Before resuming the debate I tender the apologies of Deputy O'Malley who is engaged in campaigning for the European elections. I believe he was the subject of adverse criticism for not turning up here. In the circumstances I hope the Minister will accept his apology and allow all the amendments in his name to be pressed on Report Stage.
Irish Horseracing Industry Bill, 1994: Committee Stage (Resumed).
To be fair to Deputy Michael McDowell, I think it was indicated by the Ceann Comhairle this morning that unless a Member of Deputy O'Malley's party was here to move each amendment and then withdraw it for Report Stage, that might not happen. We should make that point clear to Deputy McDowell. I am not sure whether the logistics will allow for what he is requesting.
I am only asking for a bit of decency in present circumstances. It is well known that Deputy O'Malley probably has more experience than anybody else in this Chamber of the horseracing industry but he has a different priority at present.
——from the bookies' shop end.
Not only from the bookies' shop end. Surely anybody in his circumstances should be given some leeway on occasions such as this and not be the subject of back-stabbing in his absence.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 9:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 24, to delete "(1)" and substitute "(6)".
—(Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.)
We have already discussed this technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 27, to delete "connivance".
I should like to know how "connivance" could be proved when talking about an offence under this Bill since the subsection says that it would be an offence to commit, with the consent, connivance or approval of and so on. How does one prove connivance?
"Connivance" has a meaning, in this context, of silent assent; in other words, that the people in charge of or responsible for a company would know of the offence and allow it to continue. Of course, anybody prosecuted under the provisions of this section would first have to be found guilty in a court of law before any penalty could be imposed. This is a standard wording for which there is precedent in many sections of other Bills that go through this House. On that basis I oppose the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 11 in the names of Deputies Doyle and Dukes. Amendment No. 12 is related. Therefore it is suggested that they be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 9, line 2, after "section 3", to insert "11,".
This amendment purports to add section 11 to the section that deals with the laying of orders and regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 11 (1) reads:
The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by order—
confer additional functions on the Authority, and they are listed. I fail to understand why the Minister omitted section 11 from section 7 which deals with the laying of orders and regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Second, our amendment No. 12, subparagraph (2) states:
No order made under subsection (1) shall have effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Under section 11, an extremely important provision, by order and without any reference to the House, the Minister may confer additional functions on the Authority. This new authority could end up running the show without any need to seek the approval of this House. Section 11 should be part of section 7 — the provision concerned with the laying of orders and regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas — and be by affirmative order only, in other words that additional functions be given to this authority only by an affirmative order that will have to be laid before the House.
Part of amendment No. 12 reads:
No order varying or revoking an order made under this section (including an order under this subsection) shall have effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Minister will be aware that there has been considerable disquiet for some time concerning the amount of secondary legislation being enacted rather than coming into the Houses of the Oireachtas to be discussed by democratically elected Members. The number of times we resort to regulations to legislate must be questioned. This is part of being a member of the European Union. European legislation, such as directives and regulations, is being introduced through this procedure. We are increasing the democratic deficit if the Minister can confer additional functions on the new authority without an affirmative order coming before this House.
I ask the Minister to accept both amendments. Certainly amendment No. 12 must be part of section 7 because it is an order by the Minister, unless he wishes to act as a despot. I may trust the Minister's intentions but who knows who will be responsible for that Department in the future. It may be Deputy Rabbitte and where would we be if we did not have the control of the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas or, at the very least, the laying before the Houses of the Oireachtas any order, given his affection for the agricultural sector. My request is reasonable.
This section requires all orders or regulations made by the Minister and all regulations made by the Authority, under the Act, to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and either House may annul the order or regulation by passing a resolution to that effect within 21 days of its sitting after the order or regulation was laid before it. This requirement does not apply to orders made by the Minister relating to the establishment day, the bringing into operation of the parts of section 54 concerning the new levy on off course bets placed at an authorised racecourse and the bringing into operation of the new special licensing provision in Part IX of the Bill. I oppose this amendment on the basis that I will be opposing any amendment to section 11 and, in such circumstances, the need for this amendment does not arise.
Under amendment No. 12, Deputy Doyle proposes to amend section 11 substantially and has tabled a new section 11 with four subsections. The key changes are in subsections (2) and (3). The section deals with the power of the Minister to confer additional functions on the Authority by order. In its present form this order would be subject to section 7. This means that the order would be placed before the Oireachtas and either House would have the power to annul the order within the next 21 days on which they sit. The amendment proposed seeks to delete the annulling provision in section 7 and to amend section 11 so that an order, under that section, would not have effect until it is approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. That would defeat the purpose of the section.
I acknowledge what the Minister said but I cannot accept his reason for not accepting both amendments. Section 7 states:
Every order... made by the Minister (other than an order made under section 3, 54 (6) or 68 (2) ... shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas...
In other words by negative resolution. Under section 11, as amended, every order must be laid before the House. That is the reason I want an exception and I do not want it included with every order or regulation. We want an affirmative order of the Houses of the Oireachtas when the functions of the Authority are likely to be changed by direction of a Minister without reference to this House. The experience of our party, and I suspect of the other Opposition parties in relation to annulling resolutions, has been extremely negative.
Last week my colleague, Deputy Barrett, who is our spokesperson on the Environment, tabled an annulling resolution to regulations which the Minister for the Environment had issued in relation to changes in planning law. The Government refused to take the annulling resolution in Government time. It finally conceded to permit statements on Thursday last so that there was not a proper debate or vote on the issue before the House.
If annulling resolutions were accepted in Government time there would be a democratic case for what the Minister is saying. As they are not accepted in Government time, it is adding to the despotic rule in terms of the volume of secondary legislation being processed generally. I have no difficulty with the concept of a Minister adding functions to the Authority's remit but it cannot be done by diktat, which is effectively what is being provided for. If it is a negative resolution that can be annulled within 21 days and the Government refuses to take that annulling motion during Government time it is effectively rule by dictat. I do not accept that as a democratic way to proceed. It is adding to the democratic deficit and the increased irrelevance in the minds of the public of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I hope the Minister will accept our amendment to section 11. Subsections (2) and (3) of amendment No. 12 are clear.
We are not trying to tie the hands of any Minister if there, is a desire to add additional functions to the Authority's remit but they can only be done by an affirmative resolution in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not distrust the Minister's intentions in terms of additional functions but none of us can guarantee who will be Minister for Agriculture in the future. There could well be a Minister not so well disposed to the horseracing industry. Conversely, if a Minister has the power to add additional functions to the Authority can the Minister restrict the functions of the Authority by order without an affirmative resolution of this House?
The intention is to allow the facility to give additional functions over the years, if so required. The amendment seeks to delete the annulling provision in section 7 and to amend section 11 so that an order under that section would not have effect until it is approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This would defeat the purpose of the section which is there to cater for urgent situations that may arise where it would be appropriate that additional functions be conferred on the authority, sometimes at relatively short notice. The safeguards are that in conferring additional functions, those functions must be connected with the functions of the Authority or the services or activities which the Authority is authorised to provide. In addition, the consent of the Minister for Finance must be obtained for any additional functions to be provided. If the order has to be approved by the Oireachtas there could be a delay in providing for a technicality to allow the authority to act quickly. for example, what would happen if a problem arose when the Dáil was not sitting and an order was required urgently? There are sufficient safeguards and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
I do not know who is responsible for allocating time but it is reasonable that the Minister should not have a difficulty in moving a motion in Government time. That is my own attitude to this matter.
Under the procedures of this House an annulling resolution cannot be taken in Government time; it can only be taken in Private Members' time although I am subject to correction. This presents a difficulty given the increasing number of Bills being implemented by way of order to comply with European Union directives. This matter should be taken up again by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as we are frustrating the democratic process.
Last week, for example, we discussed the annulling resolution relating to the planning regulations but a week before the Minister indicated that the date of commencement would be 16 May. The annulling resolution was finally discussed by way of statements on 26 May. This was a farce and we engaged in histrionics. The Minister had no intention of listening to any of the points made. Who are we fooling with this nonsense?
The Minister asked what would happen if a problem arose during the summer recess; when could an annulling resolution be taken if the Opposition parties did not like the extra functions being conferred on the Authority? How could we voice our objections if we were not in a position to table an annulling resolution within 21 sitting days? This makes no sense and constitutes despotic behaviour; in other words, the Minister will be able to do what he likes and dictate to the racing industry and the rest of us. He will be able to confer extra functions on the horseracing Authority by diktat; this is nationalisation of the worst kind. If this should happen during the summer recess we will not be able to discuss it. What kind of issue does the Minister envisage which would require him to confer an additional function on the Authority which could not be discussed while the House is in session? What eventually does the Minister have in mind?
I would have no problem with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges examining this matter if the Opposition finds it difficult to obtain time to discuss an annulling resolution. This is only fair and reasonable.
The power to confer additional functions on the Authority is a standard provision in legislation. In future it may be necessary to confer additional functions relating to a matter closely associated with the work of the horseracing industry and ancillary services not covered in the Bill.
We should debate them in the House.
Under the section the Minister will be allowed to assign such functions to the Authority if he feels it appropriate but I agree the matter should be debated. It should be taken up and considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or some other appropriate authority.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister indicate the date of establishment of the interim Authority?
I am sorry, I am not in a position to indicate the date.
It is one of the worst kept secrets. I suspect it will be before next Thursday.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 11a not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the general functions of the new Authority which include the overall administration of Irish horseracing other than the services operated by the Racing Regulatory Body under this Bill; the control of the operations of authorised bookmakers; the allocation of race fixtures and the setting of race programmes; the promotion of the Irish thoroughbred horse — we are not sure which definition will be used — and the making of grants and loans. It is a catch-all section and may be taken with section 11 under which the Minister will be able, willy-nilly, to confer additional functions on the Authority as he or it thinks fit. What we are talking about is the nationalisation of horseracing.
A good case can be made in favour of rationalising present structures provided we recognise the expertise available in the different sectors but the Minister has gone too far. He has put a semi-State Authority and civil servants, irrespective of their ability, in charge of an industry which should stand or fall in the private sector. I do not know whether the Labour tail or, as it was more colourfully put yesterday by Deputy McDowell, the Labour ass is wagging the Fianna Fáil horse and we have a jennet of some kind but is there a need to nationalise an industry which should be able to stand on its own two feet — and has — for hundreds of years? As the Minister may realise, the most successful racing industries in other countries are controlled by the private not the public sector. Where the public sector is over involved it is a disaster. I cite the industry in France as an example. I am not sure why the Minister is so convinced that the answer to the problems which could be resolved within the private sector is to nationalise the horseracing industry. I have strong reservations about the tone of the Bill under which the Minister will be able to confer additional functions on the Authority whenever he feels like it. In other words, the Minister will have complete control over the racing industry.
Let us examine other industries which have been nationalised. The greyhound industry should not be held up as an example of the way in which to run a private industry which should be able to stand on its own two feet without the semi-State sector or Civil Service interfering. Under this Bill the Authority will have functions ranging from choosing the colour of the loo door at any racecourse to setting the SP. The tentacles of the Government could choke the industry.
Much will depend on the members of the Authority. It is a political Authority; with the exception of four members, the Minister will have a say in each of the other ten appointments. He will have a say in who will be chairperson. I could refine that to "chairman" and not be wrong. Who knows who will be in the Minister's seat in future? My concern is not about what the Minister will do, I will have great fun watching and commenting on that. He or I might not be around in the future and, God help us, we might have Deputy Rabbitte as chairperson of the racing authority or somebody with no real interest in the industry who would consider it purely from a public sector point of view.
All my concerns could be summarised under section 10 and relate to the excessive interference by the Civil Service and a Civil Service run authority in an industry that properly belongs to the private sector. I wish the Minister had considered otherwise when drafting the Bill.
The Irish horseracing and breeding industry has been evaluated and reviewed for many years and it is time to effect fundamental charges. If the industry was capable of bringing about those changes on its own it would be desirable to allow it to do so. However, the facts are different. The industry is in serious difficulties in a number of areas, one of the reasons being the shortage of funds.
The industry initiated discussions under the chairmanship of Dr. Paddy Moriarty some time ago which led to a further round of discussions under the chairmanship of Michael Dowling, Secretary of the Department. It is not easy in any sector, particularly the sporting sector, to get consensus, but a level of consensus was arrived at which led to the publication of a draft Bill. That draft Bill was debated and amended by representatives of the industry and I have introduced a number of amendments to allay the concerns that were brought to my attention by the industry.
Because of our small population a substantial amount of Exchequer funding is required for an internationally viable industry here. We are not in a similar position to countries with a successful horseracing industry. Approximately two-thirds of the funding will come from the taxpayer and for that reason there must be accountability; that is reasonable. It is my intention that the Authority will be responsible for the direction, development and enhancement of the industry. I ask people to wait for a few days until the Authority is announced and they will then know I am serious about allowing it to get on with the job. The term "nationalisation" is pejorative and not helpful.
That depends on one's political philosophy.
The Authority will be the executive and give direction to the industry. Finance will be provided under the terms of this Bill to allow it to carry out that job. The Authority will be responsible for the overall promotion and administration of the Irish horseracing industry, with the exception of the implementation of the rules of racing and the provision of integrity services which will continue to be provided by the Turf Club and the National Hunt committee.
To facilitate such development the Authority will need to plan the future organisation of racing and will need a certain amount of finance. The Authority's functions will include the allocation of race fixtures, setting up race programmes and funding the industry. The industry is reasonably well funded because funding was provided for it some years ago. The prize money here compares favourably with Great Britain. In future the Authority will receive the on-course betting levy and the Tote profits. I hope the Tote will provide a surplus which can be put back into racing. There is no reason it should not and it is disappointing that is not the case at present. The Authority will be allowed to levy charges under section 12 and will receive a Government grant. Those resources should ensure that sufficient funds will be available for prize money, the cost of integrity services and aid and support to develop facilities at racecourse.
Racegoers want adequate and up-to-date facilities. The Authority will be required to promote internationally Irish racing and the Irish thoroughbred horse on an ongoing basis. For those reasons this legislation is worthwhile and has received broad support from the industry. There is no question of the industry being controlled by civil servants and significant grant aid is being provided for it. The new Authority will be broadly representative of the industry and we will allow it to get on with the job I envisage for it, namely, the establishment of a first rate racing and breeding industry here.
We all know who the chairperson of the new Authority will be and the chairperson of the existing Racing Board. Given that the Minister has referred to the financial fiasco in the Racing Board, it does not add up. The Minister obviously knows more than we do and the chairman did not have hand, act or part in the financial difficulties. Perhaps the Minister is not levelling with us as to whether this is the Racing Board mark II or a new nationalised racing authority. The old pals act is in operation as is the case in most matters here. We have to accept much of that as par for the course. If an explanation is needed as to why the finances of the Racing Board are in such a state and why the Minister had to introduce a Supplementary Estimate of £1 million before Christmas hoping nobody would notice or ask too many awkward questions, how can the Minister have confidence in more of the same, which is what he is offering us?
It is not a question of more of the same. This Bill was introduced to bring about substantial reform. I had no difficulty with wiping the slate clean for the old Racing Board, but in my discussions with the industry I said I would do a number of things which included establishing a new Authority with a clean sheet. I expected it to increase resources and investment in the industry. I did not want the taxpayer to contribute additional funding or for its resources to be reduced by a similar amount which is what happened over the past few years. When the off-course betting levy was introduced it netted £3 million, but the end result was not any better.
Why?
There are a number of reasons which I do not want to go into in detail now. Attendance at race meetings decreased. Betting decreased substantially——
They have a monopoly on the Tote but they could not run it profitably.
——from more than £100 million to £70 million. We would need a more expert punter than I to give the reasons for the decline in punting, the national lottery and other types of gambling may be to blame. There is a range of reasons: people are now betting on golf tournaments and classics of various kinds and are even betting on the Lotto. We want to make the racing industry more attractive, get more people through the turnstiles with the industry generating more money from the Tote. Provision is made in the Bill to have the Tote operated by a subsidiary company so that it is a stand alone operation. In every other country the Tote generates a profit and I do not understand why it cannot be done here.
Members will see that with the establishment of the Authority there will be radical changes in the industry.
Has the Minister theories on why the tote does not make a profit?
The Minister should be frank with us.
I honestly do not know. I have a day job and I have not that much time to be looking intensively at the Tote.
It is an integral part of the racing scene.
It is my intention to have the Authority look at the tote as a matter of urgency. One of their first tasks will be to prepare a blue print for the future. Perhaps the structures are not suitable but I genuinely do not know the answers.
I am satisfied with the Minister's reply. I am glad the matter will receive attention because it merits it. With your permission, Sir, I wish to refer to a section that was dealt with this morning under which it is proposed to exclude undesirable characters from racecourses.
We must deal with the amendment before us.
With respect Sir, will the Minister take more cognisance of the dangers posed by doping. People who have been excluded from British and Scottish race tracks and who are known to have been associated with the despicable practice of doing should be excluded from Irish race tracks. The Minister skimmed over this too lightly this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11. — (1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by order confer on the Authority, in relation to the development and promotion of horseracing, such additional functions connected with the functions for the time being of the Authority, or the services or the activities that the Authority is authorised for the time being to provide or carry on (including functions of the Minister in relation to any directive, regulation or other act adopted by an institution of the European Union in relation to horseracing) as the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) No order made under subsection (1) shall have effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(3) No order varying or revoking an order made under this section (including an order under this subsection) shall have effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(4) The Minister may make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in relation to matters ancillary to or arising out of the conferral on the Authority of functions under this section, or the performance of functions so conferred (including provision for the transfer to the authority of any property held by the Minister for the purposes of functions conferred on the Authority under this section).".
The Minister indicated that he will not accept my amendment. However, line 1 on page 10 of the Bill refers to the "European Communities" but is the correct expression not the "European Union", and my amendment refers to the European Union?
I thank the Deputy for drawing this matter to my attention. I have been advised that in legal terms "European Communities" is the term still used and is the correct terminology.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 13 has been deemed to be out of order.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Any individual, association, company or body corporate on whom or on which the authority shall levy a charge, either on its own behalf or on behalf of the Racing Regulatory Body, or by the agency of the Racing Regulatory Body, or jointly with the Racing Regulatory Body in connection with the powers conferred by this Act on the Authority and on the Racing Regulatory Body, shall have the right to appeal against the level of those charges to a court of competent jurisdiction.".
I have tabled this amendment in response to those in the racing industry who feel aggrieved that there is no independent right appeal against decisions of the Turf Club or the Racing Regulatory Body. I accept there are arguments for and against and many feel that the final say should rest with the Turf Club and the stewards. Looking at the statistics over the years that is a fair comment because they have done an excellent job but in rare cases where people feel seriously aggrieved will the Minister state his view on whether a right of appeal against the level of charges should be allowable to a court of competent jurisdiction? I accept that any appellant has the right to go before any court if he feels he has been denied natural justice — we have had some high profile examples and in the most recent ones the courts upheld the stewards' decision. There are two distinct schools of thought on this issue which are as far apart as ever on it. The House should have the benefit of hearing the Minister's view on whether the right of appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction should be included in the Bill.
The amendment proposes that people on whom the Authority levies a charge should have a right of appeal against the level of the charges to a court of competent jurisdiction. This could prove to undermine the power of the Authority in setting charges if every individual affected had a right enshrined in legislation to challenge the level of charge applied. All the relevant interests in the industry will have representation on the Authority and all those groups have strong well established associations to negotiate their position for them. It is reasonable to say that the Authority will in its own interests set any charges that it sees necessary at a reasonable level and the representative bodies concerned will lobby to ensure the fairness of charges applied. Section 12 (1) makes it clear that the charges must be "necessary and appropriate". If in the very exceptional circumstances that an individual feels that a charge on him or her is unfair that person will have recourse to the normal remedies such as judicial review.
I thank the Minister for his response and I have no major difficulty with what he said. Section 12 (1) states:
The Authority may make such charges, as it considers necessary and appropriate in consideration of —
(d) the application for or the granting of any licence, permit or authorisation granted by it.
The level of charge could be increased by the Authority as a means of limiting the number in certain areas or restricting certain activities. May an aggrieved individual or group appeal or negotiate with the Authority? In other words, must the individual or the body just accept the charges levied on it willy-nilly without having an opportunity to appeal?
Yes, in natural justice that is a right to which people should be entitled and people will have a representative from the nominating bodies whom they can lobby to ensure that they get a fair deal.
Will the Minister clarify the references to the granting of any licence. They are not specific in the Bill. Jockeys and trainers are licensed and will that position continue or will the Authority assume a role in this regard?
The Authority would be empowered to charge us for the administration costs if an application was made to it for a licence. The section states that the Authority may make charge for the application for or the granting of any licence, permit or authorisation granted by it. Only the administration costs for the granting of that licence will apply.
I take it that jockey or training licences are not covered by that section.
They remain the responsibility of the Turf Club.
I wish to clarify the position because it was not specifically stated in the section, so I assume there is no change.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 15 is in the names of Deputies Doyle and Dukes. It is consequential on amendment No. 16 and, therefore, it is proposed to take amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together.
I move amendments No. 15:
In page 13, subsection (1) (b), line 9, after "Authority," to insert "or,".
My reading of the Bill is that members of sub-committees, particularly external members, who are not already members of the Authority, shall not have to disclose their interests. In the racing industry there are all sorts of interests that might need to be taken into account. Such interests could include those of influential owners of horses and racecourses and influential people in different financial sectors of horseracing, who, because of their general wisdom and experience, could serve on the fixtures committee and not be a member of the Authority. I understand disclosure of interests is not required in such cases. I wonder why the last three sections on disclosures of interests of the directors, staff and members of the Authority do not apply to members of sub-committees who may also be external members.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 seek to extend the provision of the section on prohibition on unauthorised disclosure of information to apply to members of committees of the Authority. This is reasonable and I have no difficulty with the intention of the amendments, but I would like to consider the wording. I will undertake to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report Stage to deal with all subsidiaries or committees of the Authority.
I thank the Minister for accepting the substance of my amendment. Will he clarify that the disclosure of interests by members of sub-committees, as well as disclosure of unauthorised information, should be taken into account as two wings, as it were, to this issue? Do I understand that the Minister will consider including external members of sub-committees in the disclosure of interests provisions as well as those covering the prohibition on unauthorised disclosure of information? If that is the case I am pleased he has accepted the concept of my amendment and I thank him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 17 agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendment No. 17 is in the names of Deputies Doyle and Dukes. I observe amendments Nos. 18, 18 (a) and 19 are related and suggest, therefore, that those amendments be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 4, after "race-fixtures" to insert "and the race programme for each fixture".
In this amendment we are attempting to rationalise the number of committees. We suggest that the functions that would be conferred by section 20 on the race-programme committee should be added to the race-fixtures committee and that the members of the race-fixtures committee would become de facto the race-programme committee without the need for duplication. The logic of our amendments is self-explanatory. Even though the race programme as defined is separate from the race fixture, both are interlinked. To have a successful race meeting both those matters must be properly attended to. At present, the procedure whereby the race fixture and the race programme are discussed by an ad hoc committee — to my knowledge there is not an official committee dealing with it in the Turf Club — has worked successfully. I have every confidence in the functions of a race-programme committee being dealt with competently by a race-fixtures committee. In the absence of hearing the Minister's argument on this I propose he accepts our amendment. I would be interested to hear his response to amendment No. 19 as it may be related to the case I am making.
The effect of amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would be to give responsibility for race programmes to a race-fixtures committee. The race-programme committee has always been separate and is different from the race-fixtures committee. Unlike the fixtures committee and rather than setting down major policy, it acts like a working group with a semi-executive function. The business of the committee is time consuming and more officials are involved in it than in the fixtures committee. The race-programme committee is covered under section 20.
I will speak on my amendment No. 19 as it is complementary. That amendment, as drafted, deletes all the sub-sections and leaves the simple statement that the race-programme committee should be established by the Authority after consultation with the regulatory body. The regulatory body provides the secretariat for the present race-programme committee. The amended text will allow the Authority and the regulatory body to work together to decide the practical arrangements for the committee in terms of appointments, terms of reference, secretariat and so on. In practice, this will not give rise to difficulty. That amendment was tabled following exhaustive consultation with the various interests involved and there was substantial agreement on it to overcome any perceived problems in this area.
I accept that the terms of remit of a race-fixtures committee and those of a race programme committee are considerably different. However, the structure the Minister proposes for a race-fixtures committee in terms of appointment could be used also for a race-programme committee. The same, equally competent and qualified people, would be on a race fixtures committee as those on a race programme committee. The race programme deals with the type of race, the prizes, the conditions, the number of races, etc. Arranging a fixture and the details of a race programme are vital to the future of many racecourses. If any bloody-mindedness were to be shown towards any racecourse it would be through control of the race programme and, perhaps, of the race fixture. The future of many marginal racecourses could be controlled. Getting a fair share of the headline races has been a matter of concern for some time.
The Minister's amendment helps in that he is deleting all the sections except for the first few lines of section 20. That still just states that a race programme committee will be set up without any details about how it will be formulated or who will be on it. Will the "old pals act" operate? Will it be a hand-chosen committee of people who will support, say, the chairman and which will dictate whether Wexford, Roscommon or Dundalk will or will not get some of the high profile races? Will it enable racecourses owned by the Authority to pick the plums, or ensure that the racecourse owned by the Turf Club will not get the plums? Any slant could be put on this, depending on who one is listening to.
The control of the race programme and what races go where determines the future of many of our racecourses. Although from a financial point of view it may not be tidy to have so many rural racecourses and lopping off six or eight of those which are uneconomic might look better on the annual returns of this semi-State body, each racecourse is critical to the economy of the local rural area that services it and each, given a chance, would have a viable and exciting future. However, if this Authority is of a mind to squeeze out a few of these racecourses it can do so through the race programme committee by ensuring that the programme the racecourses get does not suit the demands of local owners and trainers in the area.
I feel strongly that the race programme committee could be used for all the wrong reasons and the only way the Minister can ensure that does not happen is to make the race fixtures committee also a race programme committee — they do not have to decide everything on the one day. If the structure set out here under section 19 to establish a race fixtures committee is to work it should be peopled by people in the industry who have the necessary experience and wisdom and who would be quite capable of fairly allocating racing programmes to the different racecourses throughout the country.
We may as well say here what is being said outside. Given that the Authority will be hand-picked by the Minister and given who will be on it, there is little trust that there will be fairness in allocating race programmes around the country unless the race fixtures committee, details about which are here, are given that function as well.
Apart from the concerns about fairness and the control and authority exercised in allocating races, it makes little sense to set up a separate committee. A race fixtures committee could also do the job of a race programme committee rather than creating another layer of bureaucracy under this Authority. I ask the Minister to accept my point and accept my amendments.
As far as I can make out, the Minister's argument for having the text in the way it is or, indeed, in the way in which he proposes to amend it in section 20, is that that is the way it has always been. That is not a good argument. There must be more behind it than that. I am more inclined to that view when I look at the Minister's amendment the purpose of which is to take out most of the text which is now in section 20 and remove the specification.
I hope I am not out of order in saying this, but we are discussing all of these amendments together and far be it for me to criticise the Minister for taking out of the text a chunk of useless bureaucracy — I am all in favour of that. However, I would like to know why the Minister is doing that. One assumes that he must have had some passable reason for including it in the first place. What led the Minister to lighten up the text of section 20?
Had the Minister not proposed this amendment I would have asked why it was felt necessary to put in the text of section 20 (4), which solemnly goes to the lengths of providing in legislation that the Authority may regulate the procedure of the race programme committee. It would seem self-evident that any Authority setting up a committee in its own area of competence and under its own aegis has the right, without it having to be specifically enshrined in legislation. to regulate the activities of such a committee. I would have asked the Minister then why he had felt it necessary to provide that members of the race programme committee could include people who are not members of the Authority. If we are setting up an Authority to do the job, is the Minister now saying that the authority will not have the personnel necessary to carry it out?
Let me come back to the central point which Deputy Doyle has made time and time again. Why is it necessary to have these two committees? The only answer the Minister has given to that question is that that is the way it has been done up to now. That is not a good reason for including this in a Bill that is supposed to modernise and streamline the structure that is to look after this industry. I would like the Minister to tell us why he is now proposing to take chunks out of section 20. I agree in spirit and by instinct with taking chunks out of legislation like this, but the Minister had a reason for including it in the first place and I would like to know what is his reason for taking it out because, with the best will in the world, I do not believe the Minister has taken it out just to relieve some of the burden this Bill will impose on the industry.
I would like to know what is the logic that compels the Minister to say that these two jobs must be done separately — the fixing and allocation of race fixtures and the fixing of race programmes — because at the end of the day the result of the deliberations will end up together and become the date, place, time and activities of a series of race meetings that will be attended by punters, where trainers will bring their horses, where jockeys will go to ride them and owners will go to watch, some with great glee and others with some sadness, if not a streak of despair. The functions of these two committees are directed at producing the mixture of things that combine to make a race meeting. Why must there be two committees when one event will be the result of the work of these two committees? Surely it would be better if all this work were done together.
The business of setting out race programmes is more time consuming and involves more work because the programme consists of a series of races that will take place on a given day at a given fixture. However, since it is of a piece with the rest of what determines the regulations of that fixture or meeting, they should be done together.
Would the Minister not accept that on the whole it is preferable to have the clarity of knowing that there is one place where a particular set of decisions will be taken rather than several different places? Would he agree it would be better to combine the work of the two committees in one sub-committee of the Authority? I fully recognised it should be done under the aegis of the Authority, but would it not be simpler and more straight-forward for everybody concerned to do the job as a whole?
On a point of information, Willie Carson won the Derby. He made a perfectly timed challenge in the last furlong. The Minister's friend, Michael Kinane, had victory snatched from him. I hope the Minister had not too much money on him.
Will the Minister give the definition of a race programme committee? Will it decide the type of races to be run at a fixture — for example, whether maiden hurdles, bumper races or chases will be run?
Yes.
I can see a logical reason for that. In recent years the Curragh has had to look closely at the kind of racing it was holding because the punters were not attending. Bumper races and hurdle races were introduced. In the dying days of the Phoenix Park racecourse, bumper races and hurdle races were introduced there. The Pageant Cup, an annual hurdle race, was also run at that track. There is a need to appoint people who know the industry and the type of races the public demand. Apparently bumper races are now in vogue and are requested by the punter. I would not bet on a horse in a bumper race if the Holy Ghost was riding it——
Or even if the Holy Ghost told you to do so.
——but these races are very popular. There is a need for a programme that would attract the most varied card.
For time immemorial racetracks have had a grievance about the allocation of plum dates for race fixtures. County tracks have entertained that grievance for a long time. They have witnessed the monopoly enjoyed by the metropolitan tracks, particularly of Sunday racing. While I realise that big tracks must get the plum dates, the survival of many country tracks depends on a fairer allocation of meetings. There is no doubt that in the next decade some country tracks will close. There are 39 tracks and the bell is tolling for some of them. To maintain a racetrack for perhaps eight or ten days racing a year is non-viable. There is no doubt that racing will become more centralised in coming years.
A more judicious allocation of meetings is required. For instance, 12 July, a sensitive date, is particularly suitable for a race meeting in Dundalk. Some years ago I attended a Sunday meeting there which attracted huge crowds. Unfortunately the management of that racetrack was not allowed hold a meeting on that attractive date — I understand there is a meeting this year on 10 July which will have to suffice. The allocation of meetings is perceived to be unfair by many racetrack managements.
The promotional aspect of this matter also needs attention. Perhaps that will be considered by the race programme committees. Sponsorship has been the means of survival for many smaller tracks and will be increasingly so in coming years. Unfortunately there is only a certain amount of sponsorship available and because of the glamour associated with Leopardstown and the Curragh, the meetings there tend to get the plum sponsorships and allocations. The racing authority must consider racing as a whole. While Jim Bolger, Dermot Weld, John Oxx and many others are involved, there are also those at the bottom of the scale and I sometimes wonder where these people find the money to transport a horse to a meeting. This is a very expensive business and the price of oats is the same for small trainers as it is for the high flyers.
If racing is to survive and if we are to accommodate the small owner and trainer and the punter, we must facilitate the smaller country tracks, many of which will have to cease racing in the years to come, as happened in Mullingar and Baldoyle. There will be casualties and an even-handed approach must be taken by the racing Authority to the entire question of racing.
I fully support the case made by my colleague, Deputy McGahon. What he said supports the amendments before the House. It is the format of the selection procedure for members of the race fixtures committee that will ensure fair play in deciding on race programmes and the allocation of various types of races, which are essential to attract the punters and ensure the economic success of a course. I am somewhat relieved by the Minister's amendment dealing with the race programme committee, but effectively the racing Authority will decide on the race programme committee. I would not trust the Authority the Minister has in mind to be fair in allocating race programmes, but I would trust the structure of the race fixture committee to be fair in that regard.
Obviously the Minister went to a lot of trouble to provide that the composition of the race fixture committee is acceptable to those in the industry. There was much compromise and discussion before arriving at the final formulation of the wording. To go to the trouble of bringing together these people simply to decide the date and venue, which is all that is involved in race fixtures, seems superfluous if they are not also given the job of race programme committee. The people who will sit on this sub-committee could perform an excellent job as race programme committee, and any allegations of favouritism would be removed from the Authority in allocating programmes, prize money, high profile races or the mix of races which is so important to the success of a fixture.
The race fixtures committee and race programme committee, the composition of the Authority and its financing are areas that will make or break the authority, that will ensure its success or otherwise. I ask the Minister to consider giving the functions of a race-programme committee to the race-fixture committee and remove from the Authority any possible accusation of being unfair to the smaller rural meetings and of being in favour of the bigger meetings in the cities. Our request is reasonable and Deputy McGahon's argument fully supports the ease for those on the race-fixtures committee to be members of a race-programme committee also. We need a race-programme committee but the Minister has very competent people on the race-fixtures committee and a method of selection outlined in section 19.
Section 19 (2) (c) recommends that two representatives of authorised racecourses will be on the race-fixtures committee. There are more than 300 directors of authorised racecourses throughout the country. Would the Minister be prepared to accept two nominations from the racecourses representative body? How else will he select two representatives? He accepts the nomination of that body when it comes to the Authority. Given the number of representatives of authorised racecourses, the Minister will have to indicate how those two representatives will be selected and I suggest that he might consider accepting the two nominations of the racecourses representative body on the race-fixtures committee.
I thank Deputy McGahon for bringing us up to date on the outcome of the Derby. It could be accidental that Tipperary lost its all-Ireland title but I doubt it was through carelessness that it lost the Derby with a jockey such as Kinane who I am sure made every effort.
Every effort.
The definition of race fixture means the venue and the day. The race programme means the category of race, the prizes for the race, the conditions and the number of races on the race card. I accept what has been said, particularly by Deputy Doyle, that this is a key part of the Bill. Much effort went into achieving consensus and, following exhaustive consultations with the industry, it was decided that the race-fixtures committee has an extremely important function in that tracks must have good fixtures and appropriate days. If a particular track is given an unsuitable date it might as well not have any date.
The programme is extremely important. Many examples can be given of programmes which simply did not suit modern racing and particularly the modern punter. An example is the Phoenix Park which held many group races that suited a small number of people but, unfortunately, the track was closed. That track, as well as the track in Baldoyle, was very popular at one time because the type of races held there suited the punters who attended them.
The matter of fixtures and programmes is the future of racing——
I agree with the Minister.
——because people who own horses want to see them race and there is a great range and variety of races including handicaps, bumpers, hurdles and so on. The Curragh has a fine track but it is not very well attended, apart from Derby day, it is a disaster. Not only are there few punters in attendance there are few horses running in races for which there are attractive prizes.
A great deal of negotiation was involved in this matter. One of the functions of the race-fixtures committee is to arrange fixtures, dates and venues. The race-programme committee will have to undertake intensive work to organise various types of races and it must work in an almost semi-executive way. The business of the race-programme committee is time consuming and officials attend its meetings to ensure that proper programmes are made out.
During consultations with all the interests in the industry, owners, trainers, racecourse representatives and so on, it was put to me that the original section 20 was extremely complex and difficult for people to understand. A simple amendment was suggested — such as I have proposed in section 19 — deleting all subsections and leaving a simple statement that the race-programme committee shall be established by the Authority following consultation with the regulatory body. That body, of course, provides a secretariat at present. The Authority and the various racing interests would then proceed and carry out their functions in the interests of the industry they represent without reference to me. If they appoint two members from the racecourse representative body, to which Deputy Doyle referred, I will have no difficulty with that. They will carry out their functions without reference to the Minister of the day and will be the executive running the industry for the future. They will appoint members to the race-fixtures committee and the race-programmes committee and I expect that if they want to have a viable industry they will appoint the best people available, have fixtures that suit particular locations and programmes which will suit the maximum number of people.
Will the Minister accept an amendment to section 19 (2) (c) on Report Stage to read "two representatives of authorised racecourses nominated by the racecourses representative body"? I accept everything the Minister says regarding a race-programme committee, we are not debating the need for that, and the key role it will play in the future of many racecourses. Because of the key role it will play in the future development or demise of racecourses, the race-fixtures committee, the composition of which has the sole function of determining the venue and the date — a very critical function — could double as a race-programme committee and carry out the extremely important work of a race-fixtures committee. I agree with everything the Minister said other than the need to have two separate committees. There is no need for two committees to undertake these two roles. Of secondary but important interest is that the Minister would accept the amendment that two representatives are nominated by the racecourses representative body.
I do not know whether I can give any further clarification on the matter. I accept the import of what the Deputies said regarding the importance of fixtures and the content of programmes but having consulted exhaustively with representatives of the industry, it was put to me that the race-fixtures committee would carry out the function of putting the fixtures in place which was one specific job. The race-programme committee involved a different function because of its complexity. It was a semi-executive function and would operate as a working group. For that reason a separate committee was required but it did not want to be shackled with section 20 as it was originally formulated in the draftsman's office. I agreed to put down amendment No. 19 at their request and I would be reneging on a commitment to the industry if I did not oppose the amendments.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 55.
Tá
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Browne, John. (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- Owen, Nora.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Yates, Ivan.
CLASS="CP">Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
CLASS="CP">Tellers: Tá, Deputies E. Kenny and Browne(Carlow-Kilkenny); Níl, Deputies Dempsey and B. Fitzgerald.
Question declared carried.
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Aylward, Liam.Bhreathnach, Niamh.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Broughan, Tommy.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Connolly, Ger.Dempsey, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Fitzgerald, Brian.Fitzgerald, Eithne.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis. O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Leary, John.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Toddy.Penrose, William.Ryan, Eoin.Ryan, John.Ryan, Seán. |
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Haughey, Seán.Higgins, Michael D.Jacob, Joe.Kavanagh, Liam.Kenneally, Brendan.Kenny, Seán.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Leonard, Jimmy.Martin, Micheál.McDowell, Derek.Moffatt, Tom.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Mulvihill, John.Nolan, M. J. Shortall, Róisín.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Stagg, Emmet.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Eamon.Walsh, Joe. |
CLASS="CP">Níl
|
Barry, Peter.Browne, John. (Carlow-Kilkenny).Connaughton, Paul.Connor, John.Crawford, Seymour.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Doyle, Avril.Dukes, Alan M. |
Finucane, Michael.Foxe, Tom.Lowry, Michael.McDowell, Michael.Mitchell, Jim.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Keeffe, Jim.Owen, Nora.Sheehan, P.J.Timmins, Godfrey.Yates, Ivan. |
CLASS="CP">Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies Browne(Carlow-Kilkenny) and Crawford.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.