Amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Tony Gregory has been ruled out of order on the basis that it was decided in the Dáil within the past six months.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 3, paragraph (a), line 30, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 18.
|
Tá |
|
|
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny). |
Gregory, Tony. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
McCormack, Pádraic. |
|
Deenihan, Jimmy. |
Molloy, Robert. |
|
Dukes, Alan. |
Noonan, Michael (Limerick East). |
|
Durkan, Bernard. |
Sheehan, P. J. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
Killeen, Tony. |
|
Byrne, Hugh. |
Lawlor, Liam. |
|
Coughlan, Mary. |
Leonard, Jimmy. |
|
Ferris, Michael. |
McDaid, Jim. |
|
Fitzgerald, Brian. |
Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
|
Flood, Chris. |
O'Shea, Brain. |
|
Haughey, Seán. |
O'Sullivan, Toddy. |
|
Hughes, Séamus. |
Power, Seán. |
|
Kenny, Seán. |
Smith, Brendan. |
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 are related any may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 3, paragraph (a), line 33, after "events" to insert "or trials".
I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. His refusal to do so would mean that what is envisaged in the Bill is a PR exercise for public events and that there would not be muzzling at trials which, I understand, take place on a regular basis before the formal coursing meetings. The Minister has tabled an explanatory amendment which states that an event "means an event forming an item at an authorised coursing meeting of such kind as the Minister may specify in the regulations". I do not know what this means. I hope it means that in the regulations the Minister will specify that such event can mean a coursing trial. If it does not, we are simply cleaning up the public face of coursing and leaving trials unregulated which, as everybody who has knowledge of coursing knows, are part and parcel of coursing. A coursing meeting does not take place without trial being held in the weeks beforehand. If the regulations mentioned in the Bill, in relation to muzzling, veterinary supervision and so on, are not implemented in relation to trials as well as the formal events, the Bill is nothing more than hyprocrisy. I hope I am wrong and prefer not to say too much until I hear the Minister's explanation of his own amendment and see whether he intends to take into account and regulate all events, including trials. If that is his intention what I am saying is superfluous. I will conclude now both on the basis of the time factor and the difficult in that I do not know precisely what the Minister has in mind.
It may be helpful if I deal with my own amendment first. This proposes that the definition of "event" be replaced by "‘event' means an event forming an item at an authorised coursing meeting of such kind as the Minister may specify in the regulations". It is designed to facilitate the drafting of regulations to deal with specific types of coursing events. When I prepared the Bill it was my intention that the primary purpose of section 3 should be to enable the Minister to make regulations controlling enclosed or park coursing. It would be fair to say that the majority of Deputies during the debate on Second Stage assumed regulations made under this section would apply solely to such coursing.
I am advised there is some doubt as to whether the original wording of this subsection would give the Minister sufficient flexibility to enable him to make properly targeted regulations. For example, it would not be appropriate in respect of regulations under the Act, as amended, to provide for veterinary supervision of hares at open coursing meetings nor would it be possible to enforce a prohibition on coursing of a hare at such a meeting if it were considered by a veterinary surgeon not to be fit to be coursed. Such provisions would be impracticable and to insist on them would be tantamount to outlawing open coursing. It is, therefore, desirable to leave no doubt that the Minister will have power to specify the type of coursing covered by the regulations.
In relation to the specific issue of trials as raised by Deputy Gregory, at present dogs in all trials, according to my information, are muzzled on a voluntary basis by the ICC. It is my intention that the regulations which will be introduced will cover trials. Whatever legislative work is necessary in this regard will be done.
Can the Minister accept the insertion of the words "or trials" in the Bill?
I give the Deputy the assurance that it is my firm intention that the regulations, when introduced, will cover trials as well as coursing events. Whatever is required will be done.
I appreciate what the Minister is saying but I am very anxious that this should be seen to be part of the Bill because it would be a nonsense if it were not. I accept the Minister's word but I still do not understand, if this is his intention, why he has any difficulty in allowing the insertion of the additional words which make that clear. It is not going to complicate or confuse but will give clarity to what is precisely involved. I am worried that if trials are not given specific mention in the definition of event, it could be argued that the Bill does not cover trials and there would be no legal binding on those involved in coursing to muzzle greyhounds at trials.
Deputy Gregory and I are seeking to achieve the same objective. I ask him to give me the opportunity to have another look at this issue.
I agree with Deputy Gregory. It is very important that the health of the hare, whether at a trial or a coursing meeting, should be the sole aim of this Bill. If these regulations will not apply to trials then, as Deputy Gregory said, this Bill will be ineffective. I am sure the Minister is aware that the trials and lead up are as much part of a coursing meeting as the meeting itself. The trials are regarded as important and the Minister should have another look at them. For example, he could regulate for one dog trials which would give the hare a greater chance.
With regard to the number of times a hare is coursed in trials, this can be a way of getting rid of weaker hares. If protecting the hare to ensure the survival of coursing is central to the philosophy behind this Bill, it is as important to regulate for trials as it is for coursing. This Bill concentrates too much on coursing meetings and the public appearance of coursing rather than the total picture which includes trials. Trials are an integral part of coursing meetings and are used to school dogs and train hares. It is not a good way of training hares if they are not given a chance during trials.
I would like the Minister to regulate for one dog trials, for example. Will veterinary inspections be carried out at all trials? Some of these trials are held fairly extensively at different times of the day, as I have observed.
While people were trying to ban coursing over the past 12 months — people have been trying to ban it for a long time — dogs were wearing muzzles in trials. That was when the experiment took place. Several clubs experimented with muzzles prior to any regulation being introduced by the Irish Coursing Club because of difficulties in the past with wire muzzles. One club in County Galway used muzzles all last year. That proved to be a success, and that was one of the clubs foremost in the introduction of muzzling to coursing. That is the least problematic part of coursing because the people arranging coursing meetings are, obviously, going to ensure that the hares are protected at their trials.
The Deputy is right when he says that trials are part of coursing. That is when the hares are trained and the young dogs and track dogs are given courses. However, to ask the Minister, as Deputy Deenihan did, to legislate for one dog courses or any other type of courses would put the Minister and the clubs in an impossible position. Clubs are run by volunteers who come together at weekends. A number of people will protect the hares from people trying to release them as happened during the week when people stayed up 24 hours each day to protect the hares.
I do not envisage any problem with the trials. This is the place to make any changes of regulations but the Irish Coursing Club has introduced the regulations and amended its rules. Therefore, the Minister should at least be allowed the freedom to bring in regulations similar to those he has been trying to introduce. However, to enshrine this in legislation would leave it wide open to a certain interpretation, as was said.
I listened with interest to the last two speakers who concentrated on this question of trials. Leaving aside the question of muzzling which appears to have been carried out at some meetings during the year — and it is good that happened — I am confused about the question of trials as they relate to coursing.
If the trial takes place over the same ground as an authorised coursing meeting, which is referred to here, I do not see any difference; there is certainly no difference from the point of view of the hare. One might be training or schooling dogs or preparing for the coursing meet but the reality is still the same in so far as the live hare is concerned. Therefore, the Minister will have to be clear as to what constitutes an event. I would like to see it spelled out that it includes trials.
Will the Minister also indicate for my information if it is illegal for two greyhound owners to meet in an enclosed field or area, let the hare off and slip the two dogs? Would it be illegal under this legislation if neither of the dogs were muzzled when it was not part of a coursing meet?
First, it is possible that in my concluding speech on Second Stage I did not include trials with coursing events in terms of our determination to eliminate the kill. If I did not, it was an oversight and I hope I have put the record straight tonight. In response to Deputy Flood's question, my understanding is — obviously this is hypothetical — if two people brought unmuzzled greyhounds into an enclosed field from which the hare could not escape and released the dogs, that would be contravention of the civil law. That is if I understand the Deputy correctly.
They would not have the authority to net a hare and hold it in captivity without a licence, is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
With regard to the question of one dog courses, the Minister did not refer to regulating trials.
My understanding is that most trials in the context of training hares would be one dog trials. I ask Deputies to give me an opportunity to have a look at this again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 3, paragraph (a), line 40, after "events", to insert the following:
"such supervision to have particular regard to the feeding of the hares, their general condition of health and their familiarisation with the ground over which the event is to take place".
The intention of this amendment is to make the provisions in section 3, in relation to those aspects of the treatment of hares to which the veterinary surgeon has to have particular regard, more specific. I note that Deputies McManus and Gregory also have amendments to this section. Deputy McManus's amendment is probably separate but I would be happy to discuss my amendment in the same context as Deputy Gregory's amendment because they have the same objective. If the Minister could tell us more about his intention to section 3, particularly (1A) (a) (iii) which I am seeking to amend, it would help.
I would be less worried about this if the Minister had agreed to my first amendment. The purpose of bringing draft regulations before the Dáil is, strictly speaking, to allow the House to accept or reject them. The Dáil may only accept or reject regulations, it cannot modify them. However, it also give the Members of the Oireachtas an opportunity to learn the contents of the regulations.
The Minister will tell me that under the provisions of the statutory instruments legislation and so on we are supposed to know these things. The fact is that they often pass us by and if they are not put specifically on the Order Paper of the Houses of the Oireachtas they will escape, that is human nature. I would not be as worried about amending this section if regulations made under it would, as a matter of course, come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. If the Minister indicated that he would rethink the matter, I might take a different view.
I think the Minister would agree that it is unrealistic to expect the Houses of the Oireachtas to have only one shot at this. The Bill is before us and we have to decide on it now without a chance to re-examine it. That is not what happens with other legislation. Even if it is only theoretical or formal, regulations do come before the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Members of the Houses have an opportunity to see their contents because their attention is specifically drawn to them.
I ask the Minister to reflect on what I have said. I would be delighted if the Minister were to tell me that he might change his mind on my original amendment. However, if he does not I will have to think again about this provision.
The Minister, Deputy Walsh, gave a commitment on Second Stage of my Bill that the release of the hares into the wild would be supervised. On 2 September 1991 the Office of Public Works, through the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, stated that all hares would have to be released into the wild after each coursing meeting. He also stated:
The release of the hares will be carried out under the supervision of control stewards of the Irish Coursing Club. Random spot-checks will be carried out by officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to ensure that the condition is being observed.
To me, and anybody with an interest in the treatment of hares, that is completely inadequate. On the Second Stage debate of this Bill, I quoted a speaker in the Northern Ireland Assembly when they unanimously voted to ban live hare coursing in the North but ironically the British Government refused to ratify their decision. One of the leading speakers said that to leave the Irish Coursing Club in charge of the release of hares was like leaving Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Deputy Fitzgerald will probably take grave exception to that remark but I made it to illustrate that the suggestion is not acceptable. If we are serious enough to introduce new rules we have to ensure that those rules are enforced. We should not delegate to the Irish Coursing Club which, I was told to reply to Dáil Questions, is a private club. We should supervise it.
The State which legislates and makes new rules should ensure that they are enforced. The only way to achieve this is the presence of veterinary officials at the coursing meetings to oversee the release of the hares at the end of the meeting. This is one of the most important points and I will press it at every opportunity because it also addresses the issue of the recoursing of hares.
We all received documentation from the coursing people in Donegal referring to hares, after being coursed at one meeting, being transported and even sold to coursing clubs for other meetings. This despicable activity, including the recoursing of hares at the same meeting, is apparently part of the coursing scene. That is the very dark side of the coursing scene and must be eliminated. There have to be specific regulations and clear Independent supervision of those regulations to ensure that what we want to happen does occur.
I am told that it is customary to tag hares when they are released into the wild and that they could not be recoursed as a result. If that is the case, it should be included in the regulations. I tried to cover each of those aspects in my amendment. A veterinary surgeon should supervise the release of the hares and ensure that they are released into the wild and not on to the preserve of a coursing club to be netted a few weeks later and recoursed.
The vet should also ensure that they are marked before releases to be doubly sure that if they are by chance netted again they are not recoursed. If we do not do this we are legislating for the terrorising of defenceless, timid, gentle animals. I am not going to mention all that again. I have stated my position time and again like many other Members.
I have no reason to doubt the Minister's seriousness in this regard. We are legislating for what I think is a savage and cruel practice, the taking of an animal such as the hare out of its natural habitat and putting it into a very unnatural environment. Deputy Dukes's amendment is important and mentions the feeding of the hares, their general condition and health in the time prior to the coursing meeting. If we are to legislate for what is to be done to this unfortunate animal, the least we can do is ensure that it only happens once to that animal, that once the hare is coursed it is marked and released and that it never happens to it again. I do not find even that acceptable, but it is the very least that should be done.
The second part of amendment No. 14 reads:
"(vii) the media and the fee paying public shall have access to all coursing meetings.".
I framed that part of the amendment arising out of my experience of attending a coursing meeting in Ballymore. The reason I went was to be able to say I had attended a meeting. I would never go to one again after what I saw there.
The event I attended was a local one, it was not a high profile meeting. It was a very wet day and I sat in the car at the sideline watching the hares being released. As each hare was released I got out of the car to see precisely what happened. I slipped up by not marking my race card after each race. I was in rain gear and was not easily recognisable — maybe I should have worn a tie.
Before long the car was approached by a group of men who asked my companion and I who we were and what we wanted. I said I was watching a coursing meeting. I discovered that this is not permissible. Their attitude was that only members of the coursing fraternity may watch a coursing meeting. The asked me to leave and I refused. They verbally abused me, and then said they would have to call a meeting of the committee decide what to do with me.
They obviously had their committee meeting because when they came back reason prevailed. The suggested that I might present the cup to the owner of the winning dogs. That was the light side of the incident.
When I was driving out of the coursing field the original attitude returned and other people who were not on the committee but who had heard that I was there approached the car and abused me verbally in very vicious terms. They told me what they thought of me and where they though I should be at that time instead of watching them.
The Minister got some publicity in the Irish Press of Monday, October 11. Under a photograph of the Minister was the heading, “Row Over Public Right to Attend Hare Coursing.” Like me, other members of the Irish Council against Bloodsport who go along to observe as members of the public have been verbally abused and physically assaulted. They were not lucky enough to have the limited protection of being a Member of the Dáil. Court procedings may result from the incident reported in the Irish Press.
On coursing cards there is quite often a reminder that photography is not permitted. The Mafia-like control of these meetings when people who are doing no harm turn up to see what is going on but are not there as part of a coursing club are ejected must be got rid of. I do not know why it occurs. If our task is to clean up coursing and introduce proper regulations, the least that should be done is to open these meetings to the law-abiding members of the public on payment of £3 or however much it might be, so they can attend without running the risk of being attacked or verbally belittled and then ejected.
I presume as the amendment is in order we must have some function and powers in this regard in the context of different regulations. If all of these regulations are implemented the meetings should be open to public scrutiny. The media should be able to attend unhindered and if people want to take photographs they should be able to do so. If the general public or members of anti-bloodsports organisations want to observe whether conditions and regulations are being complied with they should be permitted to do so. The Minister should seriously consider both amendments.
Deputy Dukes's amendment aims to see that the hare is cared for in a proper way. I do not think it is possible to care for the hare once the hare is taken out of its natural habitat. The herding of the hare into scapes, the way it is fed and the way disease can spread seems to be an abuse of a little animal in the interests of what is called sport. Deputy Deenihan and other Members know more about it than I. The whole scene is sick. The regulations just about cover up for all our guilt in not taking a decision that this type of activity is no longer part of modern civilised states and should be completely banned. Given that that has not been possible and that the Dáil, for whatever reason, voted against banning it outright, we must have very stringent regulations and we must supervise them properly. It is not good enough to leave it to the control stewards of the Irish Coursing Club, to say that they will look after it. They will not look after it.
Deputy Dukes's amendment is very important. I debated the athletic ability of the hare on Second Stage and I do not intend to go into the same detail now. Most of the time a hare will get the better of any greyhound in the wild. The hare has extraordinary stamina because of the size of its heart in comparison to its body weight. It also has a tremendous pair of back legs which enable it to accelerate from a standing position to almost full speed. It can turn at right angles and if the playing pitch was level, most of the time, muzzle or no muzzle, the hare would excape. Unfortunately, that is not the case in most instances. Whereas the dog is well fed and pampered, the poor hare is usually only there to be used. My message to the coursing fraternity is that the hare is more important than the dog if this sport is to survive and I think that message is getting home to them now. They must look after the hare as much as they look after the dogs if they want to ensure the survival of coursing here.
If anyone walked over fields where hares live and roam it would be easy for them to accept that hares will never lie on wet ground. They will always be on the fences in wet fields otherwise they would be uncomfortable. The same applies in a paddock where they are kept in captivity. Unless the paddock is well drained and there are places for the hares to shelter and keep warm, the hare in captivity will lose much of its athleticism and health rapidly. By the time it is coursed it will have lost much of its natural advantages. That is why some reference should be made to the way paddocks are kept, that they should be well drained and have proper shelter
With regard to feeding, if four pans of oats are given to 100 hares they might be dominated by four jack hares, for example, who would keep all the others away from the food with the result that the others could go unfed. Besides, because of their eating habits, if the hares do not finish the tray of oats or vegetables, they usually destroy the remainder with the result that the other hares will not eat what is left. It is vitally important that feeding is organised in such a way that all hares will get an opportunity to feed. There are various ways this can be done. For example, Abbeyfeale Coursing Club use a system where they have about 70 feeding points for about 100 hares so that no hare will dominate any one feeding point. In addition, they suspend the sheaf of oats so that the hares can knock the grain off making it as close as possible to how they behave in the wild.
The predominant disease among hares is coccidiosis which can travel like wildfire among a community of hares because of their habit of eating their own excreta. This increases the level of contamination and the rapidity with which bacteria will multiply in the hares. A whole colony of hares could be destroyed overnight with coccidiosis. The people looking after the hares may not be aware of it. After a few days it manifests itself in certain ways but a hare that is diseased and is coursed is at a disadvantage. That is why it is so important that veterinary inspections should be made on a continuous basis. The health of a hare when it is taken from captivity should be checked and analysed to see that the hare is healthy. It should be monitored on a continuous basis over a period.
There is a system whereby coccidiosad is put in jars of water which are placed where the hares can drink out of them— it is important that there should be a proper water supply — but the problem here is that a hare could contaminate the water by washing in the water with the result that the other hares will not touch it. That is why the health of the hare is so important and it is something the Minister should look at carefully. If he cannot regulate for it he should at least insert an addendum to the regulations to give some guidance as to how hares should be kept and looked after.
Familiarisation with the ground where the event is to take place is done in a number of ways. One-dog courses are one way of doing it and another is where the dogs are trained. People beat the ground behind the hares to make them familiar with the escapes and so on. It is important that trials are not abused. They should be used to make hares familiar with the ground over which they will be coursed and the intention should be a familiarisation process for the hare as well as a schooling session for the dog. They should certainly not be used as an opportunity to give the dog a kill so as to give it an appetite for the coursing meeting.
Deputy Gregory's amendment is vitally important for the credibility of the coursing fraternity. When hares have been coursed once they should be allowed their freedom. This is important for the continuity of the hare coursing business because, as was said, wherever there is coursing there will be hares. Coursing cannot survive without hares and, therefore, it is in the interests of the coursing fraternity to ensure that there is a good supply of hares. As we are also now concerned about the number of hares killed, it is in the interests of the coursing fraternity that they have healthy hares that will escape 99 times out of 100 and with the muzzling there will be fewer kills. There will be a stronger breed of hare if hares are continuously released into the wild. In order to ensure the future of the hares when a hare is coursed once it is allowed its freedom and thereby ensure a stronger strain of hare.
These amendments would add considerably to the Bill and give it more credibility. I regret that the Minister did not accept some of the good amendments proposed although I know that his hands may be tied. However, he may have more latitude in relation to the two amendments before us. They do not amount to much of a change so I would ask the Minister to seriously consider them.
I find Deputy Gregory's amendment regarding the media and the fee paying public unnecessary because once this legislation is passed the mystique or the attraction of coursing meetings will have almost disappeared and they will not attract the same level of publicity we have seen up to now. If one was to look at coursing meetings from the point of view of the organisers, the media have not been friends to them in the way they have portrayed the events. If I was involved in running one I would be anxious to keep people like Deputy Gregory at bay. I do not think I would be too happy to see him coming because I would not feel that he would——
There would be something to hide in other words?
It has been a contentious sport and the fact that the Minister——
The Deputy would be ashamed of it in other words.
I am not a member of a coursing club and I am not here to defend them, but the Deputy has misrepresented coursing clubs and the way they carry on their sport. If the coursing clubs were as irresponsible as Deputy Gregory said the sport would not have survived and we would not have the number of hares we have here.
On a point of clairfication, how many coursing meetings are held each year? There is a major financial matter to be taken into consideration in relation to some of these amendments and the supervision element.
I often watched a television programme called "Amuigh faoin Spéir" some years ago and if that is ever screened again Deputy Deenihan could present it. His contribution was very informative.
Thank you.
I am disappointed that this debate was used to attack and question the integrity of paid officials, ordinary working people, trying to do a day's work. Deputy Gregory called into question the control stewards of the ICC. When the Deputy refers to them he is referring to people like Frank Byrne of Carrick-on-Suir, who is not here to defend himself, Michael Falvey from Navan, James Gillespie from Bally-bofey——
The Deputy should refrain from naming people.
Those remarks are out of order.
Advertising is not normally a feature of these discussions.
With all due respects to Deputy Dukes who is so smart, the integrity of those people has been called into question. They are not here to defend themselves. They are paid officials——
The Minister is here to put a Bill through Committee Stage.
——of the ICC who work in Shelbourne Park, and other dog tracks as well as in coursing fields. Deputy Gregory owes them an apology and he should withdraw what he said unless he has evidence to back it up. Like much of what he said, the Deputy's arguments are based on hearsay. The people in rural Ireland are involved in coursing clubs are neither uncivilised or in the Mafia. I am sick listening to the Deputy's throw-away remarks about people who are not here to defend themselves. It is unfair——.
The Deputy is here to defend them.
The Deputy seems to know a great deal about the Mafia for some reason.
The Mafia are not here to defend themselves either. If they are associated with Deputy Gregory they are finished.
The amendment, which states that "the media and the fee paying public shall have access to all coursing meetings", means that the organisers will have no say about who goes to their coursing meetings. If Deputy Gregory's amendment was accepted those who were disqualified under section 45 of the 1958 Act could not be refused entry on paying their £4 at the gate. Undesirables like pickpockets occasionally attend meetings and are turned away when the gardaí find out who they are. Are we saying to the coursing club organisers that they must admit such people and have no right to refuse entry? Every organisation has the right to refuse admission to people and the day we take that right away will be a poor day.
With regard to Deputy Fitzgerald's point about entry to meetings, there has been a difficulty with this even for those who take a balanced approach to the issue. The fact remains that photographers, reporters and media people who are in pursuit of stories and are identified as being there for a specific purpose would generally not be admitted to meetings. Likewise, if they go, for example, to a boxing match——
They all cannot be pickpockets.
Somebody else said that, not me. Boxing excites many pro and anti views but nobody stands at the door of a boxing match and says, "you cannot come in here with a camera". There has been that problem with regard to coursing. Obviously it takes into account the fact that a picture is as good as a thousand words. If a photograph of a kill appears in the press it makes a statement and that may not be in the interest of the coursing fraternity. That is part of the problem. If the issue is to be cleaned up, as I consistently advocated, anybody who is prepared to abide by the rules that might apply should be entitled to enter a coursing meeting as would be the case if a newspaper or television reporter wished to cover an All-Ireland final or inter-county match. If photographs cannot be taken at coursing meetings there is still a problem as something is happening that the organisers do not want to be recorded. I cannot understand why, in the area I come from, the coursing fraternity would not want such a photograph to be taken. It is a problem that coursing must overcome.
With regard to the health of the hare and veterinary supervision, if a hare is taken from the wild the facilities so eloquently referred to by Deputy Deenihan must be provided. For the life of me I cannot see every coursing meeting in the country providing such facilities. It is unlikely that the more rural meetings in parishes where I come from would give that level of care and attention to the hares. Deputy Deenihan said it should be given. He is of the opinion that such care is not always given which is why he made such a strong case.
A hare is taken from the wild and put into a pen or whatever such contraptions for enclosure are called. The hare is a sensitive animal and fear obviously drives it from one side of the coursing field to the other when pursued by the greyhounds. I would therefore imagine that in the enclosure, once the hounds arrive on the scene, the hare smells them and is struck by fear. An animal does not operate to maximum efficiency when filled with fear and terror. The capture of the hares, their enclosure and the nearness of the greyhounds militate against the hare operating at its best.
The problem for the hare is that it is taken from its natural environment. It must be sensible enough to head for a certain exit in the enclosed coursing facility. The natural ditches, pathways, small enclosures of the wild which the hares know so well are not there. When a hare is chased in a field it will always go in one direction unless there is an obstruction. One can see the paths they have worn through fields, across hedgerows and along ditches. That is familiar territory to the hare and it is where they excel in escaping from the greyhound. Taken from there and put in the enclosed coursing area they are at an immediate disadvantage. That is why there have been a significant number of kills at coursing meetings in certain areas. Constant supervision of hares by a veterinary surgeon is important.
In my Second Stage speech I said it would be better to have two veterinary surgeons rather than one because as professionals they must abide by a certain code of ethics. However, decisions could be affected if a veterinary surgeon is involved in coursing because it may not be popular to cancel a coursing meeting. I am not suggesting veterinary surgeons would do this, but I would prefer two opinions, rather than one. I would be happy if a veterinary surgeon or wildlife officer was not involved in coursing, particularly as far as this section is concerned.
An bhfuil a fhios agat cén t-am atáimid ag críochnú?
Ag 10.30.
I am not getting co-operation. I am prepared to stay here all night to finish this Bill.
We have much work to do and I am prepared to stay tonight to finish the Committee Stage because that is what we should do. If Deputies were more conscious of the time element we would not have Second Stage countributious on every amendment.
Can we sit tomorrow?
We can, but all Members will not be available tomorrow. I am trying to facilitate everyone. I am available tomorrow, on Thursday and on Friday.
All Members are not present.
That is why we should try to finish tonight.
As Deputies are aware, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has a monitoring committee which has representation from the Office of Public Works. It has been represented at all the coursing meetings, except one, this season. A reasonable level of shelter, feeding and veterinary supervision was in evidence at each of these meetings.
A vote has been called in the Dáil and this creates a problem because we must report to the Dáil next Tuesday. We could reconvene after the vote.
How long will it take to finish Committee Stage because the amendments have been moved?
All the amendments have been discussed. We have two amendments left, in the names of the Minister and Deputy Dukes.
The Minister's amendment has been moved.
I suggest we reconvene after the vote.
There should be no advertising for absent friends.
I ask Members to return as quickly as possible after the vote.
Sitting suspended at 10.25 p.m. and resumed at 10.45 p.m.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Amendment No. 14 has been discussed with amendment No. 12.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, paragraph (a), between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(vi) the supervision by a veterinary surgeon or Wildlife Officer of the release of the hares into the wild (and not on the preserve of any coursing club) after each Coursing Meeting, having been marked so that they may not be recoursed,
(vii) the media and the fee paying public shall have access to all coursing meetings.".
Has the Minister any comments on the amendment?
These three amendments deal with matters that are more proper to the regulations. Regarding the specific point on entry to greyhound meetings by the paying public, such a provision would be in conflict with section 47 of the 1958 Act which entitles Bord na gCon or the club to make exclusion orders. We cannot deny the right of a private organisation to refuse admission if they have reasonable grounds for doing so. My main point to Deputy Gregory is that it is in conflict with the 1958 Act.
I am more concerned about the supervision of the release of the hares. Could the Minister give some indication as to what he is likely to decide in the context of the regulations?
We have had representation at all meetings, except one, to date. When we have received the full reports a review will be undertaken in the context of what regulations are necessary. With the experience of the year behind us we will undertake a better job on the regulations when they come our way.
I could go over some of the points that have been raised, but I do not consider that would be fruitful at this stage. Essentially, we are going to treat this matter of regulations in the context of the monitoring committee having a presence at the coursing meetings throughout the season, taking into account the reports we receive and the recommendations of the monitoring committee.
May I ask the Minister to give a straight answer to this question, does he feel it is necessary that the release of the hares after each coursing meeting should be independently supervised?
This is a contentious point. The release has to be supervised by a control steward of the ICC and this is also a condition of the licence from the Office of Public Works for netting. I would prefer to respond to the point raised by the Deputy after I receive the report from the monitoring committee at the end of the season.
What facility will the select committee have to get the Minister's response to that?
We have to be practical in what we do. We will have a close look at what has happened during the season. Our objective is to eliminate the kill in coursing, to improve veterinary controls and to reduce cruelty. I cannot spell out to the Deputy the detail of the regulations we will be introducing. Those regulations will be based on the independent observation of officers of the Department at all coursing meetings. We have missed one meeting, but the objective is that we be represented at all coursing meetings.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 15 has been discussed with amendment No. 11.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 4, paragraph (b), to delete lines 5 and 6 and substitute the following:
"‘event' means an event forming an item at an authorised coursing meeting of such kind as the Minister may specify in the regulations, and".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.