister. It may be that the Minister may wish to change the regulations at a later stage. If it is mandatory that the Minister "shall" introduce regulations, I suggest that this must be fleshed out by saying that the Minister "shall" introduce those regulations by a certain date. Equally the legislation should decribe exactly the area in which the regulations should apply. The Minister requires flexibility to monitor an ongoing situation and, in the context of its being mandatory that muzzling be part of all enclosed coursing as of next year, to monitor the situation fully and make the correct decisions in terms of the regulations he or she will bring before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I do not like to say this but it seems to me that the Minister's brief on this has been prepared with a certain degree of contempt for the accountability of the Minister. To claim that the amendments I propose should not be made because this might allow the Dáil to rescind a regulation the Minister might make and to give that as a reason for not accepting the amendments is outrageous. In all legislation where a Minister is empowered or enabled or required to make regulations there is a provision for the Houses of the Oireachtas to have supervision of that. It is known as the principle of accountability. That is what legislation is about. It is the Houses of the Oireachtas that pass legislation, not the Minister. The Houses of the Oireachtas are the only body that can empower a Minister to make regulations and they should, therefore, have a power of oversight as to how the Minister carries that out.

I would also point out that my amendment proposes to amend section 5 (4) of the Principal Act. This is not a section that gives the board specific powers to make regulations about the height of the steps in a grandstand or the distance from the bar to the toilet. This section has as its description in the Principal Act "Regulations and rules generally", and the Minister would have done himself a favour if he had looked at this before giving his reply. It is a general provision about how regulations and rules have to be made. It is not a provision about how specific rules have to be made.

The Minister is barking up the wrong tree when he suggests that I want to give the Oireachtas power to rescind something that the Minister wants to do. I want to give the Houses of the Oireachtas the power of oversight in relation to a Minister who is accountable to the Oireachtas for how he implements legislation. I do not require the Minister to answer for something that is not within his remit. This section in the Principal Act deals with regulations and rules generally. I am not asking that the Houses of the Oireachtas should have any more powers than they have. Under the provisions of section 5 of the Principal Act, if Bord na gCon makes regulations about such matters as the distance from the bar to the toilet in a stand at a racecourse, the Houses of the Oireachtas have the power as things stand to supervise that because all such regulations must be laid before the Oireachtas. I am proposing to put the Minister on exactly the same footing as Bord na gCon in relation to the Oireachtas.

I suggest to the Minister that he should reflect a little more and agree with me that it is entirely reasonable that the same provisions should apply to the making of regulations in this regard as apply in all other legislation that provides a power to make regulations to a Minister or any other body. He should not come back to us with this kind of spurious sophistry he has given us this afternoon.

I am disappointed with the Minister's response to amendment No. 10, largely because I do not understand it and I do not see any logic in what he said. Maybe it is my fault that I do not appreciate his difficulties. Looking at the regulations and the areas in which he is seeking to introduce regulations, the amendments are straightforward. There is no grey area. They relate to muzzling and to veterinary supervision. I fail to understand why it would detract from those regulations in any way if the wording was changed to ensure that the Minister had to introduce regulations. The Minister says that if the wording were "shall" he would have to do so by a certain date. I would welcome that. We have left it too long and the sooner these regulations are introduced the better. I do not see the difficulty with having a specific date by which all of this should be done.

I welcome the Minister's indications that all coursing will be muzzled after Christmas and definitely by the beginning of the next coursing season. I had already heard that it was likely all coursing would be muzzled within a short period after Christmas and I hope that will be the case. Any continuation of the treatment meted out to a defenceless and timid animal like the hare, which I have seen at coursing meetings, shames us all. The sooner muzzling is introduced the better.

I again ask the Minister to review his attitude to this amendment. I am pressing it because I believe it is necessary to state that these regulations must or "shall" be introduced. The whole exercise is pointless if that is not done. The Minister should think again and come back to us on it.

I do not see any logic in the Minister's explanation. The amendment seeks to place a requirement on the Minister to introduce the regulations and Deputy Dukes's amendment requires that the regulations, when made, shall be placed before the Dáil and that the Dáil shall have the right to pass comment and agree or disagree with them in a supervisory role. I am amazed that the Minister should seek to remove from the provisions of this Bil the opportunity for the Dáil to make known its views on the Minister's regulations.

The Minister has given the need for flexibility when making regulations as his reason and has said that if these requirements were placed on him it would remove that flexibility. I do not accept that. First, as the amendments stand any regulations made would be in effect during the 21 day period. If they were not amended or annulled within 21 days they would continue in effect. If an amendment was put down which annuled them, they would have had effect from the date that they were introduced. There is no question of the Minister's intent, in whatever regulations he makes, not coming into effect from the day they are made and they would only cease to have effect if the Dáil decided that what he had done was not correct or should be changed.

And if the Government gave time to debate it.

Yes. The ICC is, of its own volition, going to make it mandatory that members have muzzles on their dogs when they take part in any events organised by them and the Minister seemed to imply that he was satisfied with that. However, I do not think that was the purpose of this exercise. This started as a result of a Private Members' Bill. The Government took no initiative on this. It is reacting to the initiative of an Opposition Deputy. The views expressed during the debate in the House clearly indicated that the situation should be tightened up and new regulations introduced. The Minister gave a genuine commitment to do this and we applauded him for bringing forward this Bill. However, he is destroying the strength of his argument and the effectiveness of the Bill if he does not include a legal requirement to introduce these regulations.

From what the Minister has said, I do not understand his reasons for not accepting the proposal. He said that Deputy Dukes's amendment would give the Dáil the power to rescind but that is no reason not to accept it. The Minister is denying the Dáil its traditional role and it is extraordinary for a Minister to do so. The amendment would not remove the Minister's flexibility because any regulation he might introduce would have effect as long as it was in place.

It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us he is satisfied with the Irish Coursing Club's decision to introduce muzzles on a mandatory basis. The House should not be satisfied with that because it does not reflect the tone of the debate. My party had a free vote on this issue and the majority voted in favour of banning coursing. In my contribution, I outlined my background in relation to greyhounds and the fact that my family reared, bred, coursed and tracked greyhounds. I left that activity many years ago, but I and my family were involved in it. I found the kill abhorrent and I supported its removal, but I said I would suspend my judgment on the issue until I saw the Minister's Bill.

I am not satisfied with this Bill if it only states that the Minister may make regulations. We know from experience that this is not good enough because Ministers change and the views of the Oireachtas may change. The view of the House is that these regulations should be introduced. The legislation we are introducing should do this and it gives the Minister full flexibility about how he should draw up those regulations. Anything less than this is not adequate. I appeal to the Minister and his party colleagues to see reason in this matter. Deputy Gregory and I will differ on other aspects of this Bill, but there should be general agreement to accept this amendment.

It must be recognised that the ICC has responded positively, given what happened at the Irish Cup meeting. It did not need to wait for Deputy Gregory's Bill to respond to what happened at that meeting. It changed its rules, which should have been changed prior to that meeting, but no one could have envisaged what happened in Clounanna. It changed its rules without Deputy Gregory's Bill going through the Dáil and without pressure from the Minister. It saw the anomalies in its own rules and regulations. In addition, the ICC met the officials from the Department and examined ways to improve the image of coursing to make it more popular. Coursing has been affected by adverse publicity in the media. A number of people who appear to represent a tiny minority got on the airwaves quicker than anyone else.

As well as introducing similar regulations to what the Minister is suggesting the Irish Coursing Club has reduced the number of courses which may be held and the length of the field. It has also stated that more than the required number of hares must be available for the number of courses. To suggest that it ends there would be wrong also because it requires greater research to improve the game, the hares and their husbandry.

However, to suggest in the interim that the Minister must introduce a certain regulation might do more damage. There should be flexibility to allow the Minister to monitor what is happening at present. I do not know if Members on this committee have attended coursing meetings —with the probable exception of Deputy Deenihan — witnessed the courses held without the muzzles, compared them with those held with muzzles and the reaction of the people involved. I believe it is the wish of all people in coursing that there should be muzzling of dogs as close as possible to 1 January. I have no doubt that at the national meeting in Clonmel muzzling will be introduced on all courses.

The research continues. Nobody is quite convinced that the type of muzzle used at present is the best because others are experimenting with different types of plastic and leather, or a combination of both, which is welcome. These and other areas must be examined and in this respect the House and this committee will view the situation over the coming years. However, it would be wrong to tie the Minister's hands by stipulating that particular regulations should be introduced today because they have already been introduced by the people. We would, therefore, be trying to impose something which they already have introduced and this may not be of benefit to us at a later stage.

Is this the socialist passion for constant revolution?

There are two issues in this Bill, namely, the provision of regulations and the membership of the new board. As one who is in favour of coursing, I appeal to the Minister to be specific on this matter, in his own interest, in the interests of those people who would like to see coursing continuing while eliminating the kill as much as possible and in the interest of ensuring that we, as legislators, have credibility regarding the control of coursing.

I compliment the ICC on the improvements it has introduced but it is unfortunate they were not introduced some years ago as they might have eliminated the opposition to coursing. We must do our part and we would be failing the public if we did not introduce effective legislation. The question of the muzzle is incidental. It is a problem that can be overcome quite easily by making it clear that it should be at the discretion of the veterinary inspector whether a muzzle is suitable — there is provision for veterinary inspection.

The other provisions in the section are clear and there is no reason they could not be put in place immediately. I do not believe they would affect the Minister's flexibility on this issue.

I call on Deputy Gregory. I ask him to be brief as I wish to put this amendment to the committee. We are still discussing amendment No. 1 and there are a number of other amendments to be considered, including those on controversial parts of the Bill, which may take some time. I therefore, ask for the Deputy's full co-operation.

I will certainly cooperate, Chairman, I am heartened by Members on this committee who are strong supporters of coursing and who are insisting on this amendment because of their belief that it is necessary, that it is a practical suggestion and that without it the Bill would be meaningless. Everybody knows I do not share Deputy Deenihan's views on coursing but we are at one on this issue. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.

Deputy Fitzgerald defended the Irish Coursing Club and the changes it introduced of its own volition, such as shortening the length of courses. Is the Deputy serious? Does he think we are fools? The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, on Second Stage of my Private Members' Bill stated:

The new Act will include provision to empower Bord na gCon to license the holding of all coursing meetings, subject to strict conditions which will have to be agreed by the Minister for Agriclullture, Food and Forestry. These conditions will include limits on the length of each course [The Minister made the Irish Coursing Club change], veterinary supervision of hares prior to all meetings, veterinary presence at all meetings, supervision of the release of hares into the wild after meetings and, following a trial period, the muzzling of greyhounds in enclosed coursing. The object of these controls will be to prevent cruelty and eliminate the kill. The Minister will be required to monitor the operation of coursing and report annually to the Oireachtas on the results of the monitoring.

In this Bill, however, the provisions are much less definite: It states: "The Minister may" do something but another Minister in the not too distant future could change it or decide it is no longer necessary. If we want consensus in regard to the Bill, I appeal to the Minister to accept amendment No. 10, which is meaningful and necessary.

Is amendment No. 1 being pressed?

I want to make a brief point before responding. The amendment is being pressed.

You realise, Deputy, you are out of order. I am now putting the amendment and you know the procedure.

I indicated I wanted to speak before you put the amendment.

We have spent an hour on this and I think I have some discretion on this matter.

You are cutting people off, Chairman.

I am not cutting anyone off. There has been much repetition.

Far be it from me to interfere but what I want to say I have not said before. I say in all frankness and honesty to the Minister and without wishing to set a trap for him that he could accept amendments Nos. 1 and 10 without binding either himself or his successors in perpetuity to anything other than that which will be provided for in the Bill. He can accept these two amendments without running the slightest risk of losing control of matters.

A sense of proportion is needed here. All regulations are subject to the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947, which requires that they be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Deputy Dukes spoke about the Principal Act and I alluded in my contribution to the fact that Bord na gCon must lay its statutory instruments before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Act allows for the annulling of regulations, not their amendment. It is highly unlikely that the Houses of the Oireachtas would want to annul regulations to introduce muzzling and veterinarly controls.

On that basis I am not convinced by the arguments here. Nevertheless, I do not want to be confrontational on this issue because there is consensus and I wish to contribute to that. I indicated in the House earlier this year that I did not see this legislation as being cast in stone. We know how the procedures in the House work.

When I came into office, there was already a sitting task force dealing with the subject of coursing and there were ongoing discussions on this issue. In terms of amendment No. 2, the Minister should be allowed flexibility to introduce appropriate regulations when sufficient research and field testing has been done and the area has been reviewed. Deputy Gregory raised an important point. He said that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry made a commitment to the House that there would be a yearly report on the monitoring to the House. That is highly progressive. If there are difficulties in the area of coursing, they can be addressed by the House at that time, not on this single issue but in terms of the totality of the report on the monitoring of coursing.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 17.

Crawford, Seymour.

Gregory, Tony.

Durkan, Bernard.

McCormack, Pádraic.

Deenihan, Jimmy.

Molloy, Robert.

Dukes, Alan.

Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).

Níl

Ahern, Michael.

Fitzgerald, Brian.

Broughan, Tommy.

Flood, Chris.

Byrne, Hugh.

Haughey, Seán.

Costello, Joe.

Hughes, Séamus.

Coughlan, Mary.

Kenny, Seán.

Killeen, Tony.

O'Shea, Brian.

Lawlor, Liam.

O'Sullivan, Toddy.

McDaid, Jim.

Ryan, Seán.

Smith, Brendan.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have been ruled out of order. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are alternatives to amendment No. 4 and amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consequential on amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Amendments Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

"(2) (a) The Minister shall make regulations to provide for the appointment of eleven ordinary members of Boad na gCon who shall be nominated by the following bodies — Irish Coursing Club to nominate two members; Greyhound Owners’ Association to nominate two members; Greyhound Race-Track Managements to nominate one member; Employees Representatives to nominate one member; Bookmakers to nominate one member; Veterinary profession to nominate one member; Minister to nominate three members.”.

This amendment proposes to give representation to certain bodies involved in the greyhound industry rather than proceed with the proposal outlined in the Bill which states that the Minister shall appoint the seven members of Bord na gCon, the chairman and six members. At present, three members of the board must be members of the executive of the Irish Coursing Club. However, that provision has been removed in the Bill and the Minister has been given the power to appoint all the members. It is a retrograde step and a practice dropped by recent Governments in legislation establishing boards or amending State boards.

My amendment proposes that membership of the board should be increased and that the Irish Coursing Club and the Greyhound Owners' Assocation should have the right to nominate two members each to the newly constructed board. It also proposes that greyhound race-track management, employees' representatives and bookmakers, who play an important part in the greyhound scene, should have the right to each nominate one member. The veterinary profession, to which the Minister is giving special responsibility to supervise and regulate coursing in regard to the health of hares before, during and after coursing events, should have the right to nominate one member. The Minister should also have the right to nominate members. The figures I suggested are not sacrosanct, I am merely putting forward the principle that vocational groups should have the right to nominate members, rather than the old system where the Minister made the choice. Unfortunately, we know from experience what will happen. It has been the practice that people approached TDs to request them to ask the Minister to nominate them to the board of Bord na gCon. If the Minister reverts to that method of nomination, the restructured board will do nothing to instil confidence on the part of the public.

During the Second Stage debate, I referred to the proposed Irish horse racing authority. Those involved in the industry have suggested to me that the Minister indicated that the horse racing authority should comprise people who represent institutional and vocational interests. He proposes to give representation to trainers, breeders, horse owners, bookmakers, employees in the horse racing industry and members of the regulatory body. In addition, racecourses would have two representatives on the horse racing authority. The Minister advocates that principle in relation to a new authority which he is establishing, yet he proposes to revert to the old system when amending Bord na gCon.

I am disappointed at this retrograde step by the Minister. I am surprised a Labour Minister proposed we revert to this method. I have been in the House, before and after the Minister became a Member, when spokespersons from the Labour Party advocated the principle of granting nominating rights to various vocational groups. I quoted some of the Bills brought before the House where these arguments were strongly made by Labour Party spokespersons, including the leader of the party and several Members who are now in Government.

I am astonished the Labour Party is proceeding with this change and seeking agreement on it. However, I am not surprised Fianna Fáil is interested in making this change. I do not need to say any more about that. The tut-tuts from my left feign dismay, but that is the situation. I was a member of Fianna Fáil long enough to know how the party operates. We hear murmurs and grumbles now that I have touched a nerve. It is not good enough to treat people in this way. If this is the way Labour and Fianna Fáil will perform in relation to such appointments, it does not augur well for the future. The type of open Government we were promised by those coming into office has not been lived up to and this makes people cynical about politics.

I hope I will get a favourable response from the Minister, that he has had second thoughts since the Second Stage debate and changed the method of appointment along the lines of what I proposed. The formula does not have to be exactly the same as the one I propose, I am arguing about the principle of this proposal.

My amendments are similar to Deputy Molloy's amendment, although they are less specific on some points. I agree with Deputy Molloy's view that it is undesirable the Minister should be left in sole charge of nominations to a board of this kind. That is not satisfactory and, as Deputy Molloy pointed out, it is a practice now being abandoned. There are, however, other considerations. During the Second Stage debate there was some discussion of what the Minister wanted to do. In the explanatory memorandum to the Bill it was stated that the Minister wants power to appoint the ordinary members of Bord na gCon without reference to vocational background. The Minister did not explain why he wants to be able to do that. It seems extraordinary that he should make a statement like that without any support. The reason became a bit clearer though when the Minister replied on Second Stage and it was possible to read between the lines. It was not that difficult to see the Minister has plans for the Irish Coursing Club which he is not prepared to tell us about.

We do not know the full extent of the Minister's plans for the greyhound industry, or for any of the bodies associated with it, because there is another Bill to come which, apparently, is in the process of being drafted. I gather the Heads of the Bill have been put together but we do not know whether they have been submitted to Government. We do not know the Minister's intentions in regard to that Bill beyond some general indications he gave on Second Stage. It appears, however, that the Minister has some plan in mind for the Irish Coursing Club and we can only speculate about it. We can draw inferences from the tone of his references to the Irish Coursing Club on Second Stage which bodes no good for the Irish Coursing Club with its present constitution.

This brings me to one of the central points of my amendment. The Oireachtas is a much maligned body which the Minister, apparently, is not prepared to trust because he does not like the idea that it might rescind things or change its mind. As I pointed out on Second Stage, the Oireachtas, for good or ill, decided when it passed the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958, that it would include, as a Schedule to that Bill, a constitution for the Irish Coursing Club which is quite a substantial document. I do not know if the Minister looked at it recently but it is quite an elaborate piece of work which runs to 24 pages. It sets out what the Irish Coursing Club shall do, how it shall be constituted, what functions it shall have and how it shall regulate various activities of the industry. Since the Oireachtas went to the trouble of setting up a constitution for the Irish Coursing Club it also decided the ICC was a fit body to nominate members to Bord na gCon. That was a logical and perfectly defensible decision from which I see no reason to depart at this stage. Nor has the Minister given us any reason to depart from it except the bald, unsupported statement that he wants power to appoint the ordinary members of Bord na gCon without reference to vocational background.

It is not only the Irish Coursing Club that the Minister wants to leave out of the frame of reference. The Minister has not indicated any other vocational group in the whole mix of the industry that he believes should be included in the frame of reference although he has not ruled anybody out either. We are totally in the dark as to why the Minister wants to make any of these changes. To come before us with a Bill on Committee Stage without having told us what his intentions are is an unusual course for the Minister to take.

I am sure he will not take it personally if I say that it is the normal reaction of members of a legislative body, especially the Opposition Members thereof, to treat a situation like that with the deepest suspicion. The Minister may be a nice fellow but if he does not tell us what he has in mind then we can only suspect it is not very laudable because that is the safest assumption. Given the way the Minister treated the normal process of accountability to the Oireachtas in the last vote we had, I can only find reasons for being even more suspicious than my normally open and frank nature would allow. I see no reason the Minister should wish to exclude anybody connected with the industry from the provisions governing the appointment of Bord na gCon.

In his reply on Second Stage the Minister said he thought the current size of Bord na gCon, with a chairman and six ordinary members, was ideal. That is a mighty statement to make. Why? What is so right about seven that would not be right about five, nine, 11 or any other number? The Minister of State is in a Government which has a Cabinet of 15 Members. Is the Minister saying that 15 is too large a number to be effective? Not only is it a Cabinet of 15 but they have a whole constellation of Ministers of State around them. I do not know what the total number is but it must be close to 30. The Minister probably thinks that that is a reasonably effective size of body although I have my doubts about it. There does not, however, appear to be anything intrinsic about the number seven unless the Minister is a believer in necromancy or black magic which attributes magical properties to the number seven. The Minister did not give any well defined reason for saying that six ordinary members, plus a chairman, is any more efficient than any other number.

The Minister is making provision for the appointment of the board on. a rotational basis, which is a good idea. He has concerns about continuity in the membership of the new board and that is also a good idea. The principle of rotational membership is one that should be looked at on a wider basis for boards of this kind. The Minister's party seems to believe in the principle of rotation up to the point where they could actually put it into practice and then they back away from it. We heard all this business about a rotating Taoiseach before this Government was formed.

It was rejected by the Deputy's successor.

I would rotate the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste happily any day but it would be on a spit and I do not think they would like it. The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, was very keen on the idea of a rotating Taoiseach at one stage but as soon as he got to the cosy confines of the Constitution Room in the Shelbourne Hotel, the rotation idea went out the window with many other things, including principles. That is not strictly relevant to the Bill.

The rotational membership of boards is probably a good idea and that is why I have followed my amendment through into the parts of the Bill concerned with that aspect. It struck me, as it struck Deputy Molloy, that we should make specific provision for the representation of various other interests involved in the industry in the constitution of this board. Deputy Molloy's amendment provides for 11 members while mine provides for nine. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on this although I have a feeling in my bones that I could write his comments now from the report of his concluding speech on Second Stage. I am sure he will give us the same statement again and say that seven is the magic number. For some mysterious, unknown reason no other number is right. However, he seemed to suggest that by the time we came to discuss the second Bill he was preparing, he might take a different view of the appropriate number of board members. I look forward to hearing his views on this. My proposal is that the board should have nine members, whereas Deputy Molloy is advocating an 11 member board. Both proposals allow for representation of all the interests we both identified. A board consisting of nine or 11 members would not be so large that it would become unmanageable. There have been suggestions that the board was a little unmanageable recently and the Minister did not deal with this in his reply to me on Second Stage. Others have dealt with it in separate replies to me in the meantime. I wonder why the Minister has remained silent on this. There is scope in my proposal and that of Deputy Molloy for representation of all the interests we both feel is desirable.

I have added a further reflection which, no doubt, will have the wholehearted support of the Minister and yourself, Chairman, to the extent that you are permitted to have a view on such issues. I had hoped that Deputy McManus would be here to support me. I have taken seriously, for once, the provision in the Programme for a Partnership Government that 40 per cent——

Did Deputy Dukes learn a lesson in Glenties?

Deputy Coughlan might be appointed to the board.

It is to my undying regret that Deputy Coughlan did not take it upon herself to teach me any lessons in Glenties but if she is now volunteering to do so, I will gladly go back there.

The Deputy learned his lesson before he left there.

We should take the Government at its word and give effect to the provision in its programme that 40 per cent of the members of State boards should be women. The numbers proposed by Deputy Molloy and me fit in nicely with this provision: 40 per cent of 11 is 4.4, which can be rounded down to four and 40 per cent of nine is 3.6, which can be rounded up to four. It would be perfectly reasonable to stipulate that not fewer than four members——

We do not need tokenism here.

Deputy Coughlan missed the debate earlier in the House where she could have made her point about tokenism, with which I fully agree. This is an opportunity to give effect to this provision. I am sure the Minister would regard himself as being particularly blessed if he could be trail blazing in this regard by being the first to make such a provision. He knows as well as other Members that among the greyhound racing fraternity there is a strong involvement by women as owners, trainers and handlers, some of whom are extremely successful. I do not know if any women are greyhound racing bookmakers but I would not be surprised if this is so. There would not be the slightest difficulty in giving effect to this provision. Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, are consequential on the number 11. The only virtue I claim for the number nine rather than 11 is that it would be easier to work out the rotation if the board consisted of nine members because nine is divisible by three whereas 11 is not.

To return to the principal point, the Minister has given no reason for wanting to appoint a board without reference to vocational background. The Irish Coursing Club was established under a constitution given to it by an Act of the Oireachtas. It is perfectly logical and reasonable, as it was in 1958, to make specific provision for the participation of the ICC on the board. This is the purpose of my amendment. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will show more openness of mind than he showed in his reply to the first two amendments.

It is a pity our discussion on the composition of the board is confined to numbers. As speakers pointed out, between 8,000 and 10,000 people work in the industry, either full-time or part-time and it is worth about £40 million. However, it is extremely weak at present and all sections are crying out for leadership to revitalise it. Through my contacts with the sport, I have spent a great deal of time discussing the issues with owners, breeders, trainers, ordinary punters and suppliers to the industry. They all realise the seriousness of the problems and want somebody to take the industry out of the doldrums.

I appreciate the arguments advanced in relation to the ICC and its historical involvement in the industry. I have no reason to believe the Minister has a secret agenda concerning the ICC. Nobody in the industry wants to see its role changed in any way. It has provided a service which could not be provided by Bord na gCon or any other board. We are aware of what it has done in relation to the stud book. Each year it registers in excess of 4,000 litters, names over 23,000 greyhounds and marks about 20,000 of them. Nobody else would be able to keep the records it has kept since 1923 and nobody should suggest its future is threatened because if this were so the industry would die. The vast majority of those involved in the industry acknowledge the ICC is working well and highly efficient. I would like to see one of its members appointed to the board. When the Minister is deciding the board's composition, I hope he will recognise the ICC's contribution and expertise.

The industry needs a certain amount of professionalism, which has been lacking in the past. It needs people with an expertise in sales, marketing and administration to catch it by the scruff of the neck and shake it, recognise the seriousness of its problems and have the courage to make the decisions which have not been made in the past. The industry is not worried about who is on the board, provided they are determined to implement the necessary changes. It is not interested in personalities.

Deputy Molloy is concerned about the Labour Party. He should worry about his own grouping. I do not believe this Minister will fall into the traps as the Deputy suggested. If he looked at the board of Coilte he would see that certain members have political involvements. To suggest that the Minister will put seven members of the Labour Party on the board is ridiculous.

What about sons, daughters and cousins?

I think the Deputy's party would be able to——

A Deputy

I hope the Minister will not appoint any Fine Gael people from Kerry.

We will not be asking them the colour of their party ticket. I hope the Minister will ask if they have the ability to do the job. That is what is important. The people involved in the industry want us to take this seriously.

The record does not bear the Deputy out.

With all due respect, Deputy Dukes was also involved for many years. What changes did he make to improve it? Perhaps if he had taken action earlier the industry would not be in this position.

The Deputy should ask his party leader and Tánaiste how he feels about 1983-87. He feels quite happy about it and he has a damn sight more reason to feel happy about that period than he does about the period since last November.

It has been suggested that the various groupings should have a position on the board as a right. People who make such statements obviously have little understanding of the present composition of the industry. There are many different groups — owners, breeders, trainers, bookmakers and track owners. We could have a board with all of them represented but it would have in excess of 20 members and would not be effective. The industry wants a board, if it has seven members with courage and knowledge it will be effective.

I mentioned on Second Stage that the Minister should give serious consideration to appointing an advisory body which would include all the groupings interested in the industry. I am not suggesting that people opposed to the industry and trying to bring it down should be included. I am referring to people such as the Irish Coursing Club and the owners, trainers, breeders, bookmakers, punters and track owners north and south of the Border. We need the punters, owners and trainers from the North as much as they need us. The ICC controlled a number of tracks and ran the industry in the North over the years and the owners and breeders come to the South on a regular basis. Without them, the industry would be in an even worse position.

Those people and organisations should be put into a room for a year and say what they have to say to each other. However, it would need a good chairman — perhaps our chairman might take it on — to guide it. A strong advisory body representing all factions is needed in the industry. They have talked about, but not to, each other sufficiently over the years. They all have a contribution to make but somebody has to put it together.

However, to suggest that they should be put on the board, which is the engine, is not the way forward. I ask the Minister to consider appointing an advisory body. I understand that one operates successfully in Great Britain. Any number of greater than seven would be a receipe for disaster. I hope that when the composition of the board is decided the members of the ICC will be recognised because they have made a major contribution and will continue to do so.

I made the point quite forcefully on Second Stage that the ICC should be included on the new board by right. I am disappointed that the Minister did not do that. I cannot see the logic behind not including the ICC. As we all know the ICC has done more for the greyhound industry in this country than anybody else. It accounts for about £16 million in the industry, is vital for the bloodlines for the greyhound industry and is largely responsible for our export trade in dogs and so on. The ICC is internationally recognised and involved in the international greyhound industry. If the ICC is not included by right in the reconstituted board, then it will lose much of its status and will be regarded as a second rate body in the coursing industry.

The system of election to its executive committee is probably the most democratic forum in the whole greyhound industry. It is representative of owners, trainers and breeders throughout the Thirty-two Counties. That is important —and may be a point which the Minister overlooked — in the sense that it will still control track-racing and coursing in Northern Ireland. In these days of reconciliation, it is important from that aspect that the ICC is included and that as many members as possible from Northern Ireland should be included on the new board. The greyhound industry in Northern Ireland should also be represented on the new board.

Deputy Molloy referred to the proposed horse racing authority. There seems to be a lack of consistency between the Minister's approach to the horse racing authority and the proposed new Bord na gCon. The Irish Turf Club, which would be equivalent to Bord na gCon, will be entitled to have three members on the proposed new horse racing authority. If that argument is pursued to the limit, why should the ICC, which is the regulatory body of this sport, not be included on the proposed new board?

Will the Minister explain the reasoning behind that decision? He can say he can appoint people from the ICC — which may be his intention — nevertheless, this exclusion has damaged the status of the ICC in national and international greyhound industry. The ICC is annoyed about it and I am disappointed that, with the exception of Deputy Fitzgerald who is in favour of having the ICC represented on the new board, I did not hear any spokesperson on the Government side make any case for the ICC. They praised and acknowledged the work of the ICC but none of them made any case that the ICC should have an automatic right to a place on the new board.

I agree with the thrust of these amendments tabled by Deputies Molloy and Dukes. I appeal to the Minister to consider them. This Bill will not be regarded as a major achievement in its present form if the Minister is not prepared to make some improvements to it and both amendments would improve it considerably. It does not make any difference how many members there are on the board, what matters is their commitment. However, there should be representation from Northern Ireland on the board and I agree with Deputy Dukes that the Minister should have a 40 per cent quota of women on it. That is important because, as we know from experience, women dominate coursing. They do most of the work and probably know more about the preparation of dogs and feeding than most men. It is, therefore, important that they are represented on the board.

Will the Minister explain why the ICC is not included? He may have good reason for excluding them from the board. Will he also give some indication of the sections of the greyhound industry he intends to appoint to the board?

I have a number of concerns about the operation of Bord na gCon. It has been charged, under the 1958 Act, with responsibility to look after the greyhound industry. However the industry has been gradually going downhill. In his Second Stage contribution the Minister quoted greyhound racing meeting attendances falling from one million in 1975 to 700,000 in 1992.

A range of issues were not addressed by Bord na gCon. It recognised that there was a major crisis in 1990 and drew up a five year plan. One of the major proposals in the plan appeared to be the disposal of the tracks that were to be used to develop the industrry. The track in Clonmel has been sold and the Youghal track will be sold. It is also looking at the possibility of disposing of the track in Harold's Cross and transferring its activities to Shelbourne.

This does not suggest an industry coming to grips with itself through Bord na gCon and trying to survive and grow. When those tracks close, there will be no more tracks in those areas. Greyhound track racing needs to be reasonably near those who attend it because people are not in a position to travel across the country to attend tracks. They have to be local and it appears that the philosophy of Bord na gCon is to move from that. It has some kind of super-centre in mind for Shelbourne and I do not think that is the right way to approach the proper development of track racing.

Under the 1958 Act, as I understand it, coursing was given over to the Irish Coursing Club while remaining under the general control and direction of Bord na gCon. I do not wish to involve myself in a debate about live hare coursing as we will have an opportunity to look at that later under Deputy Gregory's amendment. However, there have been major problems in that area and a long campaign drawing attention to what many people genuinely saw as difficulties with live hare coursing.

Nothing was done until this year when there was a major debate which Deputy Gregory initiated in the Dáil. People inside and outside the House contributed to the debate and a number of media programmes also drew attention to the issue. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry had established a task force earlier in the year the situation was brought to a head by the debate on the Gregory Bill. Only at that stage did the Irish Coursing Club decide to introduce muzzling for certain trials and competitions on a voluntary basis. It was far too late and that is why people have now taken definite positions on the question of live hare coursing, I certainly am one of them.

I have a major problem with Bord na gCon as currently established. The amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy refers to a number of organisations and the representation they should have on the board. There is nothing unreasonable about such a suggestion. However, the greyhound industry needs a major dose of commercial realism as it was not making an impression in terms of its ability to survive and so on. When making nominations or adopting a procedure the Minister should pay attention to commercial reality and make it clear to the board that if it closes all the tracks it will end up with an exclusive industry based in one location which is almost inaccessible to the ordinary punter.

Another aspect of the operation of Bord na gCon concerns me although I am not sure of its responsibility in the area. Some years ago there was a major public scandal about the manner in which greyhounds were exported from this country to Spain and Pakistan, if my memory serves me correctly. This country drew upon itself international opprobrium for the manner in which we allowed those greyhounds to be exported, the transport arrangements and the conditions and treatment to which they were subjected when they eventually reached Spain. There was major international concern at the time. The responsibility for supervising this rests with Bord na gCon or the Irish Coursing Club if that club was involved in exporting the greyhounds.

There have been many problems in the industry and they will not be resolved in the interest of the industry unless some of the major issues are tackled. One has to involve people who are capable of being commercially realistic and understand what the public require. They must also be prepared to deal with problems about the manner in which dogs have been trained, the coursing issue and the dark side of the industry which will go on regardless of whether dogs are muzzled at coursing meetings, that is the background business of blooding and so on. We have seen cases of it in the press and that is something none of us wants to see happening. It does involve cruelty to animals and will have to be dealt with.

If people are really committed to this industry, through the board and the representative organisations, they will have to lift the lid on all this and get rid of it to put the industry on a sound footing and above criticism about the manner in which it is run and the way dogs are trained. The industry will then have an opportunity to grow and develop. This is an important issue as far as the composition of the board is concerned.

It is important that the Minister would not leave nominees on the board for too long because they can become very stale, that may be part of the previous problem. The Minister mentioned three year appointments, which is good, because a reasonable turnover of a sizeable number on the board would be welcome. Those on the board would know that they are on it for a particular period of time and have to get their work done within that period, five years would have been too long.

There is need to clean up the industry. I attended and enjoyed many track meetings but the condition of some of them is appalling. They are not an enticement to go out for an evening's entertainment. The manner in which the tracks were allowed to disintegrate is a reflection on the board. I appreciate that finance was required but Bord na gCon was responsible for these facilities and simply presided over their deterioration for a long time. That is part of the reason the industry itself went into disrepute.

It is a standing joke that it is easy to slow a dog down on a particular night. People who own one or two greyhounds know how to do this although of course they do not do it themselves. They will also joke about the different things that can happen to discourage a dog from running at its best speed. The dog is fed, or is not fed, is fed too much of one food or too little of another food. That is another area that needs to be looked at. People involved in the industry always say that spectators at a meeting must know what dog to back. There is no chance of winning a bet by picking a dog at random from the card.

These important issues must be addressed by the board. If the Minister makes the right appointments they will be of assistance to the industry. If he makes the wrong appointments or appointments for the wrong reasons, as suggested by some contributors here, then all he will do is further affect the ability of the industry to develop properly and be a place of entertainment. It cannot be a place of entertainment unless the conditions are right. People who participate must be able to do so confident that the industry is properly organised and those who support it must know that practices which were severely criticised will be eliminated. They must know that it is an industry of which the country and those who participate in it can be proud and people who attend for entertainment must be able do so with a certain degree of peace of mind.

I will concentrate on the issue of the appointment of people to State boards. Every time a new board is established or an existing board replaced, the question of its membership and the terms of reference of appointments proves to be an issue of considerable political debate, much of which does not focus on what is best for the industry for which the board is to have responsibility.

It is not possible to arrive at the perfect formula for the appointment of a State board and I am against the principle of giving the different interests within an industry the right of nomination to such a board. The organisation in question may not have a suitable individual to nominate to the board, but because it is laid down in law and regulation, it is obliged to make an appointment, irrespective of whether the individual nominated is suitable.

The question of "political" appointments to boards comes in for much political criticism. Invariably the Opposition of the time focuses on this point. Frankly, why somebody who has known political views should be automatically deemed unsuitable for appointment to a State board escapes me. There may have been times in the past when people were appointed to the board simply because they were of a particular political persuasion, but there are many examples on the whole spectrum of State boards in this country where people with definite political views, not only members of Fianna Fáil, Labour or Fine Gael, have made an immense contribution to the decision making process and the deliberation of State boards. Many of them could bring to State boards beneficial organisational skills acquired as a result of their political activity. It is merely dredged up for public consumption that in some way because an individual of a particular political persuasion has been appointed, they are automatically unsuited for appointment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When somebody has been appointed to a board for a period, the Minister or Minister of State of the day is in a position to gauge the personal commitment — which is vital — of that individual to the board. It is pointless simply to appoint somebody to a board to represent an organisation unless there is a degree of personal commitment to that involvement. Naturally if they have a particular expertise beneficial to the deliberations of the board it is very useful.

The inherent danger in appointing a person simply because he or she is the nominee of a particular organisation is that they automatically see their role on that board as representing the exclusive interest of the organisation which has nominated them, which is highly dangerous. Their brief when they are appointed is to take a global view of the needs and requirements of the industry in which the board is operating. They can consider what is best in the overall interest of the industry. There have been experiences where people who have been nominated to State boards as representatives of particular organisations simply indulged in argument for and on behalf of the organisation they represented. That is one principle which should be laid to rest. If this Bill goes some distance towards that it will have done a good day's work.

I am sure the Minister, when he draws up the list of appointees to the board, will have regard to balance and the needs and requirements of the industry. Simply because a person is not a member of a group or organisation does not mean he is not eminently suitable to be a member of the board for the appointed period of three years.

That brings me to the provision in the Bill for the expiry of the period of appointment. It is stated in the explanatory memorandum: "It is also being provided that the term of office of Directors shall be 3 years, terminating on a rotational basis.". Will some members retire after a specified period and be replaced, that it is not a question of the new board being appointed after three years? Where a board is appointed for a specified period of three years without a legislative provision for an interim arrangement, if for some reason the Government of the day cannot make the new appointment immediately, this can lead to unsatisfactory arrangements. I am aware of at least one example where this is the case.

I do not know what the position will be in regard to the term of office of the people envisaged here, but it is important to bear in mind that if the Government or the Minister of the day is not in a position to make the new appointments immediately, provision must be made in the interim to ensure that there is not a period where the board is effectively not functioning, which would be detrimental to the industry as a whole. I hope that when it comes to selecting the people he appoints, the Minister will have regard to the urgent needs of the industry and to its medium and long term interests.

I do not claim to have any expertise in the appointment of boards and I probably never will have the opportunity to do so at any stage. My knowledge of the greyhound industry is not great. My interest in the industry, as Deputy Flood mentioned, is related to the issue of coursing and the darker side of the industry. I am glad Deputy Flood referred in passing to some of the activities that have been going on under the patronage of Bord na gCon. It is interesting that the day after the Second Stage of this Bill in the Irish Independent on Thursday, 2 December 1993, there was an article to which Deputy McGahon also referred, about a dog savaging a tied rabbit. It stated:

A rabbit was savagely blooded by a greyhound on the land of top Irish greyhound trainer Matt O'Donnell, Cashel District Court was told yesterday. The rabbit had its hind legs tied with bailer twine when killed by the dog, according to a team of wildlife rangers whose raid on the County Tipperary greyhound training centre resulted in O'Donnell, of Mount-taylor, Killenaule, being charged with permitting unnecessary suffering to the rabbit a year ago.

Deputy McGahon said that such activity is widespread in the country. If that forms any part of the greyhound industry it disgraces it and any body that oversees the industry and does not attempt to clean up such activity and get rid of it should not be there and should be replaced. I join with Deputy Flood in drawing attention to the appalling conditions for greyhounds exported to Spain on their journey and on their arrival. That sort of activity went on under the control of Bord na gCon.

A study was done a couple of years ago of the seven board members and the executives of Bord na gCon and it was found that not only were the three Irish Coursing Club appointees heavily involved in coursing, but everybody else was also. All the ministerial nominees and even the chief executive and the deputy chief executive had long histories of involvement in coursing and it led to the then chairman of the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation having to state in The Cork Examiner of 13 February 1991, that the Irish Coursing Club controlled Bord na gCon.

When I read the Minister's proposal I did not know what his motivation was as I was no better briefed than anyone else, but I assumed based on the limited knowledge I had, maybe wrongly, that he was trying to break the control of the Irish Coursing Club on Bord na gCon. If that was his intention — I am sure he would not admit it even if it was — then I applaud and welcome it because there can be no doubt that such control cannot be good for any industry. Given that an organisation that was in charge of such cruelty and brutality for so long controlled the greyhound industry, the picture the Minister painted when he talked of the industry being in serious decline does not surprise me.

I have no problems with the proposals put forward by Deputy Molloy and Deputy Dukes. A larger board would be representative of all the different organisations and interests in the greyhound industry. The report to which I referred, which was presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies a year or two ago, listed 15 organisations and I am sure that was not a complete breakdown of all the bodies involved in the industry. If one were to have a good board that would bring the greyhound industry out of the doldrums and give it the boost that everybody seems to think it so badly needs, a wide ranging representation of all of those organisations — many of them are referred to by Deputy Molloy in his amendment — is most likely to succeed.

Although I might be naive and innocent in this regard, I would have confidence in the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh. I think he would be a fair man in appointing a board. However, I would have no confidence in a blanket approval whereby any Minister in the future can appoint the full board because it is wide open to abuse and there are many instances of it in the past. I am not making any reflection on the current Minister, as I do not think that he would abuse it and I think his motivations were correct. The Minister of State has already said that the Irish Coursing Club will undoubtedly have members on the new board. I would prefer that it did not, but I accept the reality. Because of what they are involved in I would not like to see them on any board. I was inclined to support the Minister because of what I saw as his motivation in changing this.

The idea of the rotation of membership and the turnover of members is good. Because we are making laws for the future it is better to be more specific. Deputy Molloy's amendment is the best one to achieve that because it refers to 11 ordinary members and mentions different interests in the greyhound industry. That is the correct direction to take. That is what is needed to be done. We could accept the good faith of the Minister that that is what he will do in any case, but it is not our function to leave it to chance. It is better to have it written down so that it is clear and specific. For the same reason I wanted the other regulations more definitely stated.

I am sorry to have to disappoint Deputy Flood who thought we would have a chance to discuss the coursing issue again under my later amendment. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled out of order so we will not have that opportunity. My inclination is to support Deputy Molloy. Deputy Dukes is drawing attention to an area where we have an opportunity to put into practice what we all preach, that is making sure that there is a reasonable representation of women on boards. This is an opportunity which we should take. I commend Deputy Dukes for including the amendment.

We have had a worthwhile debate but I wish to refer to some points I made on the conclusion of the debate on Second Stage. Prior to the 1958 Act the Irish Coursing Club was responsible for greyhound racing and coursing on a 32-county basis. When the new board was set up it made sense that, in the interest of continuity and retaining expertise, three places were reserved on the board for members of the Irish Coursing Club. Various points have been made in regard to the Irish Coursing Club. The ICC was responsible for the development of track racing here. Since 1923 it has been responsible for the greyhound stud book which, by any criteria, is an excellent publication. When I was appointed to office I had the benefit of the Joint Oireachtas Committee having met and the task force was in the process of making its report. I had spent some time at greyhound tracks at a younger stage in my life and I decided to go and see what was happening there. I had heard the stories about decline in the industry and about the need for better controls. The issue of coursing had to be addressed.

Deputy Dukes spoke about us not having laudable ideas and he was suspicious of our intentions. Our intentions are to do the very best by this industry, which is in decline. I agree to a large extent with Deputy Brian Fitzgerald about the idea of a second tier in the industry. There are many sectors involved and to represent all those interests on Bord na gCon, in any vocational sense, would be very difficult. With regard to the size of the board I initially thought that a board of five would be sufficient. The argument was made, which I took on board, that there can be a difficulty with a quorum when a board is that small. What we need for this industry is a decisive board made up of people with vision about the industry, a board that sees the industry as an entertainment industry that needs to catch up.

There are fundamental problems with the industry, not least of which is the fact that moneys are not available for capital grants to greyhound tracks in order to improve their facilities and to bring them to the standard that is successful in other countries in holding the requisite attendance at greyhound meetings so that the industry is vibrant and, most important, viable. In the context of the second Bill and the idea of a second tier which will bring together the many disparate groups in the industry, such as track owners, owners, owners and breeders, I believe — and I accept Deputy Fitzgerald's point regarding the chairing of such a group — that it would have a very important role to play in terms of developing a plan for all aspects of the industry.

That is one side of it. However, the board must be a decisive board. It must face up to problems which should have been faced long ago. The intention on both sides of the House is to put a board in place which will do the job that badly needs to be done. If that job is not done, if the board is not efficient, effective and capable of taking the necessary decisions, the industry will go into even greater decline. Therefore we are not talking about the numbers game. The amendments are put down to extend the board to include interests from various sectors. There are more sectors than one can make provision for in terms of a nine or an 11 person board.

With regard to Deputy Dukes's point about women on the board, we are aware of Government policy in that regard. However, I would consider the inclusion of a quota in the legislation as involving a degree of inflexibility. There has been a Government decision in that area and we are mindful of that. The bottom line is that we do not want, as heretofore, to appoint a five year board. We want to appoint a board where people who are not delivering as required for the industry may not be reappointed. We do not have time on our side in this industry and I ask Deputies to accept that the Government's objective is to pull this industry back to prosperity. We will deal with a second tier to give more universal involvement to all the sectors of the sport in the second Bill.

Some other issues were raised which were not relevant to this section. We are prohibited by EU legislation from preventing the export of greyhounds to Spain. The onus is on the Spanish authorities to ensure that greyhounds are properly treated. My Department is satisfied with the conditions under which greyhounds are transported both within the country and from the port of export. I received a delegation which put forward its view in relation to the export of greyhounds and I have taken the matter up with my counterpart in Spain. I agree with Deputy Gregory about the practice of blooding. That practice is prohibited by law. The fact that we can talk about newspaper reports means that in some instances the law has been successful in apprehending people. I take Deputy Gregory's point that Deputy McGahon has said that this practice is widespread. I am sure if Deputy McGahon had any evidence of that he would pass it on to the gardaí or the wildlife rangers who are the appropriate authorities.

Deputy Dukes mentioned some points he made about Bord na gCon during the debate on Second Stage. It would be improper for me to comment on operational matters within Bord na gCon. However, Deputy Dukes stated in the Dáil on 1 December 1993 on Second Stage that if his information was correct — I am sure he used that terminology — the board passed a motion of no confidence in its chief executive at a meeting last July. He also said that the board had not met since then. No such motion was passed at a board meeting in July and since then the board has had meetings on 11 August, 17 August, 14 October and 1 December, the date when the Deputy made his remarks. I trust that clarifies that issue. It is important to get the record straight.

If the Minister of State is not accepting the amendment, can he explain to the committee why the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, believes it is appropriate, when appointing the Irish horse racing authority, to grant representations to the various interested parties who participate in horse racing? The Minister is not prepared to apply the same principle in relation to greyhound racing. The Minister of State made no reference in his reply to this point, which I made during my contribution.

I have a document which purports to represent what the Minister intends to do with regard to the Irish horse racing authority. It has been discussed with various interest groups throughout the country which are involved in horse racing. The specific objective of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, who is the same Minister who introduced the Greyhound Industry (Amendment) Bill, 1993, is to give representation to the various bodies I mentioned in my earlier contribution. Those bodies will put forward names from which the Minister will select the members of the new authority.

It is strange for the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy O'Shea, to tell us he agrees with a point made by a Deputy from his own party about an advisory body on which the various groups could be represented. There is nothing in the Bill about establishing an advisory body. We are too long in the political tooth to accept such a suggestion from the Minister as a sop during a debate which gives the impression that this will be done, although there is nothing specific before us which says that such a body will be established. It has been put forward as a conciliatory move by the Minister who half accepts the idea, but who will not apply it in the case of the board. There is a contradiction in the stance which the Department and the Minister are taking in regard to the principle involved. I said I was not hung up on whether it was nine or 11 members, but I am concerned about the principle.

I must interrupt the Deputy because we agreed to have a sos at 7 o'clock. I suggest we resume at 8 o'clock when you will be allowed to complete your contribution.

Sitting suspended at 7.3 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

May I ask the Minister to explain the different approaches being adopted by his Department and the Minister in relation to this Bill and the proposed Bill to establish the horse racing authority?

In his reply to the amendments tabled by Deputy Molloy and Deputy Dukes, the Minister indicated that he would consider the idea of an advisory body or an advisory board. Could the Minister give the committee an assurance that it will be part of the Bill which it is proposed to introduce in 1994? As I appreciate the length of time it takes for legislation to proceed through the House and as I do not believe that this is an industry that can wait much longer, would the Minister consider introducing the body, even on an interim basis? It may not be established by statute but perhaps with the help of Bord na gCon and the Minister's Department a body could be set up on a temporary basis prior to the second Bill being passed.

Deputy Gregory mentioned approximately 15 different organisations. There are many more than 15, from my experience. We are dealing with a 32-county body where there are different groupings, such as breeders, owners and trainers in all parts of the country. I ask the Minister, on an interim basis, prior to the legislation being introduced, to set up a temporary body early in 1994 to work in conjunction with the new board. I believe it is important that the new board is made aware of all the problems facing the industry. There is nobody better placed for this than those based in the industry.

I appreciate that there are many different sections in the industry who believe that their problem is greater then others and therefore should be dealt with in isolation. I do not believe that is the way forward, but they all must be listened to and that is why I suggest that an experienced chairperson should attempt to coordinate all of the views put forward and to put this to the new board as advice on the direction the industry should take.

In response to Deputy Fitzgerald, if the matter was not so serious it would be hilarious. Deputy Fitzgerald is arguing for an advisory board to advise the board to advise the Minister.

I did not say an advisory board.

If one goes far enough one would have an advisory board to advise the advisory board to advise the board to advise the Minister. If it is so important to have those views, why not have them on the board in the first instance? It clearly appears that the Minister is advising the committee without, perhaps, saying so — it is a "read my lips" job — that he will have a different view on this and on the size of the board when he introduces the second Bill.

I support the remarks of Deputy Molloy. It appears strange that there is one approach to the horse industry and a completely different one to the greyhound industry. It appears to be a case, literally, of "let not thy left hand know what thy right hand is doing". A Fianna Fáil Party Minister with direct control has a representative board. A Labour Party Minister of State, the left hand, has an unrepresentative board. Then there are Labour Party Deputies proposing what appears to be the habitual Labour Party approach, namely, when one can think of nothing else to do, set up an advisory committee. It is no way to go about the serious job of restructuring an industry.

The Minister, in his reply on an earlier amendment, did not like the idea that he shall do certain things. The Minister may be in favour of the Government's programme to provide 40 per cent representation by women on boards but he does not want to do anything about it. The Minister of State is a man of immense good will and good intentions but one should not expect him to do anything about them.

It is the season of good will.

One would need much good will to believe anything the Government says. When one proposes a way for the Government to act on its intentions one is asked to trust it or to read its lips. One knows it will not happen. This will be a dead letter, another of the fine promises in the Programme for a Partnership Government which will not be implemented. Another board will be looking after an industry and people will still be suspicious. All the members will be chosen by the Minister at his convenience. If one feels one is not being consulted another advisory committee can be set up which will ask for one's opinion. It is typical old-style socialist/trade union thinking that a problem can be solved by smothering it with committees. Finally so many people will be involved in so many committees that no one will have responsibility and nothing will be done.

A commission could be appointed.

Why not? Let us have more of them. It is the classic answer. The only advantage Deputy Gregory has——

He has to look into his own heart.

He is like a former Member of this House, the current Lord Mayor of Dublin. When his party deserted him, he said he had consulted at great length with his colleagues.

It is nonsensical for the Minister to give such an answer to this serious proposal which sets out to ensure people who can have a direct contribution to policy making for the industry can be involved. The Minister says he does not want them involved. He says there are so many interests they cannot all be included, so the magic number of seven people will be put on the board. They will be so wise they will be able to comprehend everything. It takes a lot of good will to see the sense in that.

I suggest the Minister should reflect between now and Report Stage and make a unilateral declaration of independence from the bureaucracy weighing him down; I do not know whether this comes from the Labour Party. He must start to think creatively. He should set up a body which will work instead of threatening us with a humdinger of a Bill next year when all of the matters arising here will come up again. Either that or he should withdraw the Bill and do everything at once and properly when these matters have been decided. This provision is nonsense.

No doubt the Minister will heed the advice of a former bureaucrat.

At least I made the transition from bureaucracy to politics and kept my sanity. These people are trying to make the transition from bureaucracy to politics and they are driving us mad.

The crucial issue is the right of the ICC to membership on the new board. The Minister and, to a lesser extent, Deputy Fitzgerald are both straying away from that point, although I have great respect for them. The Minister is ignoring and rejecting the contribution of the greyhound industry in Ireland. This is a sad occasion for the ICC and the Irish coursing fraternity. Both Government parties promised these people that this problem would be addressed on Committee Stage of this Bill. They were promised amendments regarding the composition of the board and those promises have now been abandoned.

Irrespective of advisory boards and of whether the Minister appoints coursing people to the body, this is taking the ICC out of its privileged position in the greyhound industry. Deputy Gregory might agree with what the Minister is doing but I would take the opposite view. I appeal to him to accept the amendment and the proposals of Deputy Dukes and Deputy Molloy in the interests of the industry. If the ICC is not given membership of the board by right the Bill will be rejected by the greyhound fraternity and the Minister does not want that.

Deputy Fitzgerald outlined the various problems in the greyhound industry. Many people will be disillusioned when this Bill has been passed by the Oireachtas. As a result the Minister will not find favour in the industry. There is a great difference between the approach to this Bill and that to the new horse racing authority, as Deputy Molloy and I said earlier. It is hard to explain this difference. I appeal to the Minister to consider reviewing his proposals for membership of the board and to give recognition to the work of the ICC over the years and its contribution to the greyhound industry by including it on this board by right.

The case made by Deputy Deenihan for representation of the Irish Coursing Club on the board makes sense in itself. However, Deputy Gregory has referred to the history of Bord na gCon and I have not heard him contradicted in this debate. He said most of the Members of Bord na gCon were previously associated with coursing. If that is the case their talents did not go towards the development or growth of the industry. Rather, as instanced by many speakers here, it is an industry in serious decline with many problems. As a person not involved in coursing, I would have questions about the input of those involved in the development of Irish coursing through Bord na gCon. Those involved in coursing must answer those questions when making the case to be represented as of right on the board.

Deputy Fitzgerald's suggestion of an advisory committee should not be simply discounted. It depends on what the terms of reference of the committee might be, whether it would be charged with a specific responsibility or given any specific tasks in support of the board. There is nothing wrong with an advisory board provided it is not another quango. It must have a specific task to support the board, looking at aspects and calling on expertise. The board might not be able to do such things unless the intention was to burden it with such a wide membership that it might be unable to carry out its work decisively.

It would be fine if the Minister decided to examine the possibility of an advisory committee provided we knew the terms of reference he would set. There have been many examples of advisory committees working well and there is no reason that should not happen here. It might have the type of representation that would not find itself on the board because no matter how many people one puts on the board itself, one still would not have enough room for all those who may want to make a contribution. An advisory committee, where experts could be called on to work on different projects and to put forward different reports as a result of investigation etc., could be helpful to the board in certain circumstances. The old way in which Bord na gCón operated certainly left a lot to be desired and it badly needed advice. If it did get advice, it did not act upon it.

Deputy Molloy's question, which was repeated by Deputy Dukes, was why there is a different sort of authority for greyhound and horse racing. They are different industries. For instance, if one looks at the greyhound industry, there are four representative bodies — five, if one includes the ICC — in terms of owners. One has to come up with a solution that suits the industry.

The idea of an advisory committee has a great deal of merit because there are many different sectors to the industry which do not always pull in the same direction. If people are put together in an advisory body to come up with a policy direction for an industry, they will have to focus on the progression of the industry and would have a valuable role in terms of the board. I would stress again, and say this to Deputy Deenihan, knowing that the remarks he made come from his knowledge of coursing, that when the Bill that became the Greyhound Industry Act was introduced in 1958, the Irish Coursing Club was running the greyhound track industry in the 32 counties. It made a lot of sense then, in terms of continuity, to have three reserved places on the board. That is not justifiable in the present milieu.

What the Minister must look for are the people who can turn this industry around and who see it its context, which I dealt with in my earlier contribution. The idea of putting the advisory board in place on an interim basis prior to the legislation giving it statutory effect, is in the interest of the industry and will have my active attention in the days ahead. The sooner the better we get the new board in place, even if the advisory board is on an interim basis. These proposals for the industry are absolutely necessary in terms of giving focus and momentum to an industry in serious decline.

Could the Minister tell us when the seven members of Bord na gCón were appointed?

The board must be replaced——

When were the existing members appointed?

They leave office on 31 December, at the end of a five year term.

Were the members on the board selected by a Minister?

They were not. Of the ordinary members, three were nominated from the executive of the Irish Coursing Club and three were nominated by a Minister.

What the Minister and those Members speaking in support of his statements have been saying is that the people he appointed to Bord na gCón were not competent to do this job. That is the reason the affairs of Board na gCón and greyhound racing, and track racing in particular, are in this state. The Minister appointed the chairman and three of the members, which constitutes a majority of the board. The proposal the Minister is now putting forward is that he should appoint all of them. Why should we have any greater confidence in the type of choice the Minister will make in selecting seven people when, from what he has alleged, the majority of the board he appointed have made a poor job of it?

I do not accept that the Minister has adequately explained the different approach by his Department to the greyhound and horse industries. It reflects badly on the approach he is taking. Some of the arguments given here are farcical. To start referring to an advisory board at this stage was rightly ridiculed by Deputy Dukes. There is nothing in this Bill about an advisory board. It has been thrown out as a sop to try to overcome the legitimate arguments that a board in charge of greyhound racing should have representation from the broad sweep of that industry, not only the Minister's hand-picked individuals. According to the Minister, those that have been hand-picked have not done a good job. It is an extraordinary about-face. I find it astonishing that the Minister could seek to justify it.

I am not personally blaming the Minister because this has gone through the Cabinet. That makes it more astonishing. It would be wrong to point the finger only at the Minister and to say he was taking a different approach to the greyhound industry from that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, was taking to the horse racing industry. The Cabinet has approved this and I find it extraordinary.

An embarrassing exercise could have been undertaken by the Opposition parties by going back to the Dáil debates and quoting, to members of the Labour Party in particular, the statements they have made regarding the necessity to ensure appointments to State bodies are made on a respresentational basis and at arm's length from the ministerial head of the Department. This is a blatant return to the old ways, which have not been seen in a good light. I am astonished at this, but obviously the Government has the numbers to force this kind of measure through. The Minister's arguments in support of what he is doing are terribly weak. It is embarrassing to listen to them and——

Please refrain from that sort of language, Deputy. That is unfair comment. You should withdraw that remark.

Withdraw what remark, Chairman? This oversensitivity is more of it.

I have been more than fair with you, Deputy.

What do you mean by "more than fair"?

The time I gave you to put your amendment forward.

There is no limit on the time. There is nothing written down that——

I am obliged to get through the work expeditiously. If I feel you are repeating yourself, I have every right to put the amendment.

Obviously I said something which has stirred you up. I am not repeating myself. I said it was embarrassing to listen to the paucity of the Minister's argument. That is a political charge and it is legitimate. I will not withdraw it. I do not feel there are any grounds in any Standing Orders on which you could ask me to withdraw it.

That would be the honourable thing to do, Deputy.

I will not withdraw my remarks. It is astonishing for a chairman to say this. A chairman is supposed to remain neutral and not to show grace.

I am trying to remain neutral.

: I do not think so. It is a poor display and, unfortunately, the Government has the numbers to push it through.

There is a division in the Dáil and as it takes precedence we will suspend the meeting until 9 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 8.35 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 17.

Crawford, Seymour.

Gregory, Tony.

Deenihan, Jimmy.

McCormack, Padraic.

Dukes, Alan.

Molloy, Robert.

Durkan, Bernard.

Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).

Sheehan, P. J.

Níl

Broughan, Tommy.

Killen, Tony.

Byrne, Hugh.

Lawlor, Liam.

Coughlan, Mary.

Leonard, Jimmy.

Fitzgerald, Brian.

McDaid, Jim.

Flood, Chris.

Ó Cuív, Éamon.

Haughey, Seán.

O'Shea, Brain.

Hughes, Séamus.

O'Sullivan, Toddy.

Kenny, Seán.

Power, Seán.

Smith, Brendan.

Amendment declared lost.
Amendment Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, not moved.

It would be only courteous, Chairman, to tell you that I intend to resubmit these amendmends on Report Stage when the Minister has had a chance to reflect.

Top
Share