Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Dukes. I observe that amendment No. 8 is related and suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 8 together. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will wait a moment for the Deputy who may be on his way.
Private Members' Business. - Greyhound Industry (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages.
Perhaps Deputy Molloy may wish to move the amendment for him.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"2.—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 Minister is aware of my views on this matter as I elaborated on them extensively on Committee Stage. I had hoped that before Report Stage the Minister would have accepted the arguments made to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may" in order to place a legal requirement on the Minister to implement the provisions of the Bill. The Bill states that the Minister may do certain things, but that wording is unsatisfactory. I hope the Minister will at this late stage accept my amendment.
Like Deputy Molloy, I made as strong an argument as possible on this matter on Committee Stage. This Bill proposes to introduce certain measures, yet the wording states that the Minister "may" introduce these measures. This is a very nondescript way of wording any Bill. In response to my attempt to ban coursing the Minister gave a commitment to bring in certain regulations which he felt would eliminate the kill, reduce cruelty and clean up this whole murky activity, but the Bill does not state that he "shall" do any of these things; it states that he may do so. The implication of this wording is that in one year's time or four years' time another Minister may undo these things. It makes a nonsense of the Bill not to accept this amendment. If the Minister is intent on introducing these measures he should state in the Bill that he shall bring in regulations.
The purpose of amendment No. 1 is a little different from that of amendment No. 8 even though they are linked in a very obvious way. In amendment No. 1 I propose to insert an appropriate provision in section 5 (4) of the principal Act so that regulations made by the Minister under this legislation would go through the normal parliamentary process. That subsection provides that regulations made by Bord na gCon under the Act have to be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas in the normal way.
We had a lengthy discussion on this matter on Committee Stage and although the Minister went to some length explaining it the burden of his reply was that it would be nonsensical to put this provision into the Bill because the only thing the Oireachtas can do under that procedure is accept or reject the regulations. The Government appears to have contempt for the democratic system because on the only occasion regulations came before the House which Members wished to debate the Government would not make time available to do so. This attitude on the Government's part makes me deeply suspicious.
The purpose of my amendment is simply to apply the same procedure to regulations made by the Minister under this Bill as applies under the principal Act to regulations to be made by the board. The Minister thinks it would be ridiculous if, having passed this Bill into law, we were to give ourselves the option of changing our minds. He may or may not wish to maintain that argument, but that procedure is available to the House to deal with regulations of this kind.
I wish, as perhaps does the Minister, although I have not heard him make this case, the House would have the option of proposing amendments to regulations rather than simply accepting or rejecting them. That would make much more sense than the present procedure. However, I did not hear the Minister of State, or any other member of the Government, making a proposal to that effect. The Minister of State said he wants the regulations made by the Minister under this Bill to be put in a different and privileged category from other regulations. None of the reasons given by the Minister on Committee Stage is sufficient for doing so. I ask the Minister to reflect on this provision. If the Oireachtas took the view when the principal Act was passed in 1958 that regulations made by the board should be brought before the House, what is different about the regulations to be made by the Minister? If the Oireachtas takes the view, as it does, that this House should have the option of looking at all regulations made under legislation and either accepting or rejecting them what is so different about this Bill that this special privilege or immunity should apply to the regulations made under it?
I think the Minister will agree that nothing he said on Committee Stage in any way justifies a departure in this case from the hallowed procedure which has been laid down in this House in regard to regulations. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say that since the Bill will be passed anyway there is no point including in it a provision which will enable him to change his mind and decide to reject certain things.
The Minister should take his courage in his hands, do the democratic thing and adhere to normal parliamentary procedures, limited as they are, and accept this amendment. By accepting this amendment he will not damage the Bill, his personal position, the status of his Department in this great public service of ours or be neglecting any advice he may get from the Attorney General. Rather he will be doing a very small thing to maintain the principle of parliamentary democracy, which I am told his party accepts. The Minister should not be led into rejecting this principle for the very short term, expedient reasons he gave on Committee Stage. I invite the Minister, in all openness and frankness, to accept this amendment in the knowledge that in it there is no trap, snare, delusion or denial of anything he wants to do. Rather he will be ensuring the proper establishment of parliamentary procedures in so far as this Bill is concerned.
The Minister made his position on amendment No. 1 clear on Committee Stage. It appears that the only question which could be put to the House is whether the requirement that greyhounds be muzzled should be rejected. As I understand it, that is what Deputy Dukes is seeking to do — it is the only change which can be made. I do not think this would be the wish of anybody. Therefore, I do not understand the reasoning behind this amendment.
With regard to amendment No. 8, obviously some Deputies do not know about the new regulations on muzzling which have been put in place by the Irish Coursing Club since the beginning of the coursing season. Under these regulations greyhounds have had to wear muzzles since the end of September last. The regulations state:
The muzzling of greyhounds shall be introduced as and from the commencement of the 1993-1994 season. Greyhounds shall be muzzled in the semi-finals and finals of all stakes. Such muzzled coursing will be monitored and the situation will be reviewed after a period of four to six weeks.
A monitoring committee set up to review the use of muzzles has been very effective to date. The regulations continue:
Initially, muzzles for each greyhound will be allotted by the Control Steward on the day.
The Control Steward will ensure that each greyhound is wearing its correct collar and muzzle. These will again be checked by the Slip Steward. In the event of any dispute with the Slip Steward regarding the collars or the fitting of the muzzle, the Control Steward shall be the final arbiter.
The club shall appoint a person or persons to retrieve the muzzles from the greyhounds after each course and return them to the Control Steward.
It shall be a condition of entry in each stake that greyhounds participating in the semi-finals and finals of all stakes shall be required to wear muzzles until further notice.
The requirement that greyhounds wear muzzles until further notice was put forward as a result of the monitoring of their effectiveness. On 11 November a further directive was issued to all coursing clubs by the executive committee of the Irish Coursing Club. This directive stated that all greyhounds running in coursing trials should be muzzled and that the type of muzzle used should be to the satisfaction of the officers of the club holding such trials. In addition, all dogs and bitches running in Derby and Oaks trial stakes would have to wear muzzles as and from the first round. As I understand it, as and from early January it will be compulsory for dogs running in the first round of all events to wear muzzles.
I do not see what more the Minister can do at this stage to improve the position in regard to muzzling. The muzzling of greyhounds is being monitored by a committee. It may not be necessary, having monitored the situation this season, for the Minister to introduce any regulations in regard to muzzling. However, changes may be recommended in regard to the quality of the muzzle used and the other aspects dealt with in section 3 which amends section 36 of the principal Act.
The Minister's job in regard to muzzling has been made extremely easy by the Irish Coursing Club which had the foresight to eliminate an aspect of coursing which was unacceptable to many people. The point was made very forcibly by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Shea, last June that it was his intention to eliminate the kill from coursing. Many steps have been taken down this road already this year and I believe the elimination of the problems highlighted during the debate last June, and earlier this month, will enable coursing to go from strength to strength. For that reason I do not see why we need waste any more time on this section.
As I said on Committee Stage, it is vital that the word "shall" be included in this section so as to ensure that no questions will arise about the Minister's intentions in this regard. While I compliment the Irish Coursing Club on the regulations it has introduced in regard to muzzling, nevertheless there are no guarantees about what will happen in the future. Therefore it is necessary for the Minister to bring any regulations regarding muzzling before this House. If this legislation is to have any credibility with the people who are concerned about the kill aspect in coursing, this amendment will have to be inserted. I appeal to the Minister to accept this important amendment.
I would like to deal with amendment No. 8 first. What is at issue here is whether the Minister should have any discretion in the making of the proposed regulations. For instance, Deputy Deenihan suggested that regulations in regard to muzzling should be introduced immediately. I do not believe that is the proper way to approach this issue. What is taking place in the coursing fields this year, by agreement with the Irish Coursing Club and on a voluntary basis, is experimentation with the use of muzzles. A leather muzzle was used initially which did not prove successful and a plastic muzzle is now being used.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry set up a monitoring committee which was represented at all coursing meetings. As I said during the select committee meeting last week, we are independently monitoring what is taking place at coursing meetings. At the end of the coursing season we will examine the types of muzzles that have been used, how the various veterinary controls are implemented and so on. That is the appropriate time to draft the necessary regulations, not immediately. Rushing legislation through this House is not beneficial; it must be carefully examined. In many cases two minds are better than one and that is how we should proceed. I do not accept the wording "the Minister shall immediately introduce regulations". Indeed, if one is using the word "shall", it must be indicated by what date the Minister shall introduce the regulations.
On a small point of information, if we are doing this by amendment to an Act that is already on the Statute Book, the introduction of the word "shall" means that it occurs immediately. The obligation is already there since the Act to which the amendment is being made is already on the Statute Book. The word "shall" becomes operative immediately. That is why there is no provision in this Bill to bring the Bill into operation by a particular date.
I disagree with the Deputy. The word "shall" standing alone does not mean that it will be done by 1 January or 1 February. It does not specify——
But if it is being done by amendment to an existing Act, "shall" means that it will be done now.
I have already explained why I believe that is the inappropriate way of progressing. I believe the Minister should have discretion and I am not convinced by the Deputy's arguments, which I have genuinely considered. I indicated on Second Stage that this legislation was not cast in stone. I want to get the best possible legislation through the House and through the Seanad, where this Bill will go tomorrow.
I wish to point out also that most Acts passed by the Oireachtas in recent years have allowed Ministers to retain this discretion, including the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, 1992, which was championed by the present Leader of Deputy Molloy's party. We must be consistent in what we present to the House and I see no reason on this occasion to introduce the word "shall" rather than the word "may". Where, in my judgment, such regulations are necessary I can assure the House that I will act with the utmost speed to introduce them. Therefore, I cannot accept that particular amendment.
Deputy Dukes has put forward an amendment we dealt with at the select committee which essentially seeks to extend to the Minister the powers given to Bord na gCon in the 1958 Act. I put it to Deputy Dukes that in the context of sport — some people will say coursing is not a sport, but that is not an issue we should become involved in now — it is important that there is as little outside interference as possible and that should be the case in industry also. This Bill and the further legislation which will be introduced will provide the framework for the greyhound industry to progress. At that stage the Government will have appointed a new board that will not be in power for five years, as has been the position heretofore, but will operate on a three year basis with two places on that board coming up for renewal each year. We must be absolutely sure that the board is working effectively because the bottom line is what can be achieved for the industry.
Governments do not run sports, they do not run industry either, with the exception of some areas. That point must be made. Legislation goes through this House and the Seanad, a board is appointed and that board gets on with the job. It was not envisaged in the 1958 Act that the Minister would be making regulations. A particular difficulty arose when I came into office and had to be dealt with. The task force had been set up by the Minister last year to deal with the three areas I mentioned previously, namely, the declining attendances at tracks, the control of the industry and coursing. Having examined coursing thoroughly, I came to the conclusion that the problem with regard to coursing would not be solved by going from one extreme to the other; one extreme being the outright abolition of coursing and the other being to maintain the status quo. The eventual solution was one which I believe met the legitimate concerns of the majority of people in regard to the most unacceptable aspect of coursing, namely, the kill, and much has been achieved this year in that context.
Deputy Dukes made the point that there should be provisions in the Dáil whereby, for instance, we could amend regulations. I sympathise with that approach because I believe there should be accountability across the board, but I believe we are over-legislating in this regard. Let us look at this issue in its proper context. Some of the areas that are dealt with in regulations brought in by Bord na gCon are of great significance to the sport. For instance, the level of levies payable by licensed bookmakers on course bets. Bord na gCon would make regulations which would have to be presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of them. In addition the board has the power to make regulations for the control of the training of greyhounds for reward and the power to regulate the control of the holding and conduct of public sales of greyhounds. Those issues have a great impact on the sport generally.
The Statutory Instruments Act, 1947 places an obligation on the Minister to lay any such regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Therefore, it should clearly be seen that these regulations would be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas and under the 1958 Act, we can only annul those regulations. The Bill states that the Minister may bring in regulations. It is pushing credibility too far to say that the Minister could make regulations that would be of such moment in terms of their unsuitability or inappropriateness that, first, if there were to be a Dáil vote on them either the Government would have to provide time or the Opposition parties or an Opposition party would have to take up the matter in Private Member's time.
If there was widespread disagreement with the regulations the pragmatic thing for the Government to do would be to instruct the Minister for Agriculture of the day to amend them. That is what would happen in practice. If the Opposition parties, or an Opposition party, felt very strongly about the inappropriateness or otherwise of the regulations they have the option of taking appropriate action in Private Members' time.
Is the Minister of State that long out of Opposition? How soon one forgets. Is the Minister saying that in the legislation he intends to introduce he will relieve Bord na gCon of the obligation to bring regulations before the House?
Deputy Dukes is being disorderly. I would remind him that we are on Report Stage.
I know the Minister would like to enlighten me on this.
That question is rather ridiculous.
Deputy Dukes, the Minister is in possession.
Is he saying that the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947 apply that these regulations have to go before the House anyway? If that is what the Minister of State is saying — I am not sure I would agree with him — he can save his breath.
The Minister of State without interruption.
Deputy Dukes is well aware that I am addressing his amendment and referring to regulations that could be brought in under the provisions of this Bill by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
Is the Minister going to deregulate everything next year? Is that what he is saying?
That is totally illogical and does not merit a response.
Please, Deputy, the Minister without interruption.
There will be no muzzles the next time.
That is an extraordinary statement.
It is not.
In order to annual regulations there are two things that can happen. If the Opposition choose to go that road they will have to use Private Members' time to do so, or obtain Government time.
We know that this Government will not give time anyway because, any time we have asked, they would not.
Is there any point in my talking?
I must ask Deputy Dukes to desist from interrupting. The Minister is in possession and is endeavouring to respond.
He is making an awful meal of it, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Is Deputy Dukes willing to listen? If for instance the Minister were to agree to his amendment, unless the Opposition can obtain Government time they have got to use Private Members' time.
What is the position if the Government does not give time?
I explained to Deputy Dukes what I believe to be the practical position in relation to a Government.
All a Government has to decide is to give the time. That would probably take less time than the Minister of State is taking.
Had I not been interrupted so often I might have dealt with the matter more quickly.
The Minister of State had a clear run for 20 minutes but is still making a dog's dinner of this.
I will attempt one more time to explain the matter to Deputy Dukes.
Do not, please.
I will explain the matter to the House, and I hope I will be given the chance this time without interruption.
It is inconceivable that a Government would use its time to resolve a situation such as this. I believe a Government would direct its Minister for Agriculture to deal with the matter. On the other hand, it is also inconceivable that Private Members' time of an Opposition party would be used for it.
As we are on Report Stage, strictly speaking I must call the mover of the amendment to conclude the debate. Deputy Molloy moved the amendment on behalf of Deputy Dukes in his absence. Therefore, I must call Deputy Molloy.
I do not wish to delay the House very much longer other than to say that I find the approach of the Minister of State astonishing, not just his refusal to accept the amendments tabled to this Bill. I am thinking more of his rejection of the principle enshrined in the two amendments we have been discussing. It is extraordinary that the House has before it a Bill which gives effect to the widely expressed views on greyhound racing expressed in the course of a debate in June last on greyhound racing, when the desire of the House was clearly expressed that some measures should be introduced to remove the kill in the coursing of greyhounds. The solution to that was the introduction of a requirement that all greyhounds being coursed would have to wear muzzles.
Under the provisions of the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958 Bord na gCon is given very wide-ranging powers to govern the greyhound industry here and has the power to make regulations. Those regulations must be placed before the Dáil. Any Member of the Dáil may seek to have those regulations annulled if he or she so wishes; that is established practice in relation to many regulations. In many cases it would be preferable if the Dáil were required to pass a motion but, if that were accepted in all cases, there would be a plethora of regulations which would take up an inordinate amount of time of the House. The practice has been that the House has the opportunity and right, if it so decides, if it does not like or agree with the regulations, to vote against them and annul them.
Deputy Dukes' amendment proposes that, now with the Bill before the House giving the Minister power to make regulations with regard to the muzzling of greyhounds, the same requirement would apply to any regulations he would make, as applies under the 1958 Act to regulations made by Bord na gCon. It is extraordinary that the Minister is refusing that request.
It is also extraordinary that the Minister is refusing the amendment tabled by Deputy Gregory and myself which seeks to insert the word "shall" because the whole purpose of introducing this Bill was to place a requirement on the greyhound industry to make it compulsory that greyhounds should wear muzzles during coursing. For a member of the Labour Party to tell us that the Irish Coursing Club will now introduce their own rules that greyhounds must wear muzzles is a very weak argument indeed. Such regulations would have no legal standing, no statutory authority, they would be just an internal arrangement of the Irish Coursing Club in relation to the running of its affairs which it could just as easily change next week. The House expressed very strong views on this matter and the least the House might expect is that the Bill the Minister is asking the House to accept should require this by way of statute. He could have these powers and use them if he so wished. That is an insult and it is not reflecting the desire of the House as expressed during the earlier debate.
One has to question the Minister's motives in regard to this matter. Why is the Minister so reluctant to accept the amendment? Surely he agrees that this is merely an amendment of an existing Act and would only come into operation after the House has passed it, when the Minister so decides. He would have his regulations, which can be amended by him at a later stage, in place by then. The arguments he put forward are very weak and are not convincing. Obviously, the Minister listened to these arguments at the committee but rejected them and is continuing to reject them.
This is a sad indication of the Minister's and the Government's attitude to the House and to legislation. It certainly indicates a different approach by Labour Party Members than that adopted by them in Opposition, which, is perhaps an indication of something else. This is a retrograde step and I am disappointed that the Minister is not accepting the arguments put forward.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies E. Kenny and Browne(Carlow-Kilkenny); Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly).
Amendment declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Molloy. I observe that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are alternatives to amendment No. 2 and that amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related to amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I am suggesting, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together.
For the information of the House, if amendment No. 2 is negatived amendments Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, to delete lines 12 to 18 and substitute the following:
"(2) (a) The Minister shall make regulations to provide for the appointment of nine ordinary members of Bord 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 one member.".
The effect of my amendment is to introduce a section into the Bill which will make it mandatory on the Minister to give representation on the board of Bord na gCon to certain bodies which are involved at different levels in the administration of the greyhound industry. The amendment proposes:
The Minister shall make regulations to provide for the appointment of nine ordinary members of Bord 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 one member.
I found the Minister's comments on the provisions for the appointment of the board members of Bord na gCon quite extraordinary. The Greyhound Industry Act lays down provision for the appointment of its members and requires that three of them be from the executive of the Irish Coursing Club. He said that should be changed in order to remove "unnecessary restrictions on the Minister when appointing a new board".
In recent years the principle has been accepted by all parties in this House that when it comes to appointing people to State boards an attempt should be made to have mandatory representation on certain vocational groups where that is considered appropriate. That has happened in the case of a wide range of bodies that have been established by statute. It is the proposal of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to do the same thing in relation to a new horse board he is proposing to establish.
I made the argument in regard to this on Committee Stage and I have reduced the number to nine to see if that would provoke a response from the Minister. I would be happy if the Minister would indicate that he will accept the amendment but if he is going to take the stand which he took with regard to the earlier amendments, his approach will be very disappointing. His approach contrasts with the approach taken by the other Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, when we were dealing with the Animal Remedies Bill.
I do not know why a different attitude is being taken by the Labour Minister as this is a principle that Labour spokespersons have sought to enshrine in legislation in recent years. Now we find that it is the Labour Party who are anxious to remove any restrictions in regard to who could or could not be appointed to a State board, and they are sweeping everything out of the way in order to ensure that all the appointments to Bord na gCon will be ministerial appointments. That is a retrograde step and does not give us great hope that a more enlightened approach will be taken. By putting down the amendment I am giving the Minister the option to reconsider his earlier decision. I have reduced the number that was objectionable to him from 11 to nine but the principle I am proposing is the same.
I regret that on the earlier amendment the Minister mentioned that a Progressive Democrats' Minister of State who promoted the Environmental Protection Agency had done something similar to what he is doing in this Bill, in other words provided that regulations may be made by the Minister rather than shall be made by the Minister. I went to the Library to get a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency Act but nobody was available there to make it available to me quickly. I spoke to the former Minister who brought that Act through the House and she assured me that in several instances she had put in the word "shall" in order to provide a statutory requirement that certain things be done. It is not appropriate that the Minister should seek to convey a different impression. It is clear that in the Environmental Protection Agency Act the principle I am proposing here for Bord na gCon is enshrined in relation to persons to be appointed to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The spirit of my amendment No. 4 is very much in line with Deputy Molloy's amendment No. 2. Deputy Molloy went to the trouble of reducing the number from 11, which he proposed on Committee Stage, to nine this evening. I support the principle of what Deputy Molloy is saying and his motivation for tabling the amendment. The more the debate on this Bill has gone on, the more I have to ask why this Bill is being taken on its own and why we are not being told more about the Government's intentions in the next Bill it will bring forward.
The Minister has argued that he wants freedom and latitude to appoint suitable persons to the board. I suppose we could take that at face value but, as Deputy Molloy has pointed out, that is not the argument that members of the Labour Party have been making in this kind of connection up to now, nor is it the kind of action that is being taken in the horse industry which is in competition with the greyhound industry to some extent.
The Minister has not satisfactorily explained why a different approach is required in relation to the horse industry than that being put forward here. I suspect that the Minister will say that there are pragmatic reasons for it but one cannot produce good, consistent legislation on the basis of pragmatic points of view. It may suit the kind of labyrinthine reasoning that the Minister seems to have got sucked into and that parliamentary draftsmen and attorneys general, and sometimes even the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry would put forward, but we have to understand the intention of what we are doing here.
I suspect, from what the Minister said on Committee Stage and earlier this evening, that he intends to do a number of things about the Irish Coursing Club in the next Bill for the greyhound industry which is to come before the Dáil and about which he is not telling us this evening. The Minister has not levelled with the Dáil although I suspect that he has a fairly clear idea of what he will do about the ICC in the next Bill. It is something that the Minister does not want to say now because it is something to which the ICC will object. It is for that reason that he wants the kind of latitude about which he is talking and why he has resisted our amendments which seek to maintain the right that is written into the 1958 Act for the Irish Coursing Club.
I will not go over all the ground I covered on Committee Stage except to say that there does not seem to be anything in the current situation of the industry that would change anything in the reasoning the Oireachtas applied in 1958 when it went to the trouble of writing a constitution for the Irish Coursing Club and including it as a schedule to the 1958 Act. Nothing the Minister has talked about on Second Stage, on Committee Stage or tonight justifies any change in the position of the ICC.
I wonder also if there is something more that the Minister is not telling us in relation to what he said about the last amendment. What the Minister is seeking to do in this section is something which most of the Labour Party would find appalling. The Minister is disposed to deregulate an industry and he is not telling us now because he wants to dump it on us in the next Bill that comes forward. Normally I would applaud this, but I question the Minister's reasons. I suspect that when the Minister presents the next Bill he will argue that he wants to loosen up the whole thing.
The Minister said earlier that some regulations should not be applied to sports. I am delighted to hear it. If the Minister is going to talk about deregulation, I would be delighted to hear it. However, the Labour Party will have to do a few more gymnastics to accommodate that, because on the last Bill which we discussed tonight they were absolutely against any kind of deregulation or liberty for operators. Where is the consistency or the principle there? The only principle the Labour Party seems to have these days is to do what is required to keep Fianna Fáil happy in order to stay in Government with them. I suspect that what the Minister is proposing to do about the Irish Coursing Club will not keep many members of Fianna Fáil very happy because they will be rightly suspicious of what he is trying to do. I have a fair notion that there are one or two members of the Labour Party who will not be too happy with what they see emerging in the next Bill for the Irish Coursing Club. One of them who is sitting here, Deputy Brian Fitzgerald, went to great lengths in the special committee on this to applaud and praise members of the Irish Coursing Club even going to the extraordinary length of naming people whom he singled out for special defence.
I am protecting them.
I am not so sure they will be happy about being specifically named for special defence by Deputy Fitzgerald.
Those people were named by other Members of this House.
They were not.
Deputy Gregory named them.
As Deputy Davern was not present, how would he know?
Deputy Gregory is again trying to be politically correct. Those people were named by Members of this establishment.
They were not named.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Dukes is in possession and must be allowed continue without interruption.
For once in my life I am saying something that will be half amenable to the ears of Deputy Davern. I am trying to make a ball for him to throw.
I was talking to Deputy Gregory.
I suspect Deputy Davern will not like what will come about for the Irish Coursing Club in the next Bill the Minister proposes to introduce.
I wish to make another point in regard to amendment No. 4 which the Minister does not seem to want to take on board. I want him to state clearly whether he intends to do anything about my suggestion that 40 per cent of places on State boards should be allocated to women. That principle is outlined in the Programme for a Partnership Government. I am disappointed that the "democratic leftovers" are not here to support me on this matter. Neither were they present when we debated this matter at the special committee. I tabled an amendment which provides that 40 per cent of the new board of nine people should be women. I made the point on Committee Stage and I will make it again here tonight that there should be no difficulty in living up to that gender balance in the Irish greyhound industry. We would not need Deputy Wallace's compendium of the top favourite 100 Fianna Fáil women around the country in our talent bank to do so because the industry could produce such persons without any difficulty. Even the Labour Party could accept many of them.
Will the Minister accept my proposals and say whether the Government takes that commitment seriously? I suspect he will give us all sorts of pragmatic reasons that cannot be done in this case. In effect, he will be saying that the Government does not intend doing anything worthwhile about adhering to that commitment.
The other amendments are consequential, but the test will be whether the Minister accepts either amendment No. 2 or amendment No. 4. If he does not he will clearly state that a Labour Minister wants an opportunity to appoint to the board people who are amenable to his way of thinking and confirm that more pain and suffering will be visited on the Irish Coursing Club in the next Bill the Minister proposes to introduce. If the Minister does not accept my amendments he will confirm my suspicions on both those matters.
If Deputy Dukes's forecasts are accurate I look forward to the introduction of the next Bill and if they so displease Deputies Davern and Fitzgerald it will not be all bad from my point of view.
The Minister went from one extreme to another in this legislation. Bord na gCon was dominated by the coursing community and the Irish Coursing Club has three of the seven nominees on the board. As I pointed out on Committee Stage, a study revealed that the seven members of Bord na gCon and also their top executives were deeply involved in coursing for many years.
The Minister referred to the dramatic decline in the greyhound industry which highlights the incompetence of those in charge during the past number of years. For that reason it is necessary that we change the method of appointing members to the new board. I am well aware that leaving it in the hands of a Minister can lead to abuse, not necessarily by the present Minister, but by future Ministers. I share Deputies' concerns in that regard. I also share the view of Deputy Molloy that an attempt should be made to embrace all aspects of the greyhound industry so that they are represented on Bord na gCon. Because of what I have seen members of the Irish Coursing Club oversee since its foundation, I would not appoint any of its members to that board. I accept the Minister intends appointing a number of members of the Irish Coursing Club to the new board, but I support Deputy Molloy's suggestion that only two of the nine should be members of that club.
On Committee Stage I referred to the control stewards of the Irish Coursing Club supervising the release of hares. I accept the Minister made a number of concessions in regard to my amendments, particularly in relation to trials and marking the hare when it is being released into the wild. However, he did not concede on the key element of who should supervise the regulations. If that is not catered for correctly and above suspicion and doubt, this Bill will be worthless. So long as the special committee monitors all coursing meetings everything will be done according to the rules, but that may not always be the case. My remarks on Committee Stage upset Deputy Fitzgerald to such an extent that he defended the control stewards by reading out their names, but Deputy Dukes correctly suggested he should stop.
In carrying out research I came across an editorial in the Greyhound News of February 1988 in which it was stated:
The message had come over loud and clear during the season that certain members of the ICC Executive and ICC Club Representatives are turning a blind eye to meetings that have been run off when they should have been stopped. True, it is a very difficult decision to make, especially as nearly all the labour in coursing meetings is on a voluntary basis and many a good relationship between neighbours has been severed by members of a committee not pulling together.
Unfortunately this season, and more than ever, the pressure is on to ban coursing and it has now reached the stage that committees must pull together; if the hares are weak or if a club is in trouble it must not be let run the meeting. Weather conditions can play havoc with hares and there are of course exceptions; but at least, if the Trial Stakes were taken away from the clubs that seem to offend all too frequently, it might encourage them to get their house in order.
That comment was included for the good reason that a blind eye was being turned to distasteful aspects of coursing which have been highighted by myself and other Members of this House. A warning was given at Clounanna three years later. I have no doubt that once this issue moves out of the limelight and coursing is again under the control of these people who for so long turned a blind eye to abuses, they will do precisely the same again.
The Minister is to introduce regulations under which hares will be released into the wild after coursing meetings. In this regard he has tabled an amendment under which hares will be marked. Who will supervise this procedure of marking and releasing hares into the wild?
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but he is making what might be construed as a Second Reading speech. Other Deputies are offering.
If these regulations are to be implemented there must be supervision by an independent body such as the wildlife officers, members of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry or veterinary surgeons. If the regulations are implemented — we are not sure that they will — veterinary surgeons will be present at each coursing meeting and I presume they have a code of ethics. I cannot see why provision cannot be made in the regulations for supervision by veterinary surgeons whereby they would oversee the procedure of marking the unfortunate hares before they are released into the wild. I hope the Minister will make provision for this in the regulations.
I support both amendments and appeal to the Minister to allow the ICC to be represented on the new board. I am sure Deputies Davern and Fitzgerald will support me in making this appeal. It is fair to say that the ICC is shattered and demoralised by the Minister's proposal. I appeal to him to take into consideration the fact that it has been devoted to the greyhound industry. As we are aware, the members of its executive committee have been democratically elected and represent the interests of owners, trainers and breeders. It also possesses expertise and knowledge which would be invaluable in setting up any new board. As I said, I hope the two Deputies to whom I have referred will support me in my appeal to the Minister at this late stage to consider both amendments on their merits and acknowledge the work done by the ICC during the years in the greyhound industry by allowing the members of the executive committee to be represented on the new board.
I support the point made by Deputy Dukes that there should be some women on the new board. Deputy Dukes suggested four. I would agree with that figure, given that women play a major role in the industry, both coursing and track, particularly when it comes to feeding and preparing dogs. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this proposal. If the new board is to have credibility and receive widespread support the Minister will have to consider the possibility of allowing the members of the executive committee of the Irish Coursing Club to be represented also and of including women on the new board. I have made this case on a number of occasions and appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter.
Time is fast running out. Perhaps the House should hear the Minister of State.
In response to Deputy Dukes, who argued that I had not levelled with the Dáil, the reasons this legislation is before us are, first, that if changes are to be made on the board this will have to be done before 31 December and, second, we want to avail of the opportunity to remove the ban on Sunday racing. The sections dealing with the muzzling of greyhounds and veterinary controls were included on foot of undertakings given in the Dáil earlier this year.
I will not be accepting these amendments. I would like to remind Deputies that up to 1958, when the Act was introduced, the Irish Coursing Club controlled coursing and track racing. It made sense at that time to reserve places for members of the ICC with expertise to ensure continuity. The Deputies should also bear in mind that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Greyhound Industry recommended that places should no longer be reserved for members of the ICC. Therefore I do not know what the Deputy is getting at.
I suggest to Deputy Molloy that when he visits the Library tomorrow he should look at section 6 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, under which the Minister has power to make regulations. In that section the word "may" is used rather than the word "shall".
There is more than one section in the Act.
We will have to appoint the best possible board. About 20 sections of the industry could legitimately seek representation on the new board.
They will have no say.
As it is now midnight I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments, other than amendment No. 15, set down by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Gallagher(Laoighis-Offaly); Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Question declared carried.